2000 07 11 PCPlanning Commission Agendas are now
available on the City's Web Page
@ www.la-quinta.org
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California
July 11, 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 2000-043
Beginning Minute Motion 2000-012
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call
If. 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.
I11. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of the Minutes of the regular meeting on June 27, 2000
B. Department Report
PC/AGENDA
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Item .................
Applicant ..........
Location ...........
Request ............
Action ...............
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000-392, TENTATIVI
TRACT MAP 29623
World Development
North side of Miles Avenue between Dune Palms Road anc
Verbena Drive.
Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration o-
Environmental Impact for EA 2000-392 and the subdivisior
of 10.09 acres into 35 single family and other common lots
Resolution 2000- and Resolution 2000-
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL
VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS
A. Discussion relative to the Planning Commission summer meeting schedule.
B. Commission report on the City Council meeting of June 20, 2000
IX. ADJOURNMENT
nr /Ar_P.TmA
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
June 27, 2000
I. 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 Tyler to lead the flag
salute.
B. Present: Commissioners Jacques Abels, Richard Butler (arrived late),
Robert Tyler, and Chairman Tom Kirk.
C. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Abets to excuse
Commissioner Robbins. Unanimously approved.
D. Chairman Kirk introduced and welcomed City Attorney Kathy Jensen,
Rutan and Tucker, who gave a brief background of her experience and
history with the City. She then introduced Mr. John Ramirez who would
be serving as the Assistant City Attorney, also with Rutan and Tucker
who gave his background.
E. Staff present: Acting City Attorney Kathy Jensen, Assistant City
Attorney John Ramirez, Planning Manager Christine di lorio, Senior
Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Fred Baker, and Executive
Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA:
IV. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. Chairman Kirk asked that the approval of the Minutes for June 13, 200
and the Joint Meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council for
May 10, 2000, be continued. It was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Tyler to continue the approval of the Minutes.
Unanimously approved.
B. Department Report: None.
C:\My Documents\WPD0CS\PC6-27-00.WPd 1
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2000
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Tentative Tract Map 29800, a request of KSL Desert Resorts, Inc. for
approval of the subdivision of 51.58 acres into two clubhouse lots, two
future development lots, one golf course lot, two common lots and
adjustment of four single family lots.
1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. 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. Staff recommended
the deletion of Condition #65 to the Conditions of Approval.
2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Tyler asked if the mail boxes kiosk would house all
the mail boxes for this entire area. Staff stated the mail box kiosk
will serve this gated community.
3. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Kirk asked if
the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Chris
Berg, MDS Consulting, engineers for the project representing the
applicant, stated he was available to answer any questions and
they had no problems with the Conditions of Approval as
submitted.
4. There being no further questions of the applicant, and no further
public comment, Chairman Kirk closed the public participation
portion of the hearing and opened the project for Commission
discussion.
5. Commissioner Abels commended the applicant on their
presentation.
6. Commissioner Tyler asked that the word "or" be deleted on Page
8, Item #7; Page 14, Item A.1) change the word "and" to "or 28
feet". Condition #47 he questioned whether it should be written
to denote when inspections would occur on a privately maintained
street. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated there were no sidewalk
accesses in this community and the condition talks about the
sidewalk access to the publically maintained street, and the only
access they have to publically maintained streets is off site. Staff
suggested the sentence read, "The City will conduct final
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC6-27-00.Wpd 2
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2000
inspections of homes and other habitable buildings only when the
buildings have improved streets." Staff's concern is that they not
have people moving into homes with partially completed streets.
Commissioner Tyler stated the condition did not establish precise
criteria for final inspection of the streets. Staff would rewrite the
condition to be more clear.
7. Chairman Kirk asked that Condition #63 be clarified as to what
staff was wanting to achieve. Planning Manager Christine di lorio
stated that under that Section of the Code, they have separated
into a different lot, the parking area and clubhouse and the Code
require them to maintain the parking lot for the clubhouse and not
some other use that may come onto the site. Staff went on to
describe the different options.
8. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2000-039 recommending to the City Council approval
of Tentative Tract Map 29800, as amended.
a. Condition #7: Delete the word "or"
b. Condition #40.A.1.: Change the word "and" to "or".
C. Condition #47: Revise to read, "...only when the buildings
have improved streets."
d. Condition #65: Delete
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Tyler, and Chairman
Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Robbins.
ABSTAIN: None.
A. Environmental Assessment 99-386 General Plan Amendment 2000-065.
Specific Plan 2000-046 and Tract Map 29436; a request of Mainiero
Smith and Associates for US Homes for a recommendation to certify a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; recommend
approval of a General Plan Text Amendment to allow spacing less than
1,200 lineal feet for Primary Arterials in conjunction with a Corridor
Master Plan for Traffic Signals; recommend approval of a Specific Plan
for Eisenhower Corridor Master Plan of traffic signals; and recommend
approval to subdivide 75.86 acres into 169 residential lots and other
amenity lots to be located on the north side of Eisenhower Drive, east of
Coachella Drive.
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC6-27-OO.wpd 3
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2000
1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Tyler stated there appears.to have been a previously
approved tract for this site. Staff stated yes and some road
improvements had been made at that time. Commissioner Tyler
asked if he was correct that the developer would not be using any
of these improvements. Staff stated he did not believe so. Staff
added they would like to add a condition requiring Lots 69 and Lot
79 be in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance to require a 35
foot frontage on cul-de-sac lots.
3. Senior Engineer Steve Speer gave a power point presentation on
a Time Space Diagram explaining how signal coordination works,
as it is staff's opinion that a full turn intersection is not needed at
this location. The applicant proposes the full turn intersection and
signal if needed and would be "invisible" if coordinated. It is
staff's opinion that the General Plan Amendment would alter the
City's vision of a resort residential environment. Even though the
coordination is used only for the peak hours, off peak hours it
would run free and add delay to traffic using Eisenhower Drive.
4. Commissioner Abels asked staff to explain Page 3 of the Time
Space Diagram. Staff introduced Frank Watanabe, DKS
Associates, traffic engineer for Mainiero Smith and Associates
who explained the Time Space Diagram.
5. Commissioner Butler asked for a clarification on the sensitive
intersection shown on Exhibit 3 of the Diagram. Senior Engineer
Steve Speer stated they are existing full turn intersections. Once
you have an existing full turn intersection and it meets warrants,
you could have a signal at this location, unless the City Council
took a different alternative. Commissioner Butler asked if this
would compound the problem. Staff stated no. Even if all the
sensitive locations were added in this signal time coordination, it
still works. Commissioner Butler asked if there had been any
dialog with the applicant to move the signal to another location
CAMy Documents\WPD0CS\PC6-27-00-Wpd 4
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2000
possibly sharing it with the adjacent property owner. Staff stated
yes, and staff believes it is their Plan B, which is staff's
preference, but the applicant has consistently stated they do not
want to share a signal.
6. Commissioner Tyler asked if there were any Arterials streets in the
City that conform to a timing diagram as this. Senior Engineer
Steve Speer stated the County received grant money to coordinate
Washington Street from Calle Tampico to Avenue 42. There was
a break in the Time Space Diagram as Highway 1 1 1 could not be
made to fit into the time spacing. The County had a problem
keeping it working and the City received complaints that the signal
would not change to green as promptly as it did before the signal
was coordinated. Staff does not believe this timing program is
working anywhere on Washington Street at this time. Mr.
Watanabe stated his firm is coordinating signals in La Quinta.
Washington Street is being looked at as well as Highway 111.
They are working with CVAG to create a signal coordination
program throughout the Valley.
7. Commissioner Tyler stated that Exhibit 3 shows existing and
future sensitive intersections and asked who came up with those
designations. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated staff did.
Commissioner Tyler questioned the Diagram that showed some
signals as existing and some proposed and in some instances the
signals marked proposed, are existing.
8. Commissioner Abels questioned the distance between the
intersections and suggested signals. Staff stated that is why the
City has the spacing requirements they have. The alternative is
that if you could coordinating the signals you could theoretically
make them invisible to the traffic that is using the street.
Commissioner Abels asked if there had been any traffic problems
reported on Eisenhower Drive. Staff stated that when complaints
are received staff requests a warrant study at the intersections to
see if they reach warrants and then they look into what will solve
the problems. You cannot solve everyone's problem to the degree
they want it solved. Discussion followed regarding traffic
problems.
9. Chairman Kirk stated that in terms of how we measure success,
he assumes that the amount of green time is the measurement of
success. Mr. Watanabe stated it is green time, but you actually
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC6-27-00-Wpd 5
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2000
are looking at a reduction in overall congestion and improvement
in overall travel time and air quality. It has been proven that a car
standing still produces more carbon monoxide than a car moving
down the road efficiently. The object is to get the cars down the
street, but not necessarily fast.
10. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Kirk asked if
the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Marvin
Roos, Mainiero Smith and Associates, representing the applicant
gave an overall explanation of the project. He stated they were
not asking for a special request for this property. This Corridor
Master Plan (CMP) is an umbrella tool the City could use for
circumstances that might exist not only here, but elsewhere in the
City. He stated they were not asking for a traffic signal, but
wanted a full access turning movement. If the intersection ever
reaches warrants they are willing to place the money needed in the
homeowners' association account to make it available should a
signal be required in the future. Laguna de la Paz, the
development to the east, has twice as many homes as they have
and is working effectively without a traffic signal. The traffic
projections appear to be decreasing in terms of projections of
buildout. The General Plan originally stated there would be
24,000 cars a day on Eisenhower Drive in the 1992 Update.
Currently, there are 7-8,000 cars a day during peak months. The
new General Plan is expecting to double to about 15,000 cars a
day on Eisenhower Drive which means we are operating at Service
Level A, well into the future with full buildout of the community.
Their site has no other access they can be guaranteed to use.
Staff's condition that they redesign the project for an egress only,
to be relative to Coachella Drive which is about 200 feet from their
property line, would require them to negotiate with their neighbor
to gain that type of access. They have no control over that access
and there is no guarantee they can gain that access. He went on
to discuss the five special circumstances they believe would allow
the Planning Commission and City Council to approve this request.
Staff had stated that if they could come up with a Corridor Master
Plan for this street, then a lot of the questions would be easier to
answer in the future. For instance, if Laguna de la Paz reached
15,000 cars a day on Eisenhower Drive and requested a signal
because they were meeting warrants, the CMP would allow the
signal, even though the intersection is not 1,200 feet from
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC6-27-00-wpd 6
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2000
Washington Street. It is workable and the Time Space Diagram
indicates it can be reasonably coordinated, and this is the kind of
tool they believe will help the City. Their project consisting of 169
lots, with less than 1,700 cars a day, will not meet the warrants
for a traffic signal at this intersection. If the speeds go down to
40 mph, it is even less likely to meet warrants. The project
proposed to the south of their project is a time share and while
their project could be redesigned for a shared access that would
have a quality feel to it, again, it is not something they can
control. They estimate that 80% of the traffic leaving their project
would want to go left at the intersection. 85% of the traffic
would result in 275 miles of extra travel to go right and out to
Washington Street; 100,000 extra miles a year and that is if they
can make a u-turn or use the shared access. They have been told
that because of the design of that intersection they may not even
be able to utilize that u-turn, but may have to go down to Avenue
52 which would be 386,000 extra miles a year. These numbers
tell part of the value of having a full access as they propose. It
does meet the 1,200 foot rule between signals, although not
1,200 feet between all intersections. They prepared this CMP
because staff stated the access does not meet the City's General
Plan. In their estimation the findings are a little draconian in that
the CMP would be materially detrimental to the health, safety,
welfare of the community. The CMP words do not fit the action.
This is a tool that gives the Planning Commission the ability to
look at these things on the basis of how a CMP works and
functions and not necessarily based on an arbitrary standard which
is not founded in traffic technology. 1,200 feet between
signalized intersections does not exist anywhere else in this Valley
as a requirement. This is not to say La Quinta should not have
higher standards, they love La Quinta and are really proud of the
quality of life it has generated, but there are other issues that deal
with that image of urbaneness which was another objection raised
by staff. They believe a signal at this location saves 100,000
miles a year in travel, and will not materially change the travel
times, but in fact improve the travel time along Eisenhower Drive
and therefore, is good. This developer in developing a community
of homes in the $400,000 price range, wants a viable access
where people can arrive and leave and not having to drive through
a parking lot belonging to a time share project, that they do not
have any control over. If they could develop a quality access with
KSL they would look at it, but it would take about 3/4 of an acres
to do this.
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC6-27-OO.wpd 7
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2000
1 1. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of the applicant.
Commissioner Tyler asked if they had contacted KSL regarding the
shared access. Mr. Roos stated no, as they thought they had
staff's support on the full intersection. Staff's objection is not the
signal, but the loss of the urban neighborhood. He went on to
present three alternatives to solve the problem. He stated they
basically agree with all the Conditions except #57 as it restricts
them to a right turn only. Staff clarified their intent was to let
them have the left turn into the project, but not the left turn out.
12. Commissioner Abels questioned which location would be their
main access. Mr. Roos stated that at this point they would
continue with their original access, but it would not have a left
turn out.
13. Mr. Roos stated the tract is an attempt to take advantage of the
camelback ridges as a background. They are pulling the houses
away from the toe of slope and collecting drainage and debris at
that point and will have some type of backyard low wall that
maintains the water and maintain it as open space. They are
collecting a series of debris basins that are open space around
both the perimeter and through the center and a major lake feature
in the middle. The center lots will have no walls to allow a
flowing movement. They have a couple archaeological sites that
will be protected, or preserved. All lots exceed the minimum lot
size and are about three feet lower on the average than Laguna de
la Paz. The houses are intended to be single story. The entire site
is 190 acres and they will only develop 82 acres with the
remainder being left open, or dedicated to the Mountains
Conservancy, or some such organization. The streets are single
loaded, with 32 foot widths.
14. Commissioner Abels asked if any comments had been received
from Fish and Game. Mr. Roos stated they have indicated they
have to work with them regarding any streambed alterations. All
of the Fringe -Toed property is located on the other side of the
mountain. They are working with staff regarding whether or not
a fence is needed for the sheep. Commissioner Abels asked about
the trail. Mr. Roos stated one of the archaeological sites is located
on the trail and is recommended not to be disturbed. Staff
recommends the trail be closed.
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC6-27-00-Wpd 8
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2000
15. Chairman Kirk asked if Fish and Game had been to the site and
found any signs of a streambed. Mr. Roos stated they had tried
to contact Fish and Game representative, but were unable to get
any final resolution. They hope to have this before the City
Council meeting.
16. Commissioner Tyler asked if any lots would have two story
homes; if not, would the applicant have any objection to a
condition being added prohibiting any two story homes abutting
Laguna de la Paz. Mr. Roos stated they would not have any
objection. Commissioner Tyler asked if the applicant was
comfortable with all the conditions relating to the sheep. Mr. Roos
stated they have to put in some fencing, landscaping, and glass
and it may be overkill, but they plan to design a landscape that
meets the requirements.
17. Mr. Roos again, introduced Mr. Frank Watanaby, DKS Associates,
traffic engineer, who explained the signal synchronization process.
He stated they are currently coordinating signals for the entire
Coachella Valley. Close to 300 signals will be coordinated within
the next couple months. As discussed, signal spacing has a lot of
factors involved. They took a look at Eisenhower Drive and
evaluated the 1,200 foot requirement and found they could make
this analysis work in coordination, or progression as you go down
the roadway under the 1,200 foot mark. They also looked at
other factors such as reducing the congestion, improve travel time,
air quality, efficiency and safety of the Corridor. History has
shown that if you place signals in invisible spots and distances
sometimes even less than 1,200 feet, it can work. He continued
on with the assets of coordinated signals and stated the additional
signal would not impact the Corridor. You can make it work with
the signal in place. The reduction of the length does work. They
are showing a 22 second band width, which is the amount of time
from point "A" to point "B", and this is a good time.
18. Chairman Kirk asked if all scenarios were with the proposed signal.
Mr. Watanaby stated they looked at the street as it is. Chairman
Kirk stated he wanted to know the difference with and without the
signal. The first alternative does not have the signal and bands are
in the low 20's which shows no travel time improvement, but it
shows it can work with or without the signal. So the question is,
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC6-27-00.Wpd 9
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2000
is it invisible in terms of progression, and yes it it. The green time
that is available through the band through the length of the street.
Alternative 1 does not contain the signal and it has band widths
in the low 20's. Alternative 2, adds the signal at Eisenhower
Drive at the U. S. Home entrance and band widths are now in the
mid 20's to 30's which is a slight improvement. Staff added in
some of the other sensitive intersections. Chairman Kirk asked if
the site would work better with the intersection, or worse. Mr.
Watanaby stated it would be better because with even more
intersections they still work. When you have control of the
Corridor and intersections, you have better progression of the
roadway. The goal is to keep the cars in a tight progression.
19. Mr. Mike Lutz, President of U. S. Home, Central California
Division, stated they wanted to create a very upscale community
that competes with the country club lifestyle. They would prefer
to not have the signal, but the full turn access. Laguna de la Paz
has two intersections and for them to tell property owners in the
$400,000 price range that they have to share an entrance with a
parking lot for a condominium project does not lend itself to being
an upscale project. KSL is not ready to develop the project and
what happens if they never develop the property.
20. There being no further questions of the applicant, Chairman Kirk
asked if anyone else would like to speak on this project.
21. Ms. Beverly Lyons, 48-621 Paseo Tarazo, stated the Planning
Commission should consider her proposal for sharing this beautiful
portion of the Santa Rosa Mountains with the people of La Quinta
as well as the wildlife that call it home. In 1998, when she was
looking to purchase a home, she consulted with the City as to the
long range plan for the adjacent property. She was sent a map
and told there was a planned development complete with named
streets for the adjacent 23 parcels. She then bought her home.
Now she finds herself facing the City regarding this plan. She
would ask that the Planning Commission require the current
applicant to leave the northern strip, which is surrounded by the
Santa Rosa Mountains, as open space and natural habitat as this
is the home for many species of animals. Also, she asked they
consider a 100 foot setback from the mountains to provide a
wildlife corridor as well as access from Eisenhower Drove to the
wildlife preserve to the north. The use of the corridor would be
discretionary as to use and predicated on the presence of the Big
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC6-27-00-wpd 10
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2000
Horn Sheep, or other endangered, or habitat sensitive wildlife in
the area. It could be fenced off from domestic predators and
destructive humans, or be closed as endangered wildlife presence
dictates. In the absence of developer agreements, she respectfully
requests the Planning Commission take a leadership role in support
of the Coachella Valley Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan by
declaring eminent domain over the areas described above.
22. There being no further public comment, Chairman Kirk closed the
public participation portion of the hearing and opened the project
for Commission discussion.
23. Planning Manager Christine di lorio stated that Condition #76 is
inconsistent with the environmental document and staff's
recommends the following change, "The three remainder parcels
shown on Tentative Tract Map 29436 shall be deed restricted as
permanent open space prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map."
This condition should replace the existing Condition #76.
24. Mr. Roos asked if this would preclude them from deeding it to an
organization such as the Mountain Conservancy. City Attorney
Kathy Jensen stated the point is that the City does not want to
take the dedication. As drafted on Page 24 of the staff report, it
refers only to a deed restriction which does not involve a
conveyance to a third party. The City has no objection to a
different entity taking the hillside property.
25. Commissioner Tyler stated he agrees with Mr. Lutz that this is a
beautiful piece of property. The issues are several. He has no
problem with the tract map itself as long as a condition is added
requiring only one story houses next to the Laguna de la Paz
perimeter. A lot of time has been given discussing the access and
frankly, he is not sure what prompted this CMP. He sees it as a
large "red herring" and a confusion factor because the applicant
has stated they do not even want a signal at this point and it also
has numerous errors which causes some credibility problems. He
agrees they need proper access to this site and they appear to
have made some headway, but they really need to have full turn
movement and he believes it could be done without having such
a document as this that covers everything. One of the issues he
has is that one of the findings in the staff report make reference
back to the General Plan, but it has an awful lot of subjective
CAMy Documents\WPD0CS\PC6-27-00.Wpd 11
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2000
terms contained in it. It talks about appropriate access control.
What is that? What is the urban design La Quinta people want?
Again very subjective. He believes this development needs a full
turn access and he does not agree that the spacing cannot be
1,199 feet, and must be 1,200 feet. He cannot agree that this
can be denied when Laguna de la Paz has full turn movements less
than 1,200 feet from Washington Street.
26. Commissioner Butler stated he had some concerns with the traffic
study and now after hearing both sides, he agrees, the applicant's
assessment of the entrances is adequate. To further delay this
project to work on an additional, or alternative entrance without
any assurance that the adjacent property owner will be willing to
do so, is not right. Then he became concerned about the
environmental aspect and concerned that Fish and Game in their
letter regarding the streambed and fencing for the Big Horn Sheep.
In order to protect all these species, we have to protect them and
all the historical sites. Little by little we take away some of the
accesses to the areas that people have enjoyed. Are we doing this
for the good of the all, or the good of the few? Hopefully, in this
instance, it is for the good of the all, that this area is isolated. All
in all he believes the project has found its place and he likes the
concept as it does offer an alternative to a higher end development
without a golf course. He is curious about the lake as to whether
or not it is just a recreational feature, or what. Mr. Lutz stated it
is a passive recreation.
27. Commissioner Abels stated that when he first reviewed the project
he was upset about the traffic study, but after hearing the
presentation, he agrees with the other Commissioners concurring
with the applicant. A full access should be allowed at the
entrance as this is an upscale community that is well designed.
28. Chairman Kirk asked how the open space area leading up to the
lake would be landscaped. Mr. Roos stated that conceptually it
would be a combination of a dry streambed look, desert landscape,
and the common open space weaves in through the back of the
project that will serve for retention, de -siltation and open space.
They might consider some active water, but have not progressed
that far.
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC6-27-OO.wpd 12
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2000
29. Chairman Kirk asked if the project had been conditioned to be sure
it is xeriscape or has a desert landscaping theme in the common
areas. Staff stated no. Chairman Kirk asked if the Commission
was in favor of having a condition added. Commissioners stated
they agreed. Chairman Kirk stated he is very impressed with the
project and appreciates the idea of open space. In regard to the
access issue, he does not think the material presented, or the
presentation enhanced their understanding, or appreciation of the
project. When the applicant referred to the table on the design
standards, he pointed out a footnote that indicated that unique
situations can allow for changes, that, of course, related to the
horizontal curve radius and not the intersection spacing. As
Commissioner Tyler pointed out, the City's General Plan does have
some unclear areas, but one area it is clear about is the
intersection spacing. Therefore, staff has done a reasonable good
job explaining why this intersection spacing is a good thing to
maintain, and at the same time he is disturbed by the process.
The culmination of discussions between staff and the applicant
resulted in this CMP. If this is a document that will be used in the
future, it needs to be done better. It is his understanding that the
result of this study was that if the signal is somewhat invisible
City staff would support the request. Although it is hard for him
to understand the results, the study showed that this full access
could be done and may even increase the traveling time on
Eisenhower Drive. Staff received the report and essentially said
they would recommend denial of the request. This has cost the
applicant time and money and he is concerned about this process
and hopes it will not become a precedent.
30. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Tyler/Butler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2000-040 recommending to the City Council
Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact (EA 99-386) according to the findings.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Tyler, and Chairman
Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Robbins.
ABSTAIN: None.
31. Chairman Kirk asked for legal counsel's opinion in regard to the
General Plan Amendment. The General Plan Text Amendment
would require a Corridor Master Plan for any applicant that came
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC6-27-OO.wpd 13
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2000
along. Is there a way to condition this application without
changing the process before the General Plan update process is
completed, when it could be addressed more comprehensively.
City Attorney Kathy Jensen stated that if the Planning Commission
is going to create an exception, it has to be a City-wide exception
that anybody could come in and apply for. Chairman Kirk stated
exceptions have been made in cases where drainage physically
affected intersection spacing; how was that accomplished? Senior
Engineer Steve Speer stated that at those locations there was a
drainage channel you could not get across unless you built another
bridge to get down to a point that was acceptable to enter the
street. Instead of requiring them to build a bridge, we allowed
them to take access on the street. There have been situations
where there were unique geological feature that created a severe
hardship. Chairman Kirk asked if that same rationale could not be
used in this instance given the unique curve radius, development
pattern and pre-existing access points. He is not sure he would
want another CMP submitted if it did not help them to make
decisions. Staff stated it is a technical document and it is a
document that if you are going to build the street up with a lot
signals, you mostly likely want it to be coordinated and that was
the purpose of the study, to determine whether or not it could be
accomplished. Mr. Watanaby proved it could be done, but until
you go through the exercise, you do not know the answer. This
was only intended to be required of an applicant if they wanted a
signal at less than the standard spacing. If there is an existing
CMP for the corridor and an applicant requests an additional signal,
then they would only have to update the CMP to see if it could be
accomplished. It would be a much simpler task.
32. Commissioner Tyler questioned whether the Resolution, as
written, make a specific reference to the CMP, but rather deny the
entire request and he understands that is not what the
Commission is wanting to do.
33. Chairman Kirk stated the alternative is to approve the General Plan
Text Amendment to require a CMP and what he was hoping was
to justify the reduction without setting up a process they are not
happy with. Mr. Roos stated that if the Commission looks at the
language of the General Plan Text Amendment they initially
submitted, it did not include the CMP. The language was to
include a superscript that stated, "unique situations may require
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC6-27-00-Wpd 14
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2000
exemption, for example, the adoption of a Specific Corridor Plan,
existing intersection spacing precludes efficient access solutions,
significant increase in vehicles miles traveled, no physical
alternative access, projected traffic lines lower than maximum for
street type." This was written specifically for this situation. Other
issues could be added to allow the City to use the CMP in other
situations.
34. Chairman Kirk stated they may have a suggestion on a change to
the General Plan Text that may need to be tightened up during the
General Plan update, based on whether or not the City Council
approves this. He asked if the text originally submitted by the
applicant, fit the need here.
35. Commissioner Tyler stated he agreed with staff that this may be
going to far. Unless you can control it entirely, you may not want
to do this. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that in the original
General Plan, the spacing on Arterial streets was 1,320 feet, a
quarter mile. The City was always struggling with this figure as
property lines do not always fall on quarter mile intervals and it
became difficult to get intersections to comply with the General
Plan. Therefore, when the General Plan was updated in 1992, it
was decreased down to 1,200 to allow flexibility. What this does
is allow you to have three signals in a mile. When you do the
math you can take the spacing down to 1,056 feet and still get
three signals in a mile. Therefore is you are trying to control the
number of signals in a mile, in general terms, you might consider
a number such as 1,050. Theoretically, you would not get that
extra fourth signal in a mile of street.
36. Commissioner Tyler stated he had a problem because they keep
mixing the distances for intersections and signals and they may
not be the same; particularly if there will never be a signal. Can
the two be separated? Staff stated this is in regard to full turn
movements which have the potential to meet warrants for a
signal. There is one issue about this project and that is there may
never be enough homes at this location to cause this to meet
warrants.
37. Chairman Kirk asked if staff's scenario using the 1,050 figure,
would help the applicant. Staff stated it was very close. As
difficult as the CMP is, and as poor as it was presented, it is an
exercise that needs to be done if you want to have the signals
coordinated.
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC6-27-OO.wpd 15
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2000
38. Chairman Kirk stated that what the applicant suggested is a
subscript to the minimum intersection spacing which provides for
all sorts of reasons for reduction in the minimum spacing
requirement that everyone acknowledges is very permissive. What
staff is recommending is that in all cases, if we do this, we require
a CMP, or an amendment to an existing one. Therefore, what is
the Commission's preference.
39. Commissioner Butler stated that if you go with staff's
recommendation and then through the General Plan update, revisit
this issue. Would this work for staff so as not to become a
problem on future applications?
40. Chairman Kirk suggested they go with this specific
recommendation and make sure it is a priority in the General Plan
update to see what should be done and maybe develop some
specific quantifiable and objective criteria.
41. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-041 recommending
to the City Council approval of a General Plan Text Amendment to
require a Corridor Master Plan of Traffic Signals to allow spacing
less than identified in the General Plan.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Tyler, and Chairman
Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Robbins.
ABSTAIN: None.
42. Chairman Kirk stated that since there is no process, do we have
to approve a CMP for Eisenhower Drive. What the Commission
has done is set up a process to encourage the development of a
CMP, but is the Planning Commission or City Council obligated to
approve the Specific Plan. Staff stated the Eisenhower CMP does
need some work to make it correct. In order to move the project
forward, staff accepted the Plan in its current state. Approval of
this document could be deferred to a future date, but before the
off -site street plans are approved. To allow them to construct the
intersection, this document should be approved. Commissioners
concurred with this suggestion.
43. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Abels to
table Specific Plan 2000-046 for the Eisenhower Corridor Master
Plan. Unanimously approved.
C:\My Documents\WPD0CS\PC6-27-00-Wpd 16
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2000
44. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-042 recommending
to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 29436,
subject to the conditions as amended:
Condition #56: Amended to read, "The City will conduct final
inspections of homes...... only when the buildings have improved
streets."
Condition #57.A.: Modified to read, "A street at Eisenhower Drive
shall be a full turn movement."
Condition #58: Amend to read, "The applicant shall provide
predominately desert landscaping and ......"
Condition #76: Amend to read, "The three remainder parcels
shown on Tentative Tract Map 29436 shall be deed restricted as
permanent open space prior to recordation of the final tract map."
Condition #77: Add, "Single family houses on Lots 4-38 not to
exceed 22 feet in height, shall be allowed adjacent to Laguna de
la Paz.
Condition #79: If a new signal is installed at the main entrance,
the applicant shall pay 100% of the cost to design and install the
signal including hardware interconnect to the Coachella Drive and
conduit with pull rope to the main entrance providing access to
Laguna de la Paz.
Condition #80: If a new signal is installed at the main entrance
the applicant shall enter into an agreement prior to final map
approval to fund the operating, maintenance, and replacement
costs to the signal including a proportionate share of the signal
coordination system. The applicant shall assign the Agreement to
the homeowners' association as a funding responsibility of the
association for as long as a signal provides traffic control on
Eisenhower Drive.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Tyler, and Chairman
Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Robbins.
ABSTAIN: None.
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None.
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None.
Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Commissioner Tyler gave a report of the Council meeting of June 20,
2000.
C:\My Documents\WPD0CS\PC6-27-00-Wpd 17
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2000
B. Chairman Kirk asked if a review of the Highway 1 1 1 Specific Plan and
Village should be agendized per the comments made at the joint meeting
with the City Council. Following discussion, staff was directed to
prepare a timeline for discussion of these issues.
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Abels/Tyler to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next
regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held July 11, 2000, at 7:00 p.m.
This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:46 p.m. on June 27,
2000.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
C:\My Documents\WPD0CS\PC6-27-00.Wpd 18
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
June 13, 2000
I. CALL TO ORDER
7:00 P.M.
A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00
P.M. by Vice Chairman Robbins who asked Commissioner Tyler to lead
the flag salute.
B. Present: Commissioners Jacques Abels, Richard Butler, Robert Tyler, and
Vice Chairman Steve Robbins.
C. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to excuse
Chairman Kirk.
D. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City
Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Planning Manager Christine di lorio, Senior
Engineer Steve Speer, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA:
A. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Butler to move
Agenda Item C to be the first item on the Agenda. Unanimously
approved.
IV. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. Vice Chairman Robbins asked if there were any corrections to the
Minutes of May 23, 2000. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 20, Item
#44, be amended to stated ".....construction activity on Sundays or
holidays. Saturdays 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m......" There being no further
corrections it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Abels
to approve the minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved.
B. Department Report: None.
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC6-13-20.wpd 1
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2000
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Environmental Assessment 99-386, General Plan Amendment 2000-065,
Specific Plan 2000-046, and Tract Map 29436; a request of Mainiero
Smith and Associates for US Homes for a recommendation to certify a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; recommend
approval of a General Plan Text Amendment to require a Corridor Master
Plan for traffic signals to allow spacing less than 1,200 feet; recommend
approval of a Specific Plan for Eisenhower Corridor Master Plan of traffic
signals; and recommend approval to subdivide 75.86 acres into 169
residential lots and other amenity lots to be located on the north side of
Eisenhower Drive, east of Coachella Drive.
1. Planning Manager Christine di lorio informed the Commission that
a request had been received from the applicant stating their
concurrence with staff recommendation for a continuance to June
27, 2000, as the project issues and information relating to the
Environmental Assessment require the Environmental Assessment
to be amended.
2. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Abets to
continue the item to June 27, 2000. Unanimously approved with
Chairman Kirk being absent.
B. Site Development Permit 2000-678; a request of Michael Shovlin
(Washington Plaza Associates) for approval of development plans for a
one story 4,649 square foot bank building on 0.73 acres located at 46-
100 Washington Street, within the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping
Center.
1. Commissioner Tyler stated for the record that he had discussed
with the City Attorney that he and his wife had a small account
with this bank, and it was her determination that he had no
conflict of interest.
2. Vice Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for
the staff report. 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. Staff reviewed the
revised elevations as requested by the Architectural and
Landscaping Review Committee.
C:\My Documents\WPD0CS\PC6-13-20.Wpd 2
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2000
3. Vice Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Tyler noted the articulation on the west elevation
was an improvement over the original design as it did step back
and was not plain.
4. Commissioner Butler asked where the blue color would be used on
the building. Staff indicated on the plans where it would be used.
5. Commissioner Tyler asked how the height of the raised parapet
wall feature compared to the Auto Club parapet. Staff stated the
top of the Auto Club parapet is 4 feet 6 inches and the bank
parapet was proposed to be 25 feet. The Auto Club sign was
allowed the additional height as it was approved prior to the
change in the City's Ordinance in regarding the tower height. The
bank building itself is 16 feet. Community Development Dorector
Jerry Herman stated the Commission could not deviate from the
Zoning Code height requirement unless the applicant applied for a
variance. Commissioners indicated they were trying to determine
the difference between the two parapets.
6. Commissioner Tyler asked if there were any proposed changes to
the traffic flow with the site. Staff stated none were proposed, or
required.
7. Commissioner Butler asked if any parking would be lost. Staff
stated none would be gained, or lost.
8. Commissioner Tyler asked about the number of signs requested.
Staff stated the recommendation was to remove one of the five
requested.
9. There being no further questions of staff, Vice Chairman Robbins
asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr.
Joe DeCoster, Desert Cities Development, stated one of his major
concerns on the building was the statement that it was not
Southwestern. He is currently designing four other buildings on
the site and is trying to make them blend in. He went on to
describe where the elements were repeated through the Center
and presented pictures of the Center to substantiate his
comments.
10. Commissioner Butler asked the applicant which of the renderings
did he prefer. Mr. DeCoster stated the colored rendering. Staff
stated this rendering did meet the height limitations.
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC6-13-20.wpd 3
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2000
Commissioner Butler stated the colored rendering was not
acceptable to the ALRC. Mr. DeCoster stated he would prefer to
have the revised architectural detail added to the colored rendering
on the west elevation.
11. Vice Chairman Robbins stated the difference between the two
buildings is the height the tower sticks up above the building.
Discussion followed regarding the architectural details.
12. Commissioner Tyler asked if the mechanical equipment would be
hidden with the revised rendering. Mr. DeCoster stated the
parapet would have to be adjusted accordingly.
13. Commissioner Tyler asked if the applicant had any information on
the traffic flow. Mr. DeCoster stated he had no knowledge
regarding the traffic flow.
14. There being no further questions of the applicant, Vice Chairman
Robbins asked if there was any other public comment on this item.
15. There being no further public comment, Vice Chairman Robbins
closed the public hearing and opened the item for Commission
discussion.
16. Commissioner Tyler stated he had a concern about the traffic
pattern entering off Washington Street. Commissioner Abels
stated the Center is existing and there are no alternatives that
could be considered, or offered.
17. Commissioner Butler stated he concurs with the applicant on his
original elevation submitted. As to the height of the tower, or the
columns, they follow the architectural style of the Center.
18. Commissioner Abels stated he concurs with Commissioner Butler
and with regard to the traffic, the public already has the same
travel pattern to use the Auto Club.
19. Vice Chairman Robbins stated he prefers the arch, but will go
along with the rest of the Commission. Mr. DeCoster explained
the building base detail would be popped out six inches along the
building. The horizontal element would also be carried out as well
as the riglet. Staff suggested Condition 17.B. be modified to state
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC6-13-20.wpd 4
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2000
the riglet along the top of the banding on the cutout of the
northwest corner and continue around the base as proposed under
the arcade and wrap it around.
20. Vice Chairman Robbins asked the applicant if the rounded arch
were used, could it cover the mechanical equipment. Mr. DeCoster
stated he would have to lower the entire parapet wall and the
boxes would still be seen. Commissioners stated they would
prefer to hide the equipment.
21. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Butler/Abels to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2000-037 approving Site Development Permit 2000-
678, as amended:
a. Condition #17.A. Deleted
b. Condition #17.B. to include the riglet along the top of the
banding on the cutout of the northwest corner and continue
around the base as proposed under the arcade and wrap it
around.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Tyler, and Vice
Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: Chairman Kirk.
ABSTAIN: None.
C. Site Development Permit 99-647, Amendment #1; a request of Century -
Crowell Communities for approval of architectural plans for two new
design options to be added to Plan 3 and 4 of the Tournament collection
to be construct along Cantebury and Riviera, in PGA West.
1. Commissioner Butler excused himself due to a possible conflict of
interest and left the dias.
2. Vice Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for
the staff report. 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.
3. There being no questions of staff, Vice Chairman Robbins asked
if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Ms. Marty
Butler, representing Century -Crowell stated she was available for
any questions of the Commission.
CAMy Documents\WPD0CS\PC6-13-20.Wpd 5
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2000
4. Commissioner Abels stated he was pleased with the plans as
submitted.
5. There being no questions of the applicant, Vice Chairman Robbins
asked if there was any other public comment on this item.
6. There being no further public comment, Vice Chairman Robbins
closed the public hearing and opened the item for Commission
discussion.
7. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2000-038 approving Site Development Permit 2000-
647, Amendment #1, as submitted.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Tyler, and Vice Chairman
Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: Chairman Kirk and
Commissioner Butler. ABSTAIN: None.
Commissioner Butler rejoined the Commission.
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Sign Application 2000-502; a request of Fuller Sign and Design for
approval of a sign program for Dune Palms Center (Lapis Energy -
Specific Plan 96-028) located at the southeast corner of Dune Palms
Road and Highway 1 1 1.
1. Vice Chairman Robbins asked for the staff report. 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. Vice Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Butler asked where the signs would be placed.
Staff stated the sign on the southeast corner was for the gas
station and to display the name of the Center.
3. Vice Chairman Robbins asked what would occur at the south end
of the site. Staff stated nothing is currently proposed and no
other monument signs are proposed. The Center signs would be
on the southeast corner of Highway 111 and Dune Palms Road
and further down on Dune Palms Road. The corner sign would be
for the pricing of gas.
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC6-13-20.wpd 6
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2000
4. There being no further questions of staff, Vice Chairman Robbins
asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr.
Bruce Fuller, Fuller Signs and Design, stated the sign would be 10
feet long and five feet high to meet the City's requirements. The
sign on Dune Palms Road is because this is the common entrance
into the Center.
5. There being no questions of the applicant, Vice Chairman Robbins
asked if there was any other public comment on this item.
6. There being no further public comment, Vice Chairman Robbins
closed the public participation and opened the item for
Commission discussion.
7. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Butler to adopt Minute Motion 2000-01 1
approving Sign Application 2000-502, as submitted.
Unanimously approved.
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None.
VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Commissioner Tyler gave a report of the Council meeting of June 6,
2000.
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Abels/Tyler to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next
regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held June 27, 2000, at 7:00 p.m.
This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. on June 13,
2000.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
CAMy Documents\WPD0CS\PC6-13-20.wpd 7
LA QUINTA CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING
HELD JOINTLY WITH
THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND
THE ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE
MAY 10, 2000
A special joint meeting of the La Quinta City Council, Planning Commission, and
Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
by Mayor John Pena, who led the pledge of allegiance.
PRESENT: Council Members Adolph, Henderson, Sniff, Mayor Pena
ABSENT: Council Member Perkins
It was moved and seconded by Council Members Sniff/Adolph to excuse Council
Member Perkins. The motion was unanimously carried.
PRESENT: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Robbins, Tyler
ABSENT: Commissioner Kirk
It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Robbins to excuse Chairman
Kirk. The motion was unanimously carried.
PRESENT: Committee Member Bobbitt. Committee Member Cunningham
arrived late.
ABSENT: Committee Member Reynolds
It was moved and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Bobbitt to excuse
Committee Member Reynolds. The motion was unanimously carried.
CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA - The agenda was confirmed by all present.
Commissioner Tyler suggested a discussion regarding infrastructure problems be
added to the agenda.
k R1 110 VQW99100*101
City Council Special Meeting Minutes May 10, 2000
Joint Meeting with Planning Commission and ALRC Page 2
• ►I ►I
Mayor Pena welcomed all in attendance and reviewed the procedure for
discussions.
Council Member Adolph stated he feels the street improvements and
under -grounding in the Village are a major change in how the area will be perceived
by developers and possibly may provide a "kick start" for development in the
Village. He also cited the economic incentives the City has created to improve the
appearance of businesses, the enhancement of the Civic Center Campus and
improvements around Frances Hack Park as positive steps and stated the City's
goal should be to continue to pursue what has been started.
Council Member Sniff discussed the Museum purchase and plans to
make additions to that facility as well as the traffic circulation in the Village and the
potential for closing selected streets to enlarge the area and make it more viable for
development. He stated these items will be coming before the commissions and
committees for review and input and encouraged creativity in the design and
planning.
Council Member Henderson said the issues that will be coming up in
the future regarding the development of the Village will all need to be evaluated
against the documents that have been reviewed and approved by the Council, such
as the Design Guidelines for the Village. She stress the importance of feedback
from the Commission and ALRC regarding the sufficiency of the document since
these are the guidelines which will be applied to future projects.
City Attorney Honeywell clarified that the Village Design Guidelines are
separate and specific to the location and not a formal part of the General Plan. She
advised that no project can be approved if it is inconsistent with the General Plan.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes
Joint Meeting with Planning Commission and ALRC
May 10, 2000
Page 3
Commissioner Abels suggested a Planning Commission study session
to review the Design Guidelines for the Village again. Council Member Sniff
suggested the Commission also review the Highway 111 Design Guidelines at the
same time.
A discussion of the use of the Village Design Guidelines ensued and
Community Development Director Herman stated only Shotzy's has been reviewed
under the Guidelines to date. City Attorney Honeywell commented the document
has therefore not really been tested. Mayor Pena suggested during the review of
the Guidelines by the Planning Commission and the ALRC any recommendations for
modifications to allow more flexibility would be appropriate. He stressed that it is
not the Council's intent to review the document because an application does not fit
within the Guidelines.
A discussion of the parking standards in the Village took place and
Commissioner Abels questioned if flexibility in the standards is possible. Mayor
Pena felt currently this might create a problems under the existing guidelines and
suggested this is one of the areas the Commission should concentrate on during
their review.
Council Member Henderson expressed concern regarding the choice of
plants being approved for landscaping that have inherent problems due to the
maintenance required. She felt this is another area to look into and suggested that
if a landscape plan is approved, provisions for the proper maintenance and care is
an important factor. Council Member Sniff agreed this is another area the
Commission should be looking at. Staff was directed to bring this item before the
Commission for input.
Mayor Pena asked the Commission to review the sign program as well
both internal and directional. He also suggested, especially in the Village, there
needs to be a tasteful blend of the new with existing standards to achieve
compatibility.
Commissioner Butler raised the question of infill projects in existing
developments. He stated shared parking seems to be an acceptable alternative to
developers but sometimes the uses create a nightmare as can be seen with the
theater project. He said he opposes a sea of asphalt but understands the need to
accommodate the tenants. His concern with development in the Village is parking.
He felt even if the alleys were used as a temporary solution, development will
create a long term parking problem.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes
Joint Meeting with Planning Commission and ALRC
May 10, 2000 .
Page 4
Mayor Pena stated the clustering of uses makes a difference in parking
plans„ such as the cluster of restaurants all in one section of the Von's Center.
Commissioner Tyler asked if the original parking standards took into consideration
the differences in the uses at the Von's Center.
Commissioner Robbins felt the first issue was to provide parking, the
success of the uses create the need for additional parking. He suggested a solution
to that problem in the village might be a parking structure which might require the
vacation of streets to accomplish. Discussion ensued regarding areas such as the
widened streets that might address the parking problem.
Commissioner Robbins addressed landscaping and water use as they
relate to development standards. He said a growing concern in the area of the
Cove is subsidence and this is directly attributable to the ground water base. He
encouraged solutions such as development of water efficient landscapes and not
blanket acceptance of the use of turf. Mayor Pena suggested the City's new
medians are a good example of this and could be used as a standard. Council
Member Henderson expressed concern with the over -watering of residential lots
and the run-off into the gutters and retention basins. Commissioner Robbins
suggested looking at buffers between sidewalk and street to allow water to Arain
back into the ground rather than run off into the street. He sited the fact median
landscape does not allow emitters within 18 inches of the curb to address this.
Committee Member Bobbitt stated he works with CVWD which has an 18 inch
standard in place Valley -wide. He felt there are a number of good landscape
treatments that use very little water.
The Council, Commission and Committee members discussed the
development of the prototype street for the Village and the timing over the next
few years. It was agreed it is important to solicit feedback on these improvements
and that events like the Main Street Marketplace are important to support the
interest in the area.
Council Member Henderson felt some of the issues had been touched
upon in the previous discussions and asked the City Attorney if there is a way to
address modifying the setback on Highway 111 without amending the General
Plan. City Attorney Honeywell stated the Von's situation might be somehow
considered under a grandfather program to allow for the existing problems. She
advised that to change the setback to spell out a 50 foot minimum would only
result in everyone wanting the minimum.
City Council special Meeting Minutes May 10, 2000
Joint Meeting with Planning Commission and ALRC Page 5
Council Member Sniff noted trying to develop consistent guidelines
with inconsistent development is going to require some creative methods to make it
all work. He also felt parking and signs need to be reassessed in the Highway 1 1 1
corridor and the matter of parking in infill areas. Commissioner Abels remarked the
decision the Council makes on the Von's Center will provide a good basis for the
Commission's future actions.
Council Member Henderson stated the standards used to develop the
Von's Center were pre -incorporation of the City and asked the difference in the
ratio between then and the more recent development of the Stater Bros Center.
Community Development Director Herman replied the parking was determined not
by using a ratio but based upon the uses in the Center. City Attorney Honeywell
stated the fact a problem is expected, as a result of infill development, points to the
need to address the issue of ratio or need for an increase in spaces by use.
Council Member Adolph raised the issue of the parking spaces behind
buildings being used to meet the parking requirements. He stated he feels this is
unrealistic because a safety factor is involved in night-time parking in those spaces
which limits their use by both patrons and employees.
A discussion about the size of parking spaces based on the size of the
popular SUV vehicles then took place. Public Works Director Chris Vogt responding
to Council Member Henderson stated he was unaware of any national or regional
efforts to address this problem. He suggested having dual stripping of the parking
stalls might be a solution because it would add an extra six inches in width.
Commissioner Abels asked if the traffic engineers have looked at using
signals equipped with cameras such as are being Used in Indian Wells. Both
Council Member Henderson and Mayor Pena agreed they could be useful at certain
intersections like 481h and Washington.
Commissioner Tyler questioned the efforts being made to eliminate
two eyesores along the Highway 111 corridor, the unfinished service station and
the mobile home park. City Attorney Honeywell responded the City has required
the bonding company to install the off -site improvements for the service station but
she is unfamiliar with the progress of the structure being completed on that site.
Committee Member Cunningham expressed concern about the last
two vacant corners at Washington and Highway 1111. He felt the City will only
have the opportunity once to insure the appearance of this intersection is in keeping
with the desired design standards. He suggested using the La Quinta Cliff House
City Council Special Meeting Minutes
Joint Meeting with Planning Commission and ALRC
May 10, 2000
Page 6
and the La Quinta Resort as quality standards for developers to look at. Council
Member Henderson questioned the method the City could use to accomplish this.
Community Development Director Herman stated the Highway 1 1 1 Guidelines do
not deal with buildings, he advised the proper vehicle to determine building design
is at the Specific Plan stage. Council Member Henderson felt staff and then the
Planning Commission need to lead developers in this direction. Commissioner
Robbins said if this is the Council's direction, it will result in three levels of review
before the Council sees a plan.
Commissioner Tyler felt the entrance to the City is located more in the
vicinity of Washington and Fred Waring. He felt the landscape at Palm Royale is
still badly in need of repair.
Commissioner Robbins discussed the lack of attention being paid to
the rear of the commercial buildings. He feels this is important since so many
homes look at this view of the commercial uses. Committee Member Cunningham
added the landscaping at the rear of commercial buildings also needs to be looked
at so that trees are of sufficient height to shade walking/bike paths.
Committee Member Bobbitt stated his "pet peeve" is the planting of
trees in parking lots without sufficient space. The said the lack of oxygen,
moisture and food as well as compaction around the trees, keeps them in stress.
He felt the City needs to call out a caliper size for the tree trunks and if they cannot
stand alone after a year they should be gotten rid of. Council concurred this is an
issue for the Planning Commission and ALRC to work on.
Council Member Adolph brought up the need to change the standards
for gated communities. He felt it is imperative to require more than one exit. He
felt a community of more than 200 + homes should have several entrance/exits.
Council Member Henderson questioned the progress of the General
Plan update. Director of Community Development Herman said the first Public
Hearing on the current update will probably be in November or December of this
year with adoption in January, 2001.
Council Member Sniff felt an important consideration for residential
standards is the designs need to be indigenous to the desert climate. He suggested
deep eaves, recessed windows, sufficient shading and window placement need to
be considerations. He also discussed concerns regarding the area being considered
City Council Special Meeting Minutes
Joint Meeting with Planning Commission and ALRC
May 10, 2000
Page 7
for annexation and the need to address lot size requirements, building sizes and
compatibility when looking at the residential standards for that area.
Mayor Pena expressed concern regarding the size of garages based on
the increased size of today's cars. He also suggested attention be paid to garage
orientation. A discussion took place concerning the dust from new developments
and the fact that water is not effective in the high wind conditions. Suggestions
offered were soil binders, soil cement and over seeding. The group also discussed
the residential landscaping and the impact of over -watering on the gutters and
retention basins.
Commissioner Tyler expressed concern regarding some decisions on
rear setback on major streets with rear eaves overhanging the walls in some
instances. Commissioner Robbins agreed the residential subdivisions need to be
more creative in their design. He felt if an ordinance is not in place to deal with
walls and street widths, staff can steer developers in the right direction. The City
Attorney stated this needs to be contained in the development standards.
Council Member Sniff addressed the need for commercial development
standards for building architecture to be as creative as possible. He also felt hotel
development is most important to the City because of the revenue it generates. He
stated the future of the City is dependent upon its ability to attract and retain new
business.
Council Member Adolph felt it important that the City adhere to
current standards such as height limitations and densities. He stated the General
Plan needs to have some built-in flexibility to allow for change.
Council Member Henderson questioned what method might be used to
control excessive development of fast food establishments, car washes and service
stations. City Attorney Honeywell advised the uses can be controlled using the
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process. She suggested it would be appropriate to
make a finding that a CUP for restaurants is required to insure adequate parking is
provided. Commissioner Tyler asked it a CUP could be used to mitigate the
requirement to honor logo signs. The City Attorney responded recent court cases
have established criteria dealing with logo signs.
Discussion took place regarding the types of businesses that can be
covered under the CUP process and City Attorney Honeywell advised that requiring
more uses to have a CUP would only entail a zoning change and would allow more
control as to surroundings in the immediate area.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes
Joint Meeting with Planning Commission and ALRC
May 10, 2000
Page 8
Council Member Sniff discussed the need to encourage park
development based on the growing number of young children in the area and
stressed the need to be careful in park naming. He also discussed the Arts
Foundation proposal and the importance of looking at the design considerations
carefully.
Commissioner Tyler discussed the infrastructure improvements needed
for safety reasons. He said the north side of Fred Waring between Washington and
Adams will not be developed with a sidewalk in the foreseeable future. He feels
this is a real issue for students walking to school. Mayor Pena also stated the City
owns several parcels that should be finished for the same reason. City Manager
Genovese said the City has applied for several sidewalk grants.
Mayor Peuia asked the Commission to look at code enforcement issues
such as RV parking in residential developments.
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by
Council Members Sniff/Adolph to adjourn the City Council meeting. The motion
carried unanimously with Council Member Perkins absent.
It was moved and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Bobbitt to
adjourn the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee meeting. The motion
carried unanimously with Committee Member Reynolds absent.
It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Abets to adjourn the Planning
Commission meeting. The motion was unanimously carried with Chairman Kirk
absent.
Mayor Pena declared the special joint meeting adjoLrned at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
June S. Greek, CIVIC
City Clerk, City of La Quinta, California
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: JULY 11, 2000
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000-392 AND TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP 29623 (SUNFLOWER)
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY
OWNER: WORLD DEVELOPMENT
SURVEYOR: MC GEE SURVEYING, INCORPORATED
REQUEST: 1. CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; AND
2. APPROVAL OF A 35 AND OTHER COMMON LOT SINGLE
FAMILY SUBDIVISION MAP ON 10.09 ACRES IN THE RL
ZONE DISTRICT.
LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF MILES AVENUE BETWEEN DUNE PALMS ROAD
AND VERBENA DRIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT HAS BEEN PREPARED BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AS REQUIRED BY THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT STATUES. THE
ASSESSMENT CONCLUDES THAT THE PROJECT WILL NOT
SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECT THE ENVIRONMENT, PROVIDED
MITIGATION MONITORING IS COMPLETED (EA 2000-392).
GENERAL
PLAN
DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE)
ZONING
DESIGNATION: RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
STPCTr29623 - 41 Page 1 of 4
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
NORTH: SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES IN THE CACTUS FLOWER
DEVELOPMENT (TRACT 24208)
SOUTH: VACANT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ACROSS MILES AVENUE IN
THE CITY OF INDIO (FUTURE DESERT SANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT ELEMENTARY/MIDDLE SCHOOL)
EAST: ACROSS VERBENA DRIVE, UNDER CONSTRUCTION IN THE
WILDFLOWER DEVELOPMENT (TRACT 25691)
WEST: ACROSS DUNE PALMS ROAD, UNDER CONSTRUCTION
SONRISA DEVELOPMENT
BACKGROUND:
Site Information
The 10.09 acre site is located at the northeast corner of Dune Palms Road and Miles
Avenue immediately south of the existing Cactus Flower development and west of the
under construction Wildflower development.
The surface of the site consists of sand dunes and native vegetation and has
topographic relief changes along Dune Palms Road. No trees exist on the property.
Overhead utility lines exist along Miles Avenue and Dune Palms Road.
Project Request
The applicant is requesting approval of a 35-lot single family subdivision with lots
ranging in size from 7,438 square feet to over 10,000 square feet on public cul-de-sac
streets (Street Lots "B" and "C") measuring 50-feet wide with 36 feet of paving
(Attachment 1). Typical lot dimensions are approximately 61 feet wide by 121.9 feet
deep. Lot sizes average 7,942 square feet.
Access to the project is proposed on Verbena Drive from Miles Avenue (restricted to
right-in/right-out traffic movements). Verbena Drive is located approximately 663.42
feet east of Dune Palms Road. This Tract is an expansion of the Wildflower project
to the east by the applicant.
Landscape parkways of 10' wide (average) and 20' wide (average) are proposed on
Dune Palms Road and Miles Avenue, respectively. A conceptual landscape plan has
been prepared for these parkway areas showing trees, shrubs and groundcover. Turf
is used as an accent on Miles Avenue but is not used on Dune Palm Road. Lot #1,
located at the southeast corner of the development, measures 68.79 feet wide by
STPCTr29623 - 41 Page 2 of 4
121.96 feet long and is the primary retention basin for the project with smaller satellite
basins at the end of each cul-de-sac street. All retention basins will be covered in turf.
Additionally, to mitigate roadway noise and provide privacy, a minimum six-foot high
articulated wall with four foot offsets is proposed along the Tract's perimeter.
The prototype design of the houses for this project (Plans 1 through 4) were approved
by the Planning Commission in 1999 under Site Development Permit 99-656
(Resolution 99-067) for use in Wildflower to east of this project. The single story,
Mediterranean style houses range in size from 1,704 square feet (2 bedroom/3 bath)
to 2,520 square feet (4 bedroom/3 bath). A copy of this document is on file with the
Community Development Department. (The developer states that they are not
planning to build Plan 1, the smallest house, as they are doing in Wildflower at this
time. Site Development Permit 2000-681 has been set up to be the companion case
for this application.)
The typical front yard landscaping will match Wildflower, including grass and a
minimum of two shade trees and numerous shrubs for interior lots. Corner lots require
a minimum of five trees. A varied plant palette is proposed.
Public Notice: This request was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on June 18,
2000, and all property owners within 500-feet of the Tract were mailed a copy of the
public hearing notice as required by the Subdivision Ordinance of the La Quinta
Municipal Code and Charter. No written correspondence has been received.
Public Agency Review: The applicant's request was sent on January 20, 2000 to
affected public agencies for review and comment. Any pertinent comments received
have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval.
Historic Preservation Commission (HPC►
On June 15, 2000, the HPC adopted Minute Motion 2000-015, accepting the Phase
1 Cultural Resources Report for the project as prepared by Archaeological Associates,
stating that no archaeological or historical finds of any kind were made. The HPC
recommended that site monitoring be required during trenching activities. A copy of
the Draft HPC Minutes is attached (Attachment 2).
MANDATORY FINDINGS:
This Map has been designed in compliance with requirements contained in the City's
General Plan, Zoning Code and Subdivision Ordinance. Findings per Section
13.12.120 of the Subdivision Ordinance as noted in the attached Resolutions for a
recommendation of approval can be made.
STPCTr29623 - 41 Page 3 of 4
CONCLUSION:
The proposed Tract map is a logical extension of development in the area, and
completes development on the north side of Miles Avenue. The Tract map creates
single family lots which meet the City's minimum standard in the Low Density
Residential designation.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-_, recommending to City Council
certification of Environmental Assessment 2000-392, subject to the attached
findings and mitigation monitoring program; and
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-_, recommending to the City
Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 29623, subject to the attached
findings and conditions.
Attachments:
1. TTM 29623 Exhibit (Reduced)
2. HPC Minutes of June 15, 2000 (Excerpt)
3. Large Exhibits (Planning Commission Only)
Prepared by:
l \�
Gr-eg-T ps II, Associate Planner
Submitted by:
Christine di lorio, Planning Manager
STPCTr29623 - 41 Page 4 of 4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29623 TO ALLOW THE
SUBDIVISION OF 10.09 ACRES INTO 35 SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL LOTS, TWO PUBLIC STREET LOTS, AND
THREE LANDSCAPING LOTS, LOCATED AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF MILES AVENUE AND DUNE
PALMS ROAD.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000-392
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did,
on the 111h day of July, 2000, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing as requested by World
Development on the Environmental Analysis for Tentative Tract Map 29623, located at the
northeast corner of Dune Palms Road and Miles Avenue; and,
WHEREAS, said 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 Department has conducted an Initial
Study and has determined that although the proposed subdivision 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, the La Quinta Planning Commission did find the following facts
to justify recommendation for certification of said Environmental Assessment:
The Project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the
community, either indirectly or directly, in that appropriate mitigation measures have
been imposed which will minimize project impacts.
2. The proposed Project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
3. Considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence before the City that the
proposed project will have potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources or the
habitat on which the wildlife depends.
4. The proposed Project does not have the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals as no
significant effects on environmental factors by the Environmental Assessment.
5. The proposed Project will not have environmental effects directly or indirectly, as no
significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk
potential or public services.
P:pcearesTTM29623Wor1d
6. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of
adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations §753.5(d).
7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record, including EA 2000-386
and the comments received thereon, that the project will have a significant impact
upon the environment.
8. EA 2000-386 and the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City's independent
judgment and analysis
9. The location and custodian of the record of proceedings relating to this project is the
Community Development Department of the City of La Quinta, located at 78-495
Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California 92253.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of the
Planning Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby recommend certification to the City Council for the reasons set
forth in this Resolution and stated in the Environmental Assessment determination
and mitigation measures of Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendum,
on file with the Community Development Department.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
City Planning Commission held on this 111h day of July, 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
PApcearesTTM29623Wor1d7-1 1-OO.wpd
EA 2000-392
Appendix G
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project Title: TTM 29623 - Sunflower
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Contact Person and Phone Number: Greg Trousdell (760) 777-7125
4. Project Location: Northeast corner of Miles Avenue and Dune Palms Road
(APN: 604-453-001)
Project Sponsor's Name and Address: World Development
74-333 Hwy. 111, Ste. 103
Palm Desert, CA 92260
6. General Plan Designation: LDR (Low Density Residential)
7. Zoning: RL (Low Density Residential)
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases
of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach
additional sheets if necessary.)
Subdivide 10.09 gross acres into 35 single family residential lots, retention basin lots,
two public street lots, and landscaping lots, for the purpose of constructing
previously approved (SDP 99-656) housing units ranging in size from 2,078 (Plan 2)
to 2,511 (Plan 4) liveable square feet, with garages ranging from 640 to 718 square
feet, that are being built in the Wildflower development to the east of the project
site.
9. Surrounding Lane Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North - single family residential
South -public school site in the City of Indio
East - single family residential
West - single family residential
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation
agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District, IID, SCG, DSUSD, GTE, Time Warner, SunLine
Transit, Waste Management of the Desert
P:\cegalistttm29623sdp2000-681. %Npd
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
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Determination
(To be completed by the Lead Agency.)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities and Service Systems
Mandatory Findings
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. a
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made
by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 11
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets.
An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects
that remain to be addressed. 0
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. a
40i
Printed Name
Dat '
& e �
For
-2-
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses
following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the reference
information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should
be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the
project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening
analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -
site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as
operational impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect
is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "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.
8) The analysis of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question, and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
P:\cegalistttm29623sdp2000-68 DApd -3 -
;ample question:
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
L AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Master
Environmental Assessment 5-13: General Plan EIR 4-89)
b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway'?
(Master Environmental Assessment 5-13)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings? (Application materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application
materials)
IL AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:. In determining whether
impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model 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 on -agricultural use'? (Master
Environmental Assessment 5-29, 5-32, 2-11; General Plan EIR 4-15)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract? (Zoning Map, General Plan EIR 4-15)
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? (Site visit, aerial
photographs, MEA 2-11)
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? (MEA
5.8; General Plan Air Quality Element, Draft SCAQMD CEQA
Handbook Table 6-2, General Plan EIR 4-174)
b) Violate anv stationary source air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation? (MEA 5.8.2; General
Plan Air Quality Element, Draft SCAQMD CEQA Handbook Table
6-2; General Plan EIR 4.10)
Potentially
potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
91
x
X
0
04
X
X
X
P:\cegalistttm29623sdp2000-681.wpd -Z
c) Result in a n;,t 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)? (MEA 5.8,
General Plan Air Quality Element; Draft SCAQMD CEQA
Handbook)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
(Master En-vironmental Assessment 5-44, 5.8; General Plan Air
Quality Element; Draft SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people? (Application Materials)
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Master Environmental Assessment
5-5; Cornett, 3-23-00)
b) 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? (Master Environmental
Assessment 5-5, Cornett. 3-23-00; US Fish & Wildlife letter, 2-10-
00)
c) 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? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-5, Cornett, 3-23-00)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of anv resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery
sites9 (Master Environmental Assessment 5-5; Cornett, 3-23-00)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (La Quinta
Municipal Code, General Plan)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Master Environmental
Assessment 5-5)
X
F.9
X
X
X
X
X
X
*11
P:\ceqalistttm29623sdp2OOO-681.wpd
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource which :s 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? (Master
Environmental Assessment 5-21. Archaeological Associates, 6-9-00;
City of La Quinta Historic Survey, 1996: General Plan EIR 4-81)
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)? (Archaeological Associates, 6-9-00)
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site?
(Paleontology Lakebed Map)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries? (Archaeological Associates, 6-9-00)
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 6-7: Southland
Gcotechnical, Inc., Feb., 2000; General Plan EIR 4-39)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (Master Environmental
Assessment 6-7: Southland Geotechnical, Inc., Feb., 2000, General
Plan EIR 4-39)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Master
Environmental Assessment 6-7, General Plan EIR 4-39)
iv) Landslides? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-7: General Plan
EIR 4-33)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Application
Materials; General Plan 4-35)
c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result
in on- or off -site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-7; General Plan
EIR 4-35)
V1I
91
09
►v
011
X
X
91
X
X
VIIL
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property? (Soutliland Geotechnical, Inc., Feb., 2000)
e)Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks
or alternative waste water disposal system where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste water? (Master Environmental
Assessment 5-32; Southland Geotechmcal, Inc., Feb., 2000)
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the
project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport. use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
(Application Materials)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the
environment'? (Application Materials)
c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
(Application Materials)
d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard
to the public or the environment'? (Riverside County Hazardous Waste
Division)
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'? (General Plan land use
map)
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? (General Plan land use map)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Master
Environmental Assessment 6-11)
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?
(General Plan land use map)
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements? (Master Environmental
Assessment 6-26, 6-27, McGee Surveying, Inc., 4-19-00)
X
X
X
a
X
0
X
0
X
X
P-\cegalistttm29623sdp2000-681.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, 2-1-00, General
Plan EIR 4-55)
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? (McGee Surveying, Inc., 4-19-00, General Plan EIR 4-53)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? (McGee
Surveying, Inc., 4-19-00: General Plan EIR 4-53)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control ?
(McGee Surveying, Inc., 4-19-00)
f) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
hazard delineation map? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13.
General Plan EIR 4-53)
X
X
X
X
g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13, CVWD, X
2-1-00 General Plan EIR 4-53)
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? (Master
Environmental Assessment 2-11; Application materials: General Plan
EIR 4-7)
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 coastal program, or
zoning ordinance) adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect? (Master Environmental Assessment 2-11, 5-
5: General Plan EIR 4-7)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
communities conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment
5-5; General Plan 4-69)
X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state'? (Master Environmental
Assessment 5-29; General Plan EIR 4-35)
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 5-29;
General Plan EIR 4-35)
X
X
X
04
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? (Master Environmental
Assessment 6-17, 6-19, Mestre Greve Associates, June 5, 2000:
General Plan EIR 4-159, Table 4.9-2)
b) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Mestre Greve Associates,
June 5, 2000)
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project'
(Mestre Greve Associates, June 5, 2000)
d) 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'? (Master
Environmental Assessment)
e) 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? (General Plan map)
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure) ?
(Application Materials)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application
Materials; site visit)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application
Materials; site visit)
XIIL PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any
of the public services:
Fire protection'? (Fire Marshal letter, 1-28-00: General Plan EIR 4-
111)
Police protection? (Sheriff's Dept letter, 2-1-00; General Plan EIR 4-
111)
Schools'? (DSUSD letter. 1-24-00, General Plan EIR 4-111)
0
01
X
In
X
X
a
X
KI
04
01
P:\cegalistttm29623sdp2000-681.wpd -�
XIV.
XV.
XVI.
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan; General
Plan EIR 4-111)
Other public facilities'? (General Plan EIR 4-111)
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, City of La Quinta Parks & Recreation Master
Plan)
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; City of La Quinta Parks & Recreation Master Plan)
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)?
(Application Materials. Master Environmental Assessment 3-7;
General Plan EIR 4-145)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways'? (Master Environmental Assessment 3-
7, General Plan 3-13, General Plan EIR 4-135)
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? (City of Indio General Plan - Fig. 5.8-1)
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g.. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment) ? (Application Materials)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access'? (TTM 29623 Application
Materials, Fire Marshal letter, 1-28-00)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (TTM 29623 Application
Materials; Zomng Code -Parking)
g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks) ? (General Plan EIR 4-141)
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board? (CVWD letter 2-1-00,
General Plan EIR 4-99)
X
X
M
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
P:\cegalistttm29623sdp2000-681.wpd
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, 2-1-00; General Plan EIR 4-99)
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects? (CVWD letter, 2-1-00)
d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed? (CVWD letter, 2-1-00)
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, 2-1-00)
f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (PCR, May
19, 2000, General Plan EIR 4-106)
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statues and regulations
related to solid waste? (PCR, May 19, 2000, General Plan EIR 4-106)
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory'? ( )
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term. environmental goals? (General Plan EIR
8-1)
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that
the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
project, and the effects of probable future projects)? ( )
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly? ( )
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
P:\cegalistttm29623sdp2000-681.wpd
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.
No earlier analyses specific to this project site have been used.
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.
Not applicable.
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.
See attached Addendum.
SOURCES
Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 1992.
Draft SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, May 1992.
General Plan, City of La Quinta, 1992.
General Plan EIR, City of La Quinta, 1992
Paleontological Lakebed Delineation Map, City of La Quinta.
Riverside County Hazardous Materials Division.
Fire Marshal letter, dated 1-28-00
CVWD letter, dated 2-1-00
DSUSD letter, dated 1-24-00
Riverside County Sheriff's Dept letter, dated 2-1-00
City of La Quinta Municipal Code
PCR
Draft EIR - Villa La Quinta,
IV. I. 4 Solid Waste, May 19, 2000, Pgs. 233-241.
McGee Surveying, Inc., Kurt M. Saxon
Alternate Drainage Study for Tentative Tract 29623, 6-13-00.
P:\ceqalistttm29623sdp2OOO-681.wpd
'ornett, James W., Ecological Consultants
Giant Sand Treader Cricket Survey and Habitat Analysis for TTM 29623.
March 23, 2000
).S. Dept. Of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, letter dated 2-10-00.
outhland Geotechnical, Inc.
Preliminary Soils Investigation TTM 29623, NEC Miles Avenue and Dune Palms Road, La Quinta, California.
Feb.2000
'ity of Indio
General Plan 2020, Vol. II
October 1993
archaeological Associates, Robert S. and Laurie White
A Cultural Resources Assessment of TT 29623 a 10+ Acre Parcel Located Immediately Northeast of the Intersection of Mile
Avenue and Dune Palms Road.
June 9, 2000
✓lestre Greve Associates, Fred Greve and Keith Utsler
Noise Analysis for Tentative Tract 29623, City of La Quinta.
June 5, 2000
4ddendum to Environmental Checklist, EA 2000-392
a) Miles Avenue is designated as a Primary Arterial and a Secondary Image Corridor in the City'
General Plan, and Dune Palms Road is designated as a Secondary Arterial. Verbena Drive i
designated as a local street. These designations ensure that particular setback standards an,
landscaping are included in project development. The proposed subdivision exhibit shows that thi
City's standards for both landscaping and setbacks will be met, thereby reducing the potentiE
impacts to a level of insignificance.
c), d)
The project site is currently vacant desert land. The construction of the proposed subdivision wi
have less than significant impacts, as this project is surrounded by existing residents"
neighborhoods. The Site Development Permit allows for the construction of one story single famil
homes on individual lots that will result in a cumulative impact upon scenic views in the immediat
vicinity. Exterior security and landscape lighting is customary for residential of development an
is to be expected in this case. All such lighting is required to conform to the outdoor lightin
requirements of the Zoning Code, which will mitigate any significant impact from light and glarE
II. a), b), c)
The proposed project site is not used for agricultural purposes, and has never been designate
for agricultural land uses. The archaeological study prepared for this project did not observe ar
evidence of previous agricultural activities.
III. a), b), c), d), e)
The proposed project consists of 35 single family residential lots for development. The Dra
SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (May 1992) indicates, in Table 6-2, that projects with fewer than 17
single family housing units do not result in potentially significant air quality impacts. Although 3
additional units will results in a cumulative impact, there is no mitigation required for this projec
P:\cegalistttm29623sdp2000-681.wpd _ 1
upon populations of the cricket.
The proposed project lies within the boundaries of the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitai
Conservation Plan. As such, the project proponent shall be required to contribute $100 per acre
of disturbed land to the appropriate agency for the purchase of off -site habitat.
'. a), b), c), d)
A Phase I cultural resource investigation was conducted for the project site on February 4, 2000,
by Archaeological Associates. The results of the records search indicted that no archaeological
prehistoric or historic sites have been recorded within the boundaries of the project. The results of
the field survey were negative as no archaeological finds of any kind were made. The results of
previous archaeological monitoring programs conducted on properties immediately to the east and
west of the project site were negative. Thus, it is highly unlikely that buried historic or prehistoric
resources exist on the subject property. The study concludes that archaeological monitoring of the
brushing/grubbing element of the rough grading phase of the project is not warranted. However,
the Historic Preservation Commission recommends monitoring of all trenching activities.
The project site is outside of the boundaries of concern for paleontological resources as indicates
by the Paleontology Lakebed Map housed in the Community Development Department at the City
of La Quinta. Thus, there are no anticipated adverse impacts on paleontological resources.
a) i)
The proposed project site does not lie in an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies hazard area. No knowr
active earthquake faults occur within several miles of the proposed project. The potential impac,
for fault rupture is not expected to be significant. The closest inferred fault trace is over a half-milE
to the southwest. This fault trace has not exhibited any evidence of Holocene movement (within the
last 11,000 years) and is not considered active.
�I. a) ii)
The proposed project occurs in a Zone IV groundshaking zone. The City has adopted the
provisions of the Uniform Building Code for this hazard. Construction of any structure on the projec
site will conform to these standards, which will reduce the potential hazard to a less than significan�
level.
/I. a) iii)
The proposed project site does not occur in a liquefaction hazard area. The depth to groundwate
in the project area is estimated to be greater than 100 feet according to the Preliminary Soil:
Investigation prepared for the project, by Southland Geotechnical, Inc.(Feb. 2000). The soils on the
site consist of loose to medium dense, dry to slightly moist sand and silty sand, which has
potential to shift in a seismic event. The soils report recommends over -excavation an(
recompaction in any area where structures are proposed. The findings of the report are preliminan
and not based on construction plans. The City's standards for site preparation and geologic
analysis will reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level.
/I. a) vi)
The proposed project is over a mile northeast from the local foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountain!
and not likely to experience impacts from landslides or rockfall.
JI. b), c), d), e)
As indicated above the soils on the project site are loose to medium dense sand. As such, unstable
P:\cegalistttm29623sdp2000-681.wpd -14
soil conditions can occur from improper grading or excavation. The City's standards for site
preparation shall be adhered to in all site preparation activities. In order to reduce the impacts of
unstable soils on the proposed site, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for any structure on the proposed site, the applicant
shall submit, for review and approval by the City Engineer, a detailed site specific soil study,
which shall include recommendations designed for the proposed single family development,
The project is located within a two mile radius of the Bermuda Dune Airport, a public use airport.
This airport is relatively small and experiences light air traffic on a daily basis. There is nc
anticipated increase in safety hazards for people residing or working in the project area from ail
traffic.
H. a), c), d), e)
A drainage study was prepared in conjunction with the proposed project, by McGee Surveying, Inc,
The project includes onsite retention basins designed to contain the modeled project 100 year
stormwater runoff. Storm water from the project site is delivered to the retention basins througr
proposed catch basins in Lot C and in Verbena Street. The project is designed to contain 100 year
runoff onsite, thus reducing any potential impacts to a less than significant level.
1111. b), f), g)
The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) responded to this project with a letter dated February
1, 2000, in which the district states that it will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to the
project provided the developer installs the water and sewer pipelines. The district also notes tha'
the project is within Zone X on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps and within the Bermuda DuneE
Drainage Study area, and that flood water issues for this project is limited to local drainage.
a), b), c)
A noise impact analysis was performed for the proposed project by Mestre Greve Associates. ThE
City of La Quinta has adopted an exterior noise standard of 60 CNEL for a five foot observes
located five feet within the property line or at the worst case location within the property line. Indooi
noise is limited to 45 CNEL. The study determined that exterior living areas will be exposed to wors-
case traffic noise levels of 70.4 CNEL at "Lot 9". Therefore, in order to meet the 60 CNEL exterior
noise standard, a noise barrier will be required for exterior living areas adjacent to Miles AvenUE
and Dune Palms Road. The barrier (6' to 7.5') shall not have any gaps or openings, and mad
consist of a wall, berm, or a combination of the two. All homes within the project will comply witr
indoor noise standards without building upgrades.
(II. a), b), c)
The proposed project may indirectly induce growth, insofar as any City's amenities influence
home buyer's decision to purchase. The project site is a vacant desert parcel. Thus, no existin(
homes will be lost or people displaced from the proposed project.
<III. a)
All development has an impact on governmental facilities and services, many of which are paid fo
by application fees, inspection fees, etc. The project will be required to participate in the City':
Impact Fee program which helps to offset regional roadway improvements. The proposed projec
is not expected to have a significant impact on municipal services or facilities.
P:\cegalistttm29623sdp2000-681.wpd -15
;IV. a), b)
The proposed project may indirectly induce growth by adding 35 new single family housing units
within the City. Recreation amenities and opportunities may influence a home buyer's decision tc
purchase. No recreation amenities are proposed for this project, however, the developer is required
to pay per the Quimby Act an in -lieu mitigation fee for park land. Payment of this fee will reduce any
cumulative adverse impacts on existing recreation amenities and assist in the provision of future
amenities.
:V. a), b)
The project site is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Miles Avenue and Dune
Palms Road. Access to the project is proposed on Verbena Drive from Miles Avenue and is
restricted to right-in/right-out traffic movements. Verbena Drive is located approximately 663.42 feel
east of Dune Palms Road. The access design was approved by the City Council for Tract 25691
in 1999. The tract is an expansion of the Wildflower project to the east by the applicant. Twc
internal streets accessed from Verbena Drive are proposed that will terminate in cul de sac bulbs,
The project will generate additional vehicular traffic for the area as a cumulative impact to loca
traffic congestion. No significant traffic impacts are anticipated from the proposed subdivision,
Mitigation for identified impacts has been incorporated into the design of the subdivision by
controlling traffic by restricting turning movements into the project from Miles Avenue.
,V. c)
The proposed project is within a two-mile radius of the Bermuda Dunes Airport. No changes tc
established air traffic patterns or levels are anticipated to result from the proposed project.
;V. d), e), f), g)
The proposed project consists of the continuation of an established residential circulation patterr
from which there are no anticipated hazards. Access into the subdivision from Miles Avenue wil
be restricted to a right-in/right-out turning movement to control for potential hazards along Milec
Avenue. No additional mitigation for traffic hazards is needed. The Fire Marshal has determinec
that there is adequate emergency access as the proposed project complies with the access
requirements of the Fire Code. The proposed width of the two internal streets will accommodatE
on -street parking to supplement off-street parking for each residential unit. Therefore, no additiona
parking is necessary. No conflicts with adopted policies for alternative transportation have beer
identified within the proposed project.
P:\cegalistttm29623sdp2000-681 .wpd -16
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF A 35 SINGLE FAMILY AND OTHER
COMMON LOT SUBDIVISION ON 10.09 GROSS
ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER
OF MILES AVENUE AND DUNE PALMS ROAD.
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29623
APPLICANT: WORLD DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did
on the 111h day of July, 2000, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for World Development
for development of a single family residential and other common lot subdivision on 10.09
acres located at the northeast corner of Miles Avenue and Dune Palms Road, more
particularly described as:
Assessor's Parcel No.: 604-072-004
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings recommending approval
of said Tentative Tract Map 29623:
Finding Number 1 - Consistency with General Plan/Zoning Code
A. The property is designated Low Density Residential (LDR). The Land Use Element
of the General Plan allows residential land uses. The project is consistent with the
goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan Land Use Element (Chapter
2) because single family low density residential lots are proposed.
B. The proposed single family lots exceed the Zoning Ordinance minimum size
requirement of 7,200 square feet. Detached single story houses will be built as
allowed under Site Development Permit 99-656.
Finding Number 3 - Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act:
A. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared by
the Community Development Department as required by the California
Environmental Quality Act statutes. The assessment concludes that the project will
not significantly affect the environment, provided Mitigation Monitoring is completed
(EA 2000-392). In this case, project mitigation includes reduction of noise levels
through construction mitigation, and site supervision during excavation to prevent
historical subsurface features from being destroyed. All public services occur at or
adjacent to the property, making it a logical extension of development in the City.
Planning Commission Resolution 2000-
Tentative Tract Map 29623, World Dev.
July 11, 2000
Finding Number 4 - Site Design:
A. The proposed design of the subdivision conforms with the development standards
found in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance in that lot dimensions and size,
street widths, etc. are in compliance with the Zoning Code Development standards.
B. The site is physically suitable for the proposed land division, as the area is relatively
flat and without physical constraints, and the design of the tract ties into existing
improvements immediately north.
Finding Number 5 - Site Improvements:
A. Stormwater retention will be provided on -site in the form of a retention basin at the
southwestern corner of the tract and at the ends of the cul-de-sac.
B. All streets within the proposed tract will become public streets. All streets will
connect to existing City streets, and will be improved to City standards.
C. Infrastructure improvements such as gas, electric, sewer and water will be extended
to service the site in underground facilities as required. No adverse impacts have
been identified based on letters of response from affected public agencies.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby certify the conclusion that Mitigated Negative Declaration
(Environmental Assessment 2000-392) for this Tentative Tract; and,
3. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of Tentative Tract Map 29623
or the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission held on this 11th day of July, 2000, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
A:\ResoPCTr29623World.wpd - 41
Planning Commission Resolution 2000-_
Tentative Tract Map 29623, World Dev.
July 11, 2000
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
A:\ResoPCTr29623World.wpd - 41
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29623
WORLD DEVELOPMENT
JULY 11, 2000
GENERAL
1. Upon conditional approval by the City Council for this development application, the
City Clerk shall prepare and record, with the Riverside County Recorder, a
memorandum noting that Conditions of Approval for development of property exist and
are available for review at City Hall.
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 approval shall expire and become null and void within two years, unless an
extension of time is granted according to the requirements of Section 13.12.150 of
the Subdivision Ordinance.
5. 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.
Cond CC Tr. 29623 World -41
Planning Commission Resolution 2000-_
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 29623
World Dev.
July 11, 2000
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.
PROPERTY RIGHTS
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Right of way dedications required of this development include:
A. PUBLIC STREETS
1) Miles Avenue - 55-'Foot (northerly) half of a 1 10-foot right of way.
2) Dune Palms Road - 44-foot half of an 88-foot right of way
3) Verbena Drive - 30-foot half of a 60-foot right of way.
4) Lots "B" and "C" - 50-foot full width right of way.
B. CULS DE SAC
1) Public or Private: Use Riverside County Standard 800 (symmetric) or 800A
(offset); Public - 45-foot radius, Private - 38.5-foot radius.
Cond CC Tr. 29623 World -41
Planning Commission Resolution 2000-_
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 29623
World Dev.
July 11, 2000
9. 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.
10. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left
turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction
plans.
1 1 . If the City Engineer determines that access rights to proposed street rights of way
shown on the tentative map are necessary prior to approval of final maps dedicating
the rights of way, the applicant shall grant the necessary rights of way within 60 days
of written request by the City.
12. The applicant shall dedicate ten -foot public utility easements contiguous with and
along both sides of all streets. The easements may be reduced to five feet with the
express concurrence of IID.
13. The applicant shall create perimeter setbacks along public rights of way as follows
(listed setback depth is the average depth if meandering wall design is approved):
A. Miles Avenue - 20 feet
B. Adams Street - 10 feet
The setback requirement applies to all frontage including, but not limited to, remainder
parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes.
Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the
applicant shall dedicate blanket easements for those purposes.
14. 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.
15. The applicant shall vacate abutter's rights of access to Miles Avenue and to Dune
Palms Road from all frontage abutting the streets except access points shown on the
approved tentative map.
Cond CC Tr. 29623 World -41
Planning Commission Resolution 2000-_
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 29623
World Dev.
July 11, 2000
16. 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.
17. If the applicant proposes vacation or abandonment of any existing rights of way or
access easements which will diminish access rights to any properties owned by others,
the applicant shall provide approved alternate rights of way or access easements to
those properties or notarized letters of consent from the property owners.
18. The applicant shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any portion of
this property between the date of approval of this tentative map by the City Council
and the date of recording of any final map(s) covering the same portion of the property
unless such easements are approved by the City Engineer.
FINAL MAP(S) AND PARCEL MAP(S)
19. Retention basin lots shall be lettered lots on the final map(s).
20. Prior to approval of a final map, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of
the complete map, as approved by the City's map checker, on storage media
acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu items
so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program.
If the map was not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted to
AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the map.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
As used throughout these conditions of approval, professional titles such as "engineer,"
"surveyor," and "architect" refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their
respective professions in the State of California.
21. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified
engineers and landscape architects, as appropriate. Plans shall be submitted on 24"
x 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading," "Precise Grading," "Streets &
Drainage," and "Landscaping." Precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for
Community Development Director and the Building Official. All other plans shall have
signature blocks for the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until
they are signed.
Cond CC Tr. 29623 World -41
Planning Commission Resolution 2000-_
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 29623
World Dev.
July 11, 2000
"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.
22. The City may maintain standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements
of construction. For a fee established by City resolution, the applicant may acquire
standard plan and/or detail sheets from the City.
23. When final plans are approved by the City, the applicant shall furnish accurate
AutoCad files of the complete, approved plans on storage media acceptable to the City
Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu items so they may be fully
retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. At the completion of construction and prior
to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall update the files to reflect as -
constructed conditions.
If the plans were not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted to
AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the plans.
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
24. 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 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 the a map, reimburse the City for the
cost of those improvements.
25. The applicant shall construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations, or furnish an
executed, secured agreement to construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations
required by the City prior to approval of a final map or parcel map or issuance of a
certificate of compliance for a waived parcel map. For secured agreements, security
provided, and the release thereof, shall conform with Chapter 13, LQMC.
Cond CC Tr. 29623 World -41
Planning Commission Resolution 2000-_
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 29623
World Dev.
July 11, 2000
Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing structures
or obstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements.
26. If improvements are secured, the applicant shall provide 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 agendized for
final acceptance until the City receives confirmation from the telephone authority that
the applicant has met all requirements for telephone service to lots within the
development.
27. 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.
28. If the applicant fails to construct improvements or satisfy obligations in a timely
manner or as specified in an approved phasing plan or in an improvement agreement,
the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits or final building
inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project or call
upon the surety to complete the improvements.
GRADING
29. This development shall comply with Chapter 8.11 of the LQMC (Flood Hazard
Regulations). If any portion of any proposed building lot in the development is or may
be located within a flood hazard area as identified on the City's Flood Insurance Rate
Maps, the development shall be graded to ensure that all floors and exterior fill (at the
foundation) are above the level of the project (100-year) flood and building pads are
compacted to 95% Proctor Density as required in Title 44 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, Section 65.5(a) (6)• Prior to issuance of building permits for lots which
Cond CC Tr. 29623 World -41
Planning Commission Resolution 2000-_
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 29623
World Dev.
July 11, 2000
are so located, the applicant shall furnish certifications as required by FEMA that the
above conditions have been met.
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. The applicant shall endeavor to minimize differences in elevation at abutting properties
and between separate tracts and lots within this development. Building pad elevations
on contiguous lots shall not differ by more than three feet except for lots within a tract
or parcel map, but not sharing common street frontage, where the differential shall not
exceed five feet.
The limits given in this condition are not an entitlement and more restrictive limits may
be imposed in the 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 neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the
grade differential.
33. 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.
34. 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.
35. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide building pad
certifications stamped and signed by qualified engineers or surveyors. For each pad,
Cond CC Tr. 29623 World -41
Planning Commission Resolution 2000-_
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 29623
World Dev.
July 11, 2000
the certification shall list the approved elevation, the actual elevation, the difference
between the two, if any, and pad compaction. The data shall be organized by lot
number and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times.
DRAINAGE
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03 and the
following:
36. Stormwater falling on site during the peak 24-hour period of a 100-year storm (the
design storm) shall be retained within the development unless otherwise approved by
the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of
adjacent public streets.
37. Stormwater shall normally be retained in common retention basins. Individual -lot
basins or other retention schemes may be approved by the City Engineer for lots 2 %2
acres in size or larger or where the use of common retention is impracticable. If
individual -lot retention is approved, the applicant shall meet the individual -lot retention
provisions of Chapter 13.24, LQMC.
38. Storm flow in excess of retention capacity shall be routed through a designated,
unimpeded overflow outlet to the historic drainage relief route.
39. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be retained on site
or passed through to the overflow outlet.
40. Retention facility design shall be based on site -specific percolation data which shall be
submitted for checking with the retention facility plans. The design percolation rate
shall not exceed two inches per hour.
41. Retention basin slopes shall not exceed 3:1. Maximum retention depth shall be six
feet for common basins and two feet for individual -lot retention.
42. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. In residential developments, nuisance water
shall be disposed of in a trickling sand filter and leachfield approved by the City
Engineer. The sand filter and leechfield shall be designed to contain surges of 3
gph/1,000 sq. ft. (of landscape area) and infiltrate 5 gpd/1,000 sq. ft.
43. In developments for which security will be provided by public safety entities (e.g., the
La Quinta Safety Department or the Riverside County Sheriff's Department), retention
Cond CC Tr. 29623 World -41
Planning Commission Resolution 2000-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 29623
World Dev.
July 11, 2000
basins shall be visible from adjacent street(s). No permanent screen walls shall be
constructed around Retention Basin #1, unless it comprises open fencing and approval
has been obtained from the Community Development Director and the City Engineer.
44. The tract shall be designed to accommodate purging and blowoff water from any well
sites granted or dedicated to the local water utility authority as a requirement for
development of this property.
UTILITIES
45. 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.
46. Existing aerial lines within or adjacent to the proposed development and all proposed
utilities shall be installed underground. Power lines exceeding 34.5 kv are exempt
from this requirement.
47. 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
48. 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) Miles Avenue (Primary Arterial) -
A. Construct 43-foot half of 86-foot improvement (travel width, excluding
curbs).
B. Construct northerly half of 9-foot wide landscaped median, including
PCC curb on north side of median and AC curb/berm on southerly side
from Dune Palms Road to east tract boundary of Tract 25691.
Improvement cost to be reimbursed by City from Development Impact
Cond CC Tr. 29623 World -41
Planning Commission Resolution 2000-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 29623
World Dev.
July 11, 2000
Fee, or alternatively improvement will be constructed by City at its
discretion at a later date.
C. Construct 6-foot sidewalk. The sidewalk shall meander within the 32-
foot Right -of -Way and setback.
D. Construct modifications to the traffic signal as necessary to
accommodate the widened street section.
2) Dune Palms Road (Secondary Arterial) -
A. Construct 32-foot half of 64-foot improvement (travel width, excluding
curbs) plus 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk.
B. ON -SITE PUBLIC STREETS
1) Verbena Drive: Construct 20-foot half of 40-foot improvement (travel width,
excluding curbs) plus 6-foot sidewalk.
2) Lots "B" and "C": Construct full width improvements (36-foot travel width,
excluding curbs) within 50-foot right of way plus 6-foot sidewalk.
3) Culs de sac per Riverside County Standard 800 (symmetric) or 800A
(offset), with 38-foot curb radius.
C. CULS DE SAC
1) Use Riverside County Standard 800 (symmetric) or 800A (offset), with 38-
foot curb radius.
Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, turn knuckles, corner cutbacks, bus
turnouts, dedicated turn lanes, and other features contained in the approved
construction plans may warrant additional street widths as determined by the City
Engineer.
49. 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.
50. The applicant may be required to extend improvements beyond development
boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements (e.g., grading;
Cond CC Tr. 29623 World -41
Planning Commission Resolution 2000-_
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 29623
World Dev.
July 11, 2000
traffic control devices and transitions in alignment, elevation or dimensions of streets
and sidewalks).
51. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC,
adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, and as approved by the
City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be
stamped and signed by qualified engineers.
52. Knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with Riverside County Standard
Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City
Engineer.
53. Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations which convey
water without ponding and provide lateral containment of dust and residue for street
sweeping. If a wedge curb design is approved, the lip at the flowline shall be vertical
(1 /8" batter) and a minimum of 0.1 ' in height. Unused curb cuts on any lot shall be
restored to normal curbing prior to final inspection of permanent building(s) on the lot.
54. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using Caltrans' design procedure
(20-year life) and site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading
(including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows (or
approved equivalents for alternate materials):
Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" 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"
55. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time of
construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The submittal
shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design procedure. For mix
designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (less than six months
old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test results confirming that design
gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not schedule
construction operations until mix designs are approved.
Cond CC Tr. 29623 World -41
Planning Commission Resolution 2000-_
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 29623
World Dev.
July 11, 2000
56. 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.
57. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following:
A. Access rights shall be prohibited from all lots abutting Dune Palms Road and from
all lots abutting Miles Avenue.
B. Miles Avenue - Main project entrance located approximately 663' east of the
Dune Palms Road centerline - Right in and out of the project only.
LANDSCAPING
58. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks, retention basins, common
lots, median islands, and park areas. Earthen mounding measuring 24 inches to 36
inches shall be installed in Arterial Street frontages as required by Section
9.60.240(3F) of the Zoning Code.
59. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention
basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect and
comply with Chapter 8.13 of the Municipal Code.
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.
60. 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.
Cond CC Tr. 29623 World -41
Planning Commission Resolution 2000-_
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 29623
World Dev.
July 11, 2000
61. Perimeter tract walls and required landscaping shall be constructed prior to final
inspection of any homes within the tract unless a phasing plan, or construction
schedule, is approved by the City Engineer.
62. Front yard landscaping for future houses shall consist of a minimum of two shade
trees (1.0-inch and larger caliper size) and 10 five gallon shrubs. Three additional
shade trees (0.75-inch caliper) shall be required for corner lots houses. All trees shall
be double staked to prevent wind damage.
63. Specimen trees on Arterial Street parkways shall be a minimum caliper size of 1.75
inches and larger measured three feet up from the ground when planted.
64. Dune Palms Road landscaping shall be upgraded to include Palm tree clusters (Mexican
Fan Palms) and rock boulders (3' to 4' diameter) to match the proposed Sonrisa
development landscaping for Tract 25963.
65. Palm trees placed within Arterial Street parkways shall vary in height from 8 feet to
14 feet and include skinned trunks.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
66. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the
approval of the City Engineer.
67. 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.
68. The applicant shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing
procedures not included in the City's inspection program but required by the City as
evidence that construction materials and methods comply with plans, specifications
and applicable regulations.
69. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible
record drawings of all public improvement plans which were signed by the City. Each
sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" and
shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of
the drawings. The applicant shall revise the CAD or raster -image files previously
submitted to the City to reflect as -constructed conditions.
Cond CC Tr. 29623 World -41
Planning Commission Resolution 2000-_
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 29623
World Dev.
July 11, 2000
MAINTENANCE
70. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all on -
site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. The applicant
shall maintain required public improvements until expressly released from this
responsibility by the appropriate public agency.
FEES AND DEPOSITS
71. 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.
72. 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.
73. Plan check fees required by the Riverside County Fire Department shall be paid when
plans are submitted for review and approval.
74. Prior to final map approval, parkland mitigation fees shall be paid as required by the
City's Subdivision Ordinance.
75. Prior to issuance of a site disturbance permit, Fringe -toed lizard mitigation fees shall
be paid (i.e., $100/acre).
FIRE DEPARTMENT
76. Fire hydrants in accordance with Coachella Valley Water District 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.
77. Prior to recordation of the final map, applicant/developer shall furnish one blueline copy
of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review/approval. Plans shall
conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system will meet the
fire flow requirements. Plans will be signed and approved by the registered Civil
Engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "/ certify that
Cond CC Tr. 29623 World -41
Planning Commission Resolution 2000-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 29623
World Dev.
July 11, 2000
the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by
the Riverside County Fire Department."
78. A temporary water supply for fire protection may be allowed for the construction of
the model units only. Plans for a temporary water system must be submitted to the
Fire Department for review prior to issuance of building permits.
79. The required water system including fire hydrants will be installed and accepted by the
appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on
an individual lot.
MISCELLANEOUS
80. All public agency letters received for this case are made part of the case file
documents for plan checking purposes.
81. Perimeter Tract improvements consisting of landscape and screen wall improvements
shall be consistent in style, design and material to Tract 25691 (Wildflower).
Cond CC Tr. 29623 World -41
ATTACHMENTS
CURVE TABLE
RADIUS
LENGTH
TANGENT
DELTA
103.00'
29.32'
14.76'
167841 "
45.00'
166.99'
153.77'
212J722*
K
1OJ00'
29.32'
14.76'
167841'
4500'
3L50'
1643'
40t7647"
45.-O
36 00'
19.03'
4550'08'45.00'
31.53'
1644"
4008'31"
C7
45.00'
33.98'
17.85
4375 58"
C8
45.00'
33.24'
1742'
4179'06"
79
45.00'
1 32.25'
16.85'
41 D3'J7"
C10
45.00'
31.07'
16.18'
39:U22"
Cil
45.00'
34.53'
18.17'
435870"
C12
IOJ 00'
20.18'
10.12'
117334'
C13
103.00'
9.14'
4.57'
05*05'07"
IN THE CITY OF LA QL
TEN TA T/ VIE' T1
LINE TABLE
LINEW244.
DISTANCE
L1
W
32.58'
12
W
8.47'
Ti-
'W
22.59'
L4
"W
4.00'
L5
4.00'
L6
'W
4.00'L7
E
29.59'
L8
N47*00'25 E
4.33'
L9
N47VO25E
3392'
00
N407227W
13.47'
L 11
N3974'13"E
23 40'
L12
N4072'27W
23.47'
L 1.i
N3974'13°E
23.40'
L 14
1 N457247W
1.51'
L 15
N2775'41 E
10.00'
L16
N6731'38'W
31.99'
117
N6 WNT
3209'
L 18
N267853"E
20.00'
L19
N2678'S1'W
20.00'
L20
N27V4'02 E
20.00'
BEING A SUBDII/ISII
QUARTER OF THE NOh
McGEE SURVEYINI
GRAPHIC SCALE
0
(wrKm)
1 Inch - 60 'L
-------------
ACT-�-------
JS r \J\lrR) fRAC
�. nm - m �me: (CAC
ago
m nw aan ni I
vert me
aaa a•
LOT A
EX. RET.
BASIN
PROP STORM OR
-a7 ,
PROP
C.B.
883.44' _
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
June 15, 2000
3. Commissioner Irwin commented she was 100% in favor of continuing the
monitoring during tre 'ng but other than that the report was acceptable.
4. There being furthe ion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissi rs Mitchel Twin to adopt Minute Motion 2000-014 accepting
the Phas Cultural Assessment of 5.65 Acre Site.
Unanimously approved.
Phase I Cultural Assessment for Tract 29623; located at the northeast corner of Dune
Palms Road and Miles Avenue. Applicant: World Development - Archaeological
Consultant: Archaeological Associates (Robert & Laurie White).
1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the staff report, a copy of which is on
file in the Community Development Department.
2. Commissioner Mitchell asked if they recommended monitoring of the
grading. Planning Manager di Iorio answered the information was in the
third paragraph under the Management Summary. She commented on the
projects that had been worked on near the site and nothing had been
recovered, including the project to the east, which had been trenched and was
also negative. As a result, the Archaeologists concluded monitoring deep
trenching was not warranted.
3. Commissioner Irwin was concerned because one of the reasons cited for not
monitoring was the cost involved which she felt should not be a reason for
discontinuing the monitoring. She contended it was very important to
continue the monitoring during trenching, since artifacts had been found on
the property at Dune Palms Road and Highway I I I with deep trenching.
4. Planning Manager di Iorio stated a condition could be added requiring the
trenching to be monitored.
5. Commissioner Puente agreed with Commissioner Irwin and asked if it could
be a policy that deep trenching be required on all sites so no archaeological
remains would be lost.
6. Chairman Wright agreed that a condition to require monitored trenching be
added and stated it may not be prudent to make any exceptions after the
Commission has worked so hard to have monitoring of trenching done
previously.
7. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Irwin/Puente to adopt Minute Motion 2000-015 accepting the
Phase I Cultural Assessment for Tract 29623 with addition of a condition to
monitor during trenching. Unanimously approved.
P:\CARO1,YN\HPC6-15-OO.wpd -2-
T4ht 4 4 Q"
MEMORANDUM
TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: DULY 11, 2000
RE: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29623
This Department requests the following condition changes for this map application:
Add Condition No. 82 - Street names for the tract shall be Verbena Drive, Morning Glory Court
(Street "C"), and Dandelion Drive (Street `B").
Modify Condition No. 61 as follows - "Perimeter tract walls and required parkway landscaping
on Miles Avenue and Dune Palms Road shall be constructed prior to final inspection of any homes
within the tract unless a phasing plan, or construction schedule, is approved by the City Engineer."
MemoPC 7-11 - 42