Loading...
1997 11 12 PC/ .•--ram. , oe OF (1i� PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA An Regular Adjourned Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California November 12, 1997 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING Beginning Resolution 97-071 Beginning Minute Motion 97-014 I. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call II. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of the October 28, 1997 Minutes B. Department Report PC/AGENDA V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Item ................. CONTINUED - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 97-344 SPECIFIC PLAN 97-030 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-612 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-035 Applicant .......... Thomas Bienek Location ........... Northeast corner of Adams Street and 48`h Avenue Request ............ Recommendation for Certification of a Mitigated Negativ Declaration of Environmental Impact, approval of a Specific Pla for development guidelines of a 21 acre site, Site Developmer Permit to allow construction of a 12,546 square foot two-stor building with an 80-tee golf driving range, and approval of Conditional Use Permit for lighting of the driving range. Action ............. Resolutions 97- , 97- , 97- , and 97- B. Item ................ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 97-346 AND TENTATIVI TRACT MAP 25953 Applicant .......... Oliphant and Williams Associates, Inc. Location ........... Northwest corner of Miles Avenue and Dune Palms Road Request ............ Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environments Impact for Environmental Assessment 97-346; approval of revision and third one year time extension for an approve subdivision map of 38.4 acres into 132 single family and othe common lots; and approval of prototype houses which range in sit from approximately 1,724 to over 2,200 square feet. Action ............. Resolution 97- and Resolution 97- VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS A. Discussion regarding the landscaping at Home Depot. B. Status of the used car lot on Highway 111. C. Discussion regarding correspondence with Riverside County regarding a cooperati1% agreement dealing with sign proliferation. D. Discussion of the art piece at the corner of Washington and Highway 111. IX. ADJOURNMENT PC/AGENDA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A Regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California October 28, 1997 I. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Butler who lead the flag salute. B. Chairman Butler requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Gardner, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Butler. C. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Woodard to excuse Commissioner Abels. Unanimously approved. D. Staff Present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planners Stan Sawa, Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: A. Staff requested that Item B. under the Business Items be moved to Item A. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Seaton to accept the agenda as modified. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Chairman Butler asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of October 14, 1997. Commissioner Seaton asked that the minutes be amended on Page 3, Item 11 to correct the spelling of "liquefaction"; Page 18, Item 57, to correct the spelling of "driving range" and "perpetuity". Commissioner Kirk asked that Page 15, Item 40 to correct the word "rectangle"; Page 21, Item 71 be amended to show that the PC 10-28-97 Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1997 sentence "Why are the poles needed to show where the ball is traveling?" was made by Commissioner Woodard, and the next sentence should read, "And noted lower lights that would light the levels, would be sufficient."; Page 22, Item 73 the word "Ordinance" should be added after "Dark Sky"; Page 23, Item 77 change the wording to "photometric analysis". Commissioner Gardner asked that Page 3, Item 6 be amended to read, "...which is 640 acres", Item 7 correct the spelling of "Bechtel", Item 8, correct it to say, "...but the ultimate authority", Item 10 be corrected to state, "...size of the original lots were."; Page 8, Item 7 should be changed to read "...what the height limit ...". There being no other changes, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Seaton to approve the minutes as amended. Unanimously approved. B. Chairman Butler asked if there was a Department Report. None. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. CONTINUED - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 97-344. SPECIFIC PLAN 97- 030, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-612, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-035; a request of Thomas Bienek for certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, approval of specific plan guidelines and standards, approval of a site development permit application to allow construction of a 12,546 square foot two story building with 80 tees for a golf driving range, and a 1,000 square foot maintenance building, and approval of a conditional us permit for a lighted golf range, at the northeast corner of Adams Street and 48' Avenue. 1. Chairman Butler informed the Commission that a request had been received from the applicant to continue this item to the next Commission meeting. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Gardner to continue this item to November 12, 1997. Unanimously approved. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Site Development Permit 96-590; a request of Lapis Energy Organization, Inc. for approval of final landscaping plans for the southeast corner of Dune Palms Road and Highway 111. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. PC I 0-28-97 2 Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1997 2. Chairman Butler asked why the pedestrian walkway has been redesigned. It appears to come to a dead end and then continues. Staff stated the only area that was changed was where cars would be backing out into the walkway as exhibited on the lower left corner and upper central right area of the exhibit. It was the intent of the applicant to try and keep the walkway in the internal landscape planter areas. Chairman Butler stated they were turning the pedestrians loose in the parking lot. You don't want customers walking behind the cars, but they appear to be directed off to nowhere. Is it a sidewalk? Staff stated the applicant indicated it would be a sidewalk. The intent was to get people to the restaurant, or other uses, from the auto repair section without having to walk through the parking lot. 3. Commissioner Woodard stated he was amazed to think people would follow the walkway. It is a financial burden on the applicant as it has no rhyme or reason. Staff stated the purpose is to provide an alternate pathway for pedestrians. Commissioner Woodard stated he was opposed to the walkway as designed. He asked if the plant material as shown on the tree shading plan was to represent how it would look if planted today, or in the future. Staff stated it represents a 15 year growth. Commissioner Woodard asked if the shading was to protect the cars from the sun. Staff stated yes as well as the sidewalk. Commissioner Woodard questioned that if it's purpose is to provide shading for the cars, then 15 years from now the cars will never be shaded. Discussion followed among the Commissioners as to what area would be shaded. 4. Commissioner Tyler noted that the changes reflected on the plan were made to meet the Zoning Code requirements. Commissioner Woodard stated that even though they meet the Zoning Code, the Commission should not approve it if it does not make any sense. Commissioner Tyler suggested he bring this up during the Zoning Code revisions. 5. Commissioner Woodard questioned where the cross sectional views were. Staff explained where they were on the landscaping plans. Commissioner Woodard asked why the berming was not being required on Highway I I I or Dune Palms Road. Chairman Butler stated that the project had been approved prior to the Highway I I I Guidelines being adopted. Staff stated some of Commissioner Woodard's concerns were contained in the conditions for the project. PC 10-28-97 3 Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1997 6. Commissioner Woodard stated he understood this was the case for Highway I 1 1, but he did not believe this was true for Dune Palms Road. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated the proposed storage facility on Dune Palms Road which was to have berming, is a different situation as it will be changing. The applicant may accommodate the Commission's request to take the retention basin out and proposes to place it near the south property line on Dune Palms Road, for the storage area parcel only. Discussion :followed regarding the location of the retention basins. 7. Commissioner Woodard stated that in the modification to the cross section of Dune Palms Road, the depressed area remains; why are they not required to meet the landscaping requirements for Dune Palms Road? Staff stated they were not required to do so according to the Zoning Code. The Zoning Code is being updated to require this in the future. 8. Commissioner Woodard asked if the applicant was required to have building undulation for the wall along Dune Palms Road as it was not shown on the landscaping plans for the storage facility area. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit stated it originally did, but a second party had bought the parcel and they would be submitting a new plan. Commissioner Woodard stated he would like to have the proposed storage facility omitted from the approval and not be approved as a part of this landscape plan. 9. Commissioner Woodard asked staff to confirm that the reason the applicant was not being required to plant eight feet of landscaping on Highway 111 was because their project was approved prior to the Highway 111 Guidelines. Staff stated that was true. 10. Commissioner Tyler asked staff to clarify who the new owners were for Parcel III and how this change in ownership would affect this approval. Staff stated the new owner wants to increase the storage area to 93,000 square feet, change some of the wall staggering, and reduce the landscaping for the internal portion. They will be submitting an amendment to the specific plan along with a site development permit. 11. Chairman Butler clarified that the Commission was only reviewing the landscaping plans for Parcels I, II, and IV. Staff clarified that was true, but the applicant was showing the entire area as they were responsible for the entire length of Dune Palms Road. PC 10-28-9 7 4 Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1997 12. Mr. Dale Leopard, 78-223 Scarlett Court, La Quinta, representing Lapis Energy Organization, asked if there were any questions he could answer. Commissioner Woodard asked if Mr. Leopard had been working with staff on the walkway plan. Mr. Leopard stated he and his landscape architect had been working with staff on the plans for several weeks. He introduced the landscape architect, Mr. Ron Gregory, 74-020 Alessandro Drive, Palm Desert. 13. Commissioner Woodard asked Mr. Gregory to explain the sidewalk plan. Mr. Gregory stated he had not been involved with the revised sidewalk plan. Mr. John Gabbard, of Lapis Energy, stated he had met with staff regarding the circulation pattern and this was the result. Discussion followed regarding the pedestrian circulation plan. 14. Commissioner Kirk asked Mr. Ron Gregory about the dwarf oleander shown on the planting plan. He asked if they had the same problem, or disease, as other oleanders. Mr. Gregory stated he had been told that the dwarfs are starting to be afflicted, but he has not had a problem to date. Commissioner Kirk asked if he had any idea what percentage of the dwarf could be affected. Mr. Gregory stated he no idea. He would be willing to substitute a different shrub, in the event they became a problem. Commissioner Kirk suggested the shrubs be mixed with other plant material in the event that something would occur. 15. Commissioner Tyler stated he would like to commend the applicant for trying to embrace the objectives of the Highway 111 Guidelines even though the Guidelines had been approved after their project had been approved. 16. Commissioner Kirk stated he supported the project with the change in the plant materials. He would defer to Commissioner Woodard on the pedestrian walkway plan. He asked if the applicant had any problem with the revised pedestrian plan. Mr. Gabbard stated he had no concerns, they will accommodate whatever the City requires. 17. Commissioner Gardner stated he had no information on the blight of the oleander, but they obviously were susceptible to some diseases. He commended the applicant on his willingness to mix the plant materials. PC 10-28-97 5 Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1997 18. Commissioner Woodard asked staff to clarify that the landscaping plan for Dune Palms Road, next to the storage faclity, would come back to the Commission for approval. Staff stated that if it was the Commission's desire to have it come back as part of the storage submittal, then staff will condition this project tc do so. If the Commission approves this plan, staff would require the applicant to use the same designs as shown even if the buildings were staggered. The applicant would have to incorporate this landscaping plan into their design. Commissioner Woodard asked if the landscaping plan along the storage area, when it is resubmitted, will have to confonn to the new landscaping requirements. Staff stated it would depend on the zoning amendments that are in affect and when the project is submitted. Commissioner Woodard asked that the landscaping along Dune Palms Road, in front of the storage area, be deleted from this approval and be brought back with the submittal for the storage facility parcel. 19. Commissioner Woodard asked staff to clarify the two walkways. He would like to have it redesigned to make more sense and suggested the east pathway leg be eliminated with the other leg kept. 20. Commissioner Seaton stated she would like to have the pedestrian walkway redesigned. 21. Commissioner Tyler stated his concern was that they were approving something that the applicant had not seen prior to tonight. He would like to continue the pedestrian pathway. 22. Commissioner Kirk stated he was willing to recommend approval with staff s recommendation, with the exclusion of Parcel 3, and the elimination of the eastern leg of the walkway. Commissioner Woodard seconded the motion. 23. Commissioner Tyler asked Commissioner Kirk to identify portion of the plan was the eastern portion of the walkway. He took exception with having to approve something that is difficult to decipher. Discussion followed regarding the pedestrian walkway. 24. Staff asked Commissioner Kirk if his motion included the reduction and substitution of the oleanders. Maker of the motion and second agreed that it did. PC 10-28-97 6 Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1997 25. Chairman Butler asked for clarification that the landscaping plans for Parcel 3 would come back to the Commission at a later date. Staff stated that was true. Chairman Butler asked if the grading of Dune Palms Road would be inhibited by not approving Parcel III at this time. Staff stated it would be all right. 26. The motion passed with Commissioners Seaton and Tyler voting no and. Commissioner Abels being absent. B. Preliminary Review of Proposed Zoning Code Amendments. 1. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Butler asked if there was any public comment. 3. Mr. Saleem Cobtee, 46-201 Washington Street, informed the Commission that he was trying to apply for a temporary use permit for a temporary produce stand. In reviewing the regulations with staff it was suggested he ask the Commission to extend the time limit to six months to coincide with the growing season. 4. Mr. John Craig, 29706 Avenida De Real, Sun City, also wanted to address regulations on temporary produce stands which currently limits the products sold to only Coachella Valley grown produce. He had sent a letter to each of the Commissioners offering alternatives to the regulations that would better accommodate some produce growers and sellers. 5. Chairman Butler asked staff for direction on how these items were to be discussed. Staff stated it would be best to discuss them as they go through each item. 6. Chairman Butler asked staff to explain what was meant by "Coachella Valley grown". Discussion followed as to the definition of "Coachella Valley grown". PC 10-28-9 7 7 Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1997 7. Commissioner Woodard asked staff to explain the intent of this ordinance. Is it to limit the competition. If so, can the City do this? City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated it was her concern that this may not be possible. What staff is trying to do is get an understanding from the Commission before making any changes. Commissioner Woodard asked for staff s recommendation. Staff stated they were looking to the Commission for direction. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell asked if the Commission was even concerned with the limitation or should staff even consider this. 8. Chairman Butler stated he had no concern, unless the City had specific complaints from local growers. Anyone has the right to sell anywhere in the Valley. His concern would be with the time limitation. The City would not want a temporary building on a piece of property for six months. 9. Commissioner Woodard asked if there would be a structure. Staff stated it is a structure that could be along the side of the road, or in a shopping center. An applicant would apply to the City for a temporary use permit that would be approved administratively once staff reviewed the plan. A criteria could be added to allow staff to make a design review as well. 10. Commissioner Tyler stated the local markets bring produce in from all over the world and yet we are restricting local buyers. Staff stated the produce and flowers sold on the streets was to be restricted to the produce gown by the property owner. 11. Commissioner Gardner stated he could not see a vegetable stand along Highway 111. It would not compliment the viewscape along Highway 111 or Jefferson Street. If it is to be unsightly, he would not be in favor of approving it. 12. Commissioner Woodard suggested having an approval for three months and then require the applicant to come back for review. Commissioner Gardner stated he would have no objection if it was not on Highway 111. 13. Commissioner Kirk stated he too shared some of the concerns regarding this as a zoning issue. He would suggest staff clarify some of the issues by taking a look at design, duration, and location. Define the issue and give the Commission some of the options. He also suggested talking with neighboring jurisdictions to see how they have approached the issue. PC 10-28-97 8 Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1997 14. Commissioner Tyler asked Mr. Craig if his stand had been located on Washington Street in front of a doctor's office. Mr. Craig stated it was. Commissioner Tyler stated his stand had been set back off Washington Street and was attractive. 15. Chairman Butler asked staff to come back with some suggestions. He also asked staff to look into whether or not the competition with local markets was any kind of an issue. 16. Commissioner Woodard asked that a design plan be submitted along with a site plan and time limit. 17. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions concerning the proposed changes to the RVL zoning, increasing the minimum residence size from 1,400 to 2,000 square feet. No questions or issues were raised. 18. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions or issues with the RC Cove Residential District. Commissioner Woodard stated it should be clarified what grade the wall was to be measured from. He did not believe this would work for a wall enclosing a swimming pool. Staff stated they would re -write the section to make it clear. Commissioner Woodard suggested a diagram be included as well. 19. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions or issues with the location of swimming pool filters and/or heating equipment. Staff stated this section would reference the Code section which defines screening. Commissioner Tyler asked for clarification as to why staff was recommending a "0" clearance from the building wall. Staff explained this was due to the pools that go from the outside the house to the inside. Commissioner Tyler stated he would prefer having this type of situation approved as an exception, not just a blanket approval. Discussion followed regarding situations where this could occur. 20. Commissioner Woodard asked staff to come back with more clarity of thought regarding this issue. Chairman Butler agreed. 21. Commissioner Tyler stated he found the landscaping planting around the equipment screening to be inadequate and would like to have landscape screening deleted. Why was staff recommending moving it from the sideyard. Staff stated it was to remove it from the bedroom areas and due to PC 10-28-97 9 Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1997 the lack of area to put it in and maintain three feet of side setback area as well. Commissioner Tyler stated he would like to have a restriction added to prohibit air conditioners in the sideyard. 22. Chairman Butler asked if there were any issues or questions concerning employee housing. There were no issues or questions. 23. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions or issues with compatibility review. Commissioner Woodard asked why custom home subdivisions were not subject to the same criteria as a tract subdivision. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that when a person buys in a custom subdivision, there is an assumption that there are no CC'Rs that must be followed. 24. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions concerning the screening of parking areas. Commissioner Woodard asked that the wording be changed to deal with 20-feet or less, as well Staff stated they would reword this section to specify that the requirement is for 20-feet or less and will specify walls or landscaping. Commissioner Woodard suggested it also stipulate that the landscaping be fully grown when planted. Staff stated they have to require landscaping with an anticipated growth period of time. Commissioner Tyler questioned how this could apply to a piece of property with an upward slope. 25. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions concerning the use of landscape setback for water retention. Chairman Butler asked staff for clarification. Is it the intent of staff to do away with the retention of water on the street side of a project. Staff stated the intent was to have the water retention on site. The desire is to have berming and landscaping on the streetside and you can't have this if there is a retention basin. Chairman Butler asked if this was for residential as well as commercial. Staff stated it was intended for commercial. 26. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions concerning visibility at intersections. Commissioner Tyler stated it needs to be clarified as to what the requirements are. As written it is difficult to understand. Staff stated they would add an illustration. PC 10-28-97 10 Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1997 27. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions concerning tree size specifications. Commissioners expressed their desire to have 24-inch boxes required. 28. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions concerning additional architectural standards for residential development. Chairman Butler asked what the time frame was to bring back recommendations. Commissioner Woodard volunteered to work with staff. 29. Chairman Butler opened discussion on the requests submitted by the Building Industry Association. 30. Mr. Marvin Roos, BIA Chairman of the Legislative Affairs Committee, stated a letter had been written to the Commission regarding their issues. There major concern was the requirement for a three car garage. It is their opinion that this should be market driven. As written it has created hardships and is unworkable in certain aspects. The rationale is that it is not a definitive need to have bedrooms associated with parking. The standard in most communities within the Coachella Valley and outside, is a two car garage. La Quinta has not proven, nor provided, any studies that indicates that there is an association between the number of bedrooms and the amount of parking needed. Regarding the gates, the primary issue is the RV parking and an ordinance specific to this problem has been adopted. Equipment that is needed to build pools, etc., need a five foot wide gate to gain access. Discussion followed regarding the reasons for having the five foot gate. 31. Mr. Dennis Cunningham, BIA member, local builder, and citizen of La Quinta, stated the five foot wide gate does allow bobcats to get through. Even though a lot of homes are built without pools, a large majority are added later by the property owner. He went on to give a history on how this problem came to be. In regard to three car garages, there is no data to support the need for this requirement. Chairman Butler questioned that there is no data to say that the BIA's point is right either. Discussion followed regarding the pros and cons of three car garages. 32. Commissioner Kirk stated that from a point of aesthetics, three car garages is not a good idea. Three car garages in a line on a street is not attractive. He would rather see doors, windows, and articulation on the streetscape. Designing communities around the automobile instead of design, is not to the advantage of La Quinta. Discussion followed regarding the three car garages. PC 10-28-97 I I Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1997 33. Mr. Ed Kibbey stated he was at this meeting to plead fairness. In most areas of the City the builders are not required to build a three car garage. It is unfair to have this requirement placed only on the those who build in the northern portion of La Quinta. It is unfair to financially burden these builders and prospective property owners. If this is to be required, it should also be required for the Cove area. 34. Commissioner Gardner stated it was the job of the Commission to look at the problem from an aesthetics point of view, not the economics concerns. 35. Commissioner Tyler stated the reason three car garages were not required in the Cove was because the size of the lots would not allow it. Regardless of how the City came to this conclusion, it is his conviction that bedrooms beget cars. 36. Commissioner Seaton stated that where she lives they all have three car garages and she is glad they do because of the number of children playing in the neighborhood. 37. Chairman Butler read a letter from Mr. J. Art Valdez regarding a request to revise the encroachment area into the front yard. Staff explained that Mr. Valdez had applied for an encroachment into his frontyard to build a porch. Chairman Butler would like to see this visually. Following discussion, it was the consensus of the Commissioners that they would not want the change. 38. Mr. Dennis Cunningham stated another issue that is creating a difficulty is the irregular lot. In a cul-de-sac you can have a knuckle lot that creates a triangular back yard. In trying to configure a way to place the house on the lot to meet the City's requirements, a problem has been created. He requests the Commission address this issue. Commissioner Woodard stated he agreed with his suggestion and would work with staff to prepare a solution for the Commission. 38. Mr. Cunningham stated his last issue was the measuring of the front setback from the architectural popout. Commissioner Woodard stated they usually are from the bulk of the house. Staff would address the issue. PC I 0-28-97 12 Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1997 VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VIII. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS: A. Discussion regarding the landscaping at Home Depot. B. Commissioner Woodard asked that the following items be added to the next agenda for discussion: 1. Status of the used car lot. Staff stated they had met with Mr. Suitt, the property owner, at the site and discussed what needed to be taken care of. Mr. Suitt stated he would see that it is taken care of within a week. If it is not resolved, staff will take steps to revoke the permit. 2. Correspondence with Riverside County regarding a cooperative agreement for the control of signs. 3. Discussion regarding the art piece at the corner of Washington Street and Highway 111. C. Commissioner Tyler gave a report of the City Council meeting of October 7, 1997. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Seaton to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to an adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on November 12, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:24 p.m. on October 28, 1997. PC ] 0-28-97 13 P #A STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: NOVEMBER 12, 1997 CASE: NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 97-344 SPECIFIC PLAN 97-030 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-612 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-035 REQUEST: 1. RECOMMEND CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED • NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; 2. RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN, GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS; 3. RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF 12,546 SQUARE FOOT TWO-STORY BUILDING WITH 80 TEES FOR A GOLF DRIVING RANGE 4. RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A LIGHTED GOLF RANGE LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF ADAMS STREET AND 48Ttl AVENUE APPLICANT: THOMAS BIENEK REPRESENTATIVE: LRS ARCHITECTS PROPERTY OWNER: CITY OF LA QUINTA ZONING: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (CR) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: MIXED REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (M/RC) SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USE: NORTH: PROPOSED AUTO MALL (THE CENTRE AT LA QUINTA) SOUTH: RANCHO LA QUINTA (RESIDENTIAL HOMES AND GOLF COURSE COMMUNITY) EAST: LAKE LA QUINTA (RESIDENTIAL HOMES) WEST: VACANT/ MIXED REGIONAL COMMERCIAL BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: Property Description The project is located at the northeast corner of Adams and 48th Avenue on a portion A.P.N. 649- 003-032, comprising 21.4 acres of land. The property is vacant and not currently serviced with gas, water, or electricity. Adjacent property directly east is vacant; to the west is Lake La Quinta, a single family residential community. To the south of the property is Rancho La Quinta, a single family residential and golf course community, and north of the property is the future auto mall "The Centre at La Quinta. Applications under consideration SPECIFIC PLAN 97-030 The request is for approval of "The Pairings at La Quinta" a Specific Plan establishing guidelines and standards for a Two Phase development on 21.4 acres. Phase I consists of a two-story 12,546 square foot building with eighty (80) golf tees and a lighted driving range approximately 200 yards wide and ?300 yards long, a professional golf shop, retail outlets, and restaurant; a 1,000 square foot maintenance building; and an 18 hole putting green area for a golf school/training on 17.9 acres. Phase II future development designates a 60,000 square foot retail building not to exceed 28 feet in height with 240 parking spages on 3.5 acres of land with access from Adams Street; this is lower than the maximum allowable square footage under the current Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance allows a .35 Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) in the CR district; development in the Specific Plan totals a F.A.R. of .08. 2_) SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-612 and, 3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-035 The development request is for approval of a Site Development Permit application to allow construction of a two-story 12,546 square foot building 35 feet in height with eighty (80) tees, a professional golf shop, retail outlets, and restaurant, and a 1,000 square foot maintenance building on 17.9 acres. General Plan Land Use designations allow for the proposed use and development intensity. A Lighted Driving Range is a permitted use in the Regional Commercial District with a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed use has the potential for adverse impacts on surrounding properties, residents, or businesses. Conditions are placed on the establishment and operation to mitigate or eliminate such impacts. SUMMARY OF NEW INFORMATION: This project was continued from the October 14, 1997 and October 28, 1997 Planning Commission meetings to allow the applicant an opportunity to review the lighting options, to prepare line of site information in regards to the lighting, poles, and netting , and to address other concerns raised. The Planning Commission, at the October 14`h meeting, reviewed the application and took public comment (minutes attached). The major issues are as follows: 1) lighting, 2) landscaping, 3) drainage, 4) the height of the Phase II building, and 5) noise. 1) Lighting: The revised lighting plan has eliminated the lighting fixtures mounted on four 100 foot high steel poles located in front of the "Commons Building" that provided north facing light to the tee area for the driving range. The revised lighting plan for lighting to the tee area of the driving range incorporates lighting fixtures (in five locations) into the facia of the roof overhang as shown on Exhibits 21 A and 21 B. The fixtures are mounted at 22 feet at the roof overhang and recessed approximately three feet. Two fixtures have three 1000 watt metal halide lights and three fixtures have three 1000 watt metal halide lights. The revised lighting plan also eliminates one lighting fixture (there were previously three) from each of the netting towers; uses two fixtures on twelve towers (six on each side of the range) mounted at 100 feet and one towers on each side of the range with one fixture mounted at 80 feet. All lighting is contained on -site and complies with the Outdoor Lighting (Dark Sky) Ordinance. 2) Landscaping: The revised landscaping plan identifies box sizes of all planting material and caliper sizes (1.5" -3.5") of all trees, adds a three foot mounding in the landscape easements along 48`' Avenue and Adams Street. 3) Drainage: The Specific Plan also provides drainage easement assurance for the Phase II development. 4) Height of Phase II building: The revised Specific Plan identifies the Phase II commercial/office building height at 28 feet; and provides graphic representations of the line -of -site from the adjacent development. 5) Noise: 'The revised Specific Plan reviews noise impacts from the proposed project based on City standards and codes and concludes that it is below the required maximum permissible levels. COMMENTS FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES: The project was sent to Ciiy Departments and affected public agencies on August 19, 1997, requesting comments to be returned by September 11, 1997. All applicable comments are incorporated in the Conditions of Approval. PUBLIC ]NOTICE: This case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper and posted on September 23,1997. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice. ANAIXSIIS AND ISSUES: The revised Specific Plan and Site Development Permit application as conditioned are consistent with the General Plan and comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. No modifications to the Zoning Code as allowed by a Specific Plan have been requested. Attached are letters received from adjacent neighborhoods concerning this proposal. The Community Development Department recommends approval of the project based on the attached resolutions and recommended Conditions of Approval. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97- , recommending certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (EA 97-344) according to the findings set forth in the attached Resolution. 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97- , recommending approval of The Pairings at La Quinta Specific Plan 97-030. 3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97- recommending approval of Site Development Permit 97-612 to allow construction of a lighted golf range with 12,546 square foot building and a 1,000 square foot maintenance building at the northeast corner of Adams Street and 48' Avenue. 4. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97- , recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit 97-035. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. The; Pairings at La Quinta Specific Plan 97-030 3. Excerpts from the October 14, 1997 Planning Commission Public Hearing Minutes 4. Letters Prepared by: Fred Baker, Principal Planner Submitted by: C4 Christine di Iorio, Planning Manager PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 97-030, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-612, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-035 CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-344 APPLICANT: THOMAS BIENEK WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 14th day of October, 1997, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing and continued said Public Hearing to the 281h day of October and 121h day of November, 1997 to consider the environmental impacts of the request of Thomas Bienek for approval of Specific Plan 97-030, Site Development Permit 97-612, and Conditional Use Permit 97-035 to allow construction of a two story 12,546 square foot commercial building and a 1,000 square foot maintenance building on a 21.4 acre site, generally at the northeast corner of Adams Street and 48th Avenue, more particularly described as: WEST HALF OF SECTION 29 TOWNSHIPS 5 SOUTH AND 7, EAST S.B.B.M. WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended, Resolution 83-63, in that the Community Development Director has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 97-344) and has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case, because appropriate mitigation measures were made a part of the Conditions of Approval,, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact will be filed; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make findings to justify recommendation for certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1. An Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (hereinafter "CEQA"), as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000, et. seq.). PApc Res HA 97-344.wpd � �s Planning Commission Resolution 97- 2. The City shall balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable adverse environmental impacts prior to project approval; which means that the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. 3. Prior to action on the Project and the Entitlement Approvals, the Planning Commission for the City of La Quinta considered all significant adverse environmental impacts and mitigation measures, and has found that all potentially significant adverse environmental impacts which may be caused by the Project and impVementation of the Entitlement Approvals have been lessened or avoided to the extent feasible. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission for the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby recommend certify Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Assessment 97-344 for Specific Plan, Site Development Permit 97-612 and Conditional Use Permit 97-035 subject to the Mitigation Monitoring Plain and the project entitlement Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 12th day of November, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICH BUTLER, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California PApc Res EA 97-344.wpd Gt r, PAGES 7 - 9 WERE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Environmental Assessment No. 97-344 Case No.:SP 97-030 Date: SeVtember 24, 1997 SDP 97-612 CUP 97-344 I. Name of Proponent: Thomas Bienek / City of La (uinta Address: 80-84C Vista Bonita Trail Phone: 760-342-1858 Agency Requiring Checklist: City of La Quinta Project Name (if applicable): The Pairings CITY OF LA QUINTA Community Development Department 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 II. 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" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. X Land Ilse and ??aiming Population and Housing Earth Resources Water Air Quality Transportation/Circulation X Biological Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Risk of Upset and Human Health Noise Mandatory Findings oC Significance III. DETERMINATION. On the basis of this initial evaluation: X Public Services I ltihties X Aesthetics X Cultural Resources Recreation I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NTEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least, 1) one effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potential significant unless mitigated". AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. Signature Date_Sgptember 24. 1997 Printed Name and Title_Leslie Mouriquand Associate Planner For: Qy of La Quinta. Community Development Department X 11AEnv Ck:lst 97-344 -l1- U Potentially Potentially Significant LeSc Than Significant 11ilec Significant No - Impact %litigated Impact Impact 3.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a)Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? X b)Conflict with applicable environmental plans or X policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c)Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. X impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? d)Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an X established community (including a low-income or minority community)? 3.2 POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a)Cumulatively exceed official regional or local X population projections'? b)Induce substantial growth in an area either directly X or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension or major infrastructure)? c)Displace existing housing, especially atYordable X housing? 3.3 EARTH AND GEOLOGY. Would the project remelt irr or expote people to polenticil impucl-v involvitig: a)Fauit rupture'? X b)Seismic ground shaking X c)Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? X d)Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? X e)Landslides or mudflows? X OErosion, changes in topography or unstable soil X conditions from excavation, grading or fill? g)Subsidence of the land? X h)Expansive soils? X i)Unique geologic or physical features? X P:1Finv C kIst 97-144 -iit- 3.4 3.5 3.6 H Water. TVould the prgject result in: a)Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b)Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? c)Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? d)changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? e)changes in currents or the course or direction of water movements? t)change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g)Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h)Impacts to groundwater quality? AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a)Violate any air quality standard to contribute to an existing or projected air quality violations'? b)Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants'? c)Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d)Create objectionable odors? TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the project resi4lt its: a)Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b)Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? Polenllnlh tii¢ptticanl Impact Potentially Significant less than I We&% Sigtuticant No %litigated . Impact Impact X X X 1►1 X X X X X X X X X X PAEnv C;klst 97-344 - IV - f13 3.7 3.8 3.9 c)Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d)Insutl•icient parking capacity on site or offsite? e)Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists'? f)conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g)Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the pr(lea result in impacts to: a)Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds9 b)Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)9 c)Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d)Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e)Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors'? ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a)Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans'? b)Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? RISK OF UPSET/HUMAN HEALTH. Would the proposal involve: a)A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b)Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c)The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? Potentiatly Significant Impact rotenttauv Significant Less titan I'Rlems Significant No %Iittrated. Impact Impact X X X X X X X X X X X X R. X X PAEnv C'klst 97-344 -v- V14 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 Potentially Less Than Potentially Significant Significant _ Significant Unless Impact Impact Mitigated d)Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e)Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable X brush. grass. or trees'? NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a)Increases in existing noise levels? X b)Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a)Fire protection? X b)Police protection'? X c)Schools? X d)Maintenance of public facilities. including roads? X e)other governmental services? X UTILITIES. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a)Power or natural gas'? X b)Communications systems? X c)Local or regional water treatment or distribution X facilities? d)Sewer or septic tanks? X e)Storm water drainage X f)Solid waste disposal? X AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a)Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? X b)Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? X c)Create light or glare? X P:\Env Ck1st 97-344 -vii- No Impact X 3.14 3.15 3.16 Potentially Potendaliv Significant Les%Than significant I'nlese Significant No Impact %litigated Impact Impact CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the prnpostzl: a)Disturb paleontological resources? X b)Disturb archaeological resources'? X c)Affect historical resources? X d)Have the potential to cause a physical change X which would affect unique ethnic cultural values'? e)Restrict existing religious of sacred uses within the X potentiau impact area? RECREATION. Would this prolmscrl: a)lncrease the demand for neighborhood or regional X parks or other recreational facilities'? b)Affect existing recreational opportunities'? X MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a)Does the project have the Potential to degrade the X quality of the environmental, 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 X short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c)Does the project have impacts that are individually X limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable further projects). d)Does the project have environmental effects which X will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? P:\Env C:klst 97-344 016 EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a)Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b)Impacts adequately address. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed by the earlier document. c)Mitigation measures. For effects that are "potentially significant" or "potentially significant unless mitigated," 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. PAEnv CUst 97-W -viii- 7 INITIAL STUDY - ADDENDUM FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 97-344 The Pairings: Specific Plan 97-030 Site Development Permit 97-612 Conditional Use Permit 97-344 Applicant: Thomas L. Bienek Prepared bv: City of La Quinta Community Development Department 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 September 24, 1997 r, 1. 8 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................ 3 1.1 Project Overview ............................................... 3 1.2 Purpose of Initial Study .......................................... 3 1.3 Background of Environmental Review .............................. 4 1.4 Summary of Preliminary Environmental Review ...................... 4 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................ 4 2.1 Project Location and Environmental Setting .......................... 4 2.2 Physical Characteristics .......................................... 5 2.3 Operational Characteristics ....................................... 5 2.4 Objectives .............................................. 5 2.5 Discretionary Actions ........................................... 5 2.6 Related Projects ............................................... 5 :S ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ................................ 5 3.1 Land Use and Planning ......................................... 6 3.2 Population and Housing ........................................ 7 3.3 Earth Resources ............................................... 9 3.4 Water ...................................................... 12 3.5 Air Quality .................................................. 16 3.6 Transportation/Circulation...................................... 18 3.7 Biological Resources .......................................... 21 3.8 Energy and Mineral Resources .................................. 23 3.9 Risk of Upset/Human Health .................................... 23 3.10 Noise ...................................................... 25 3.11 Public Services ............................................... 26 3.12 Utilities..................................................... 28 3.13 Aesthetics ................................................... 30 3.14 Cultural Resources ............................................ 33 3.15 Recreation .................................................. 34 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ..................... 35 5 EARLIER ANALYZES .......................................... 35 Page 2 v�� SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW The purpose of this Initial Study is to identify the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Specific Plan 97-030. Conditional Use Permit 97-344, and Site Development Permit 97-612 to develop a two phase project. The first phase consisting of a golf training/driving range; with ancillary functions such as a central commons facility with retail, restaurants, a 1,000 square foot maintenance service/storage facility, and supporting functions of parking, service access. Phase two of the project consists of a commercial building to be less than 60,000 square feet in size. The total project site is a 21.4 acre parcel located at the northeast corner of Adams Street and 48' Avenue, in the City of La Quinta, California. The project will be called "The Pairings at La Quinta". The proposed Commons Building will have 78 tees, a professional golf shop, retail outlets, restaurant, storage, and shipping/receiving area. The lighted golf driving range is approximately 200 yards wide by 300 yards long. Parking is located at the south end of the project site. The City of La Quinta is the Lead Agency for the project review, as defined by Section 21067 of the; California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Lead Agency is the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment. The City of La Quinta, as the Lead Agency, has the authority to oversee the environmental review and to approve the land use designations. 11.2 PURPOSE OF INITIAL STUDY As part of the environmental review for the proposed Specific Plan, Site Development Permit, and Conditional Use Permit, the City of La Quinta Community Development Department staff has prepared this Initial Study. This document provides a basis for determining the nature and scope of the subsequent environmental review for the proposed Specific Plan and development of the project. The purposes of the Initial Study, as stated in Section 15063 of the State CEQA Guidelines, include the following: To provide the Agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for the project; To enable the applicant, or the City of La Quinta, to modify the project, mitigating adverse acts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; Page 3 nu20 To assist the preparation of an EIR, should one be required, by focusing the analysis on those issues that will be adversely impacted by the proposed project; To facilitate environmental review early in the design of the project; To provide documentation for the findings in a Negative Declaration that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment; To eliminate unnecessary EIR's; and. To determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project. 1.3 BACKGROUND OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed project application was deemed subject to the environmental review requirements of CEQA. This Initial Study Checklist and Addendum were prepared for review by the La Quinta Planning Commission and certification by the City Council. 1A SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This Initial Study indicates that there is potential for adverse environmental impacts for some issue areas contained in the Environmental Checklist. Mitigation measures have been recommended for the proposed golf facility which will reduce any identified potential impacts to less than significant levels. As a result, A Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact will be recommended for this project. An EIR will not be necessary. SECTION 2• PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING -1be City of La Quinta is a 31.18 square mile municipality located in the southwestern portion of the Coachella Valley, in Riverside County, California. The City is bounded on the west by the City of Indian Wells, on the east by the City of Indio and Riverside County, on the north by Riverside County, and County, federal, and state lands to the south. The City of La Quinta was incorporated in 1982. The general project location is the northeast comer of the intersection of Adams Street and 4.81h Avenue, north of the Rancho La Quinta development, and east of the Lake La Quinta development. Page 4 2.2 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS The project site is a 21.4 acre parcel of vacant desert land. The land does not appear to have ever been developed. 2.3 OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS The Pairings golf training/driving facility will function as a private business offering to the public, for a fee, use of the golf range and golf training opportunities. The golf range will have lights for night use. There will be a restaurant and professional golf shop as accessory uses within the main structure. The future commercial building, in phase two, could function as any of the permitted land uses in the CR Zoning Distn;ct. 2.4 OBJECTIVES The objective of the proposed project is to develop a golf facility and future commercial building for profit opportunities. DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS A discretionary action is an action taken by a government agency that calls for the exercise of judgment in deciding whether to approve a project. For this project, the government agency is the City of La Quinta. The proposed Specific Plan, Site Development Permit, and Conditional Use Permit will require discretionary approvals by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2.6 RELATED PROJECTS There are no other related projects to the proposed golf facility/commercial building project. 1ff,C'TION 3° ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This section analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the land use, and project design, and operational considerations of the proposed golf facility. The CEQA Checklist issue areas are evaluated in this addendum. For each checklist item, the environmental setting is discussed, including a description of the existing conditions within the City and the areas affected by the proposed project. Thresholds of significance are defined either by standards adopted by responsible or trustee agencies, or by referring to criteria in CEQA (Appendix G). Page 5 nrr7 04. «.. 3.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta is located in the Coachella Valley, in the eastern portion of Riverside County. The valley is abundant with both desert plant and animal life. The topographical relief ranges from -237 feet below mean sea level (msl) to about 2,000 feet above msl. The valley is a part of the Colorado Desert region. Surrounding the valley are the San Jacinto Mountains, the Santa Rosa Mountains, the Orocopia Mountains, and the San Bernardino Mountains. The San Andreas fault transects the northeastern edge of the valley. Local Environmental Setting The proposed project is located at the northeastern corner of Adams Street and 48" Avenue. The land is vacant desert property. The property is dry and sparsely vegetated with some natural desert vegetation. A, Would the project conflict with the general plan designation or zoning? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The location of the proposed golf facility is within the CR Zoning District and Mixed/Regional Commercial General Plan Land Use designation. Lighted golf driving ranges are required to have an approved Conditional Use Permit prior to construction. Due to potential impacts beyond normally permitted uses, conditional uses are considered to have more impacts that require analysis and mitigation to eliminate or reduce adverse impacts. The applicant has submitted a request for approval of a. Conditional Use Permit for the facility as is required by the Zoning Ordinance. Adjacent land uses consist of vacant commercial land to the north, recently approved Specific Plan by the City Council for an auto mall with sales and services and commercial uses, developing residential land to the west and south, and vacant commercial land to the east. The adjacent land use designations and zoning districts consist of CR (Regional Commercial) to the north and east, and RL (Low Density Residential) to the south (with golf) and west. 13. Would the project conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? No Impact. The City of La Quinta has jurisdiction over this project. The primary environmental plans and policies pertinent to this project are identified in La Quinta's General Plan, the General Plan EIR, the La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment, and the City's CEQA Guidelines. The proposed Specific Plan, Site Development Permit, and Conditional Use Permit has been transmitted to various agencies for review and comment regarding conflicts with environmental plans or policies. Page 6 ^23 C. Would the project affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? No Impact. The La Quinta General Plan does not contain an agricultural land use designation although there are a few locations with agricultural land uses extant in the south and southeastern portions of the City. Historically, there has been farming activity in several sections of the City, however, that has largely been replaced by resort, commercial, and residential development over the past 15 years. There is no evidence that the project site was ever farmed (Source: Site Survey). D. Would the project disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income minority community)? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site will be developed with a golf facility adjacent to existing roadways to the west and south. The project site is adjacent to other CR zoned vacant parcels to the north and east. No new roadways are proposed with this project. There are existing and future residential land uses on three sides of the project, with regional commercial uses and land designations to the north. The project site is a commercial parcel adjacent to residential land uses for which there are different types and intensities of permitted uses. The project site is in an area where two types of land use border each other, for which the transition between land uses can result in some disruption or discontinuity of established or existing land uses. Mitigation can include visual and sound buffers, architectural review to ensure design compatibility, and other conditions of approval that may be required of specific projects. 12 POPULATION AND HOUSING Regional Environmental Setting Between 1980 and 1990, the population of La Quinta expanded 125%, as reported by the U.S. Census, making the City the second fastest growing city in the Coachella Valley. During that time period, the number of residents in La Quinta blossomed from 4,992 to 11,215. From 1990 to January of 1996, the population grew from 13,070 to 18,050. These figures are based upon :information provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, State Department of Finance, and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG). La Quinta's population ranks sixth largest of the nine cities in the Coachella Valley. Annual average growth rate has been approximately 10% in recent years. The projected population of La Quinta by the year 2000 is anticipated to be 23,000 (Source: Community Development Department). The average age of a City resident is 32 years. Persons over the age of 45 make up 27% of the City':; population (Source: 1990 Census). Page 7 In addition to permanent residents. La Quinta has approximately 9,300 seasonal residents who spend three to six months in the City. It is estimated that 30% of all housing units in the City are used by seasonal residents ( Source: Community Development Department). The total housing stock as of 1996. is listed at 9,352 units. Single family units make up 68 percent of the available housing stock. The housing unit breakdown is as follows: 8,624 detached single family, 481 multi -family units, and 247 mobile homes. The average number of persons per household is 3.15 (Source: Department of Finance 1996). Median home prices in La Quinta are approximately $112,000 which is lower than the average for Riverside County ($120.950), but less than other Southern California counties (Source: La Quinta Economic Overview 1996 Edition). Ethnicity information from the 1990 Census revealed that the composition of La Quinta's population is 70% Caucasian, 26% Hispanic, 2% Afro-American, 1.5% Asian, and 1.0% Native American. The 1990 Census indicates that 8 1 % of the La Quinta residents are high school graduates and 21% are college graduates (Source: Census/Estimates). Local Environmental Setting The project site is located on a 21.4 acre parcel of vacant desert land dimpled with sand dunes. A. Would the project cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? No Impact. The proposed project does not include any residential units. Temporary construction -related jobs will be created as the project is under construction. No jobs will be lost as a result of the project, in that the project site is vacant land. New jobs will benefit the community, and result in a positive impact. It is anticipated that approximately 20 new jobs will be created by the project. B. Would the project induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed golf facility will make an impact in the surrounding area as major infrastructure could be altered or required to be extended to service the project site (Source: Site Survey). This impact is not anticipated to be significant, as there is existing development to the west and south, of the project site with infrastructure already in place. C. Would the project displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? No Impact. There are no existing houses on the proposed project site. Thus, there is no identifiable adverse impact to this issue. Page 8 y4� 3.3 EARTH RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta has a relatively flat, but gently sloping topography, except for the hillside area on the southern and western portions of the City. Elevations in the southeastern portion of the City reach 1.400 feet above msl. Slopes on the valley floor area of the City are gentle, except in the rolling sand dune areas. The alluvial soils that make up most of the City are underlain by igneous -metamorphic rock. as seen in outcrops in the Santa Rosa Mountains and the Coral Reef Mountains. Soils on the valley floor are made up of very fine grain unconsolidated silty sands. The Coachella Valley is underlain by hundreds of feet to several thousand feet of Quaternary fluvial. lacustrine, and aeolian soil deposits (Southland Geotechnical 1996:6). local Environmental Setting The area where the parcel is located is in the open desert part of the City. The elevation of the property is approximately 60 feet above mean sea level (Source: USGS La Quinta Quad Map). There is an inferred earthquake fault line located across the project site. There has been no recorded activity along these fault lines, thus there is a low probability for such activity to occur. The City of La Quinta lies in a seismically active region of Southern California. Faults in the: region include the San Andreas and Mission Creek faults located several miles to the north and west. The project lies within Groundshaking Zone III with Zone 12 being the most hazardous. The project site is within the Blowsand Hazard Zone (Sources: Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan; La Quinta General Plan; La Quinta MEA). According to the Soil Survey of Riverside County, California, Coachella Valley Area, prepared by the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service in 1979, indicates that there are two types of soil present on the project site ( MaD -Myoma fine sand 5 to 15% slopes, and MaB - Myoma fine sand 0 to 5% slopes).These soil types have distinctive features and characteristics. A detailed discussion of these soil types is found in the USDA Soil Conservation Survey of Riverside County, California - Coachella Valley Area. A, Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity: fault rupture? ]Less Than Significant Impact. There is an inferred fault line located on the project site. This fault is considered potentially active, although no activity has been recorded for the last 10,000 years. A major earthquake along the fault would be capable of generating seismic hazards and strong groundshaking effects in the area. None of the inferred faults in La Quinta have been placed in an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. All structures developed on the Page 9 u 2 project site would be required to be constructed to current Uniform Building Code (UBC) seismic standards in order to mitigate risk of collapse to the extent feasible (Sources: Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan; City of La Quinta General Plan; La Quinta MEA: UBC). While accurate earthquake predictions are not possible, significant geologic information and statistical analysis have been complied, analyzed, and published intensely by various agencies over the past 25 years. It has been reported that a 22% conditional probability occurrence for the 30--year period from 1994 to 2024 that a magnitude 7.5 event or greater would occur along the Coachella Valley segment of the San Andreas Fault. The primary risk to the project is the San Andreas Fault. The Coachella Valley Segment of the fault comprises the southern 115 km of the fault zone. This segment has the longest elapsed time of any portion of the San Andreas Fault, last experiencing an event about 1690 AD based on USGS dating of trench surveys near Indio. The San Andreas Fault zone is considered to have characteristic earthquakes that ruptures each fault segment. The San Andreas Fault may rupture in multiple segments producing a higher magnitude earthquake (Source: Southland Geotechnicall 1996). Fault rupture is not anticipated to occur at the project site since the well -delineated fault lines through this region as shown on United States Geological Survey and California Division of Mines and Geology maps are not near the project site location. However, because the site is located in an area of high tectonic activity, the potential for surface rupture on undiscovered or new faults that may underlie the site can not be discounted (Source: Southland Geotechnical 1996: 8 ). B. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismic ground shaking? Less "Chan Significant Impact. The future golf facility will be subject to groundshaking hazards from regional and local events. The proposed project will bring people to the site who could be subject to these hazards. The Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan indicates that the project site is within Groundshaking Zone III. A Zone III is an area with moderate shaking qualities but less severe than a Zone XII which is the highest level. Any habitable structures constructed will be required to meet current seismic standards of construction to reduce, or mitigate to the extent feasible, the risk of structural collapse. The land is generally suitable for the proposed project (Sources: La Quinta MEA; La Quinta General Plan). The primary seismic hazard at the project site is strong groundshaking from earthquakes along the San Andreas and San Jacinto (Source: La Quinta MEA; Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan). C', Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity: ground failure or liquefaction? Page 10 nn Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project is not in an area that is anticipated to be subject to ground failure hazards from earthquake or other events due to the distance from regional fault lines. The La Quinta General Plan indicates that the project site is not within a recognized liquefaction hazard area. The majority of the City has a very low liquefaction susceptibility due to the fact that ground water levels are generally at least 100 feet below the ground surface ( Source: La Quinta MEA; Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan). D. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity: seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard? No Impact. The City is located in an inland valley separated from the Pacific Ocean by mountain ranges, and would not be subjected to a tsunami. Lake Cahuilla, a man-made reservoir located in the southeast portion of the City, might experience some moderate wave activity as a result of an earthquake and groundshaking. However, the lake is not anticipated to afff:ct this project in the event of a levee failure or seiche because the lake is on the other side of the Coral Reef Mountains (Source: La Quinta MEA; La Quinta USGS 7.5' Quad Map), E. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving landslides or mudflows? No Impact. The terrain within and surrounding the project site is desert valley floor near the distal end of the gently sloping cove alluvial fan. The parcel is located approximately 1.5 miles north of the Coral Reef Mountains, and over a''/z mile east of the Santa Rosa Mountains, thus. there is no potential danger from landslides and rockfall. No mudflows are anticipated for this project. as the adjacent hills and mountains are formed of rocky granitic material. The general area is protected from flood waters by earthen training dikes and retention basins that are located at the southern portion of the City, and existing drainage channels that are found near the project site (Source: La Quinta MEA; La Quinta USGS 7.5' Quad Map). F'. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? Less 'Than significant Impact. The soils on the project site are underlain by alluvial deposits of Pleistocene age. Myoma soils are generally used for crops and homesites, and are excessively drained and include rapidly permeable soil (Source: U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Soil Survey of Riverside County, California - Coachella Valley Area; EA 92-240). Cut and fill is projected for the project in order to level the land. Compliance with a approved grading plan will be a condition of approval for the project. Monitoring of compliance will be provided by the City's Public Works Department staff. A site section looking west indicates that up to 15 feet of dirt will be removed in various places to level and contour the project site to the applicant's design (Source: SP 97-030). Page 11 v 4 8 G. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving subsidence of the land? Less Than Significant Impact. Dynamic settlement results in geologically seismic areas where poorly consolidated soils mix with perched groundwater causing dramatic decreases in the elevation of the ground. The project site is not located in an area designated for subsidence hazards. ( Source: La Quinta MEA). H[. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving expansive soils? Less Than Significant Impact. The underlying soils on the parcels have a low potential for expansion, thus future construction is not expected to be subject to problems from soil expansion. The City requires compliance with the Uniform Building Code and the re:cornmendations of a soils investigation report prior to issuance of building and grading permits (Sources: U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey of Riverside County, California - Coachella Valley Area). I. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving unique geologic or physical features? No Impact. The Coral Reef Mountains represent a unique geologic feature in the La Quinta area. This unique feature is located outside of the project site boundaries. There is no identifiable direct significant adverse impact on this issue. 3A WATER Regional Environmental Setting Groundwater resources in the La Quinta area consist of a system of large aquifers (porous layers of rock material containing water) and groundwater basins separated by bedrock or layers of soil that trap or retain groundwater. La Quinta is located above the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin which is the major water supply for the potable water needs of the City a, well as a significant supply for the City's nonpotable irrigation needs. Water is pumped from the underground aquifer via domestic water wells in the City operated and administered by the; Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). La Quinta is located primarily in the lower Thermal Subarea of the groundwater basin. The Thermal Subarea is separated into the upper and lower valley sub -basins near Point Happy, located southwest of the intersection of Washington Street and State Highway 111. CVWD estimates that approximately 19.4 million acre feet of water is stored within the Thermal Subarea which is available for use. Water pumped from the aquifer is treated and distributed to users through the existing (potable) water distribution system. Water is also pumped for irrigation purposes to water golf courses and the remaining agricultural uses in the City. Water supplies are augmented with surface water from the Colorado River transported via the Coachella Canal. Page 12 U4 . The quality of water in the La Quinta area is highly suitable for domestic purposes. However, chemicals associated with agricultural production in nearby areas and the use of septic tanks in the Cove area affect groundwater quality. Groundwater is of marginal to poor quality at depths of less than 200 feet. Below 200 feet, water quality is generally good and water depths cf 400 to 600 feet are considered excellent. Percolation from the tributaries of the Whitewater River flowing into La Quinta from the Santa Rosa Mountains provide a natural source of groundwater replenishment. Artificial recharging of groundwater will be necessary in the near future. Surface water in La Quinta is comprised of Colorado River water supplied via the Coachella (:anal and stored in the Lake Cahuilla reservoir; lakes in private developments which are comprised of canal water and/or untreated groundwater; and the Whitewater River and its tributaries. The watersheds in La Quinta are subject to intense storms of short duration which result in substantial runoff. The steep gradient of the Santa Rosa Mountains accelerates the runoff flowing in the intermittent streams that drain the mountain watersheds. La Quinta is protected from this. runoff by the existing flood control :facilities located throughout the City. One of the primary sources of surface water pollution is erosion and sedimentation from development construction and operation activities. Without controls, total dissolved solids JDS) can increase significantly from the development activities. The Clean Water Act requires all communities to conform to standards regulating the quality of water discharged into streams, including stormwater runoff. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) has been implemented as a two-part permitting process, for which the City of La Quinta participates. La Quinta is protected from storm water runoff by a stormwater system designed by Bechtel for the Coachella Valley Water District to protect currently developed and potentially developable areas of the City from damage during a major rainflood event. The system project was based on a flood control plan for the general area developed by Bechtel for the District in 1970. Construction was completed in November 1986 (Source: Bechtel Civil, Inc. 1989:1). Local Environmental Setting The project site does not have any natural standing water. Lake Cahuilla, a man-made reservoir is located approximately 4.5 miles to the southeast, on the east side of the Coral Reef :Mountains. The Whitewater River channel is located slightly over 3/4 mile to the north of the project site, but is dry except during seasonal storms. The La Quinta Stormwater Channel is located approximately '/� mile to the east and is a part of the community -wide network of flood control facilities. The City currently has only limited areas which are still subject to storm water flow or flooding. Flood prone areas are designated with a specific zoning district (Watercourse, Watershed and Conservation Areas: W-1). The intent of this zoning district is to allow Page 13 v�� development in flood prone areas based upon the submittal of a drainage and stormwater control plan. The City also implements flood hazard regulations for development within flood prone areas. A Hydrology/Hydraulic Report was prepared for the project site, in July 1997, by Harold A. 'Vance. consulting engineer, and subsequently revised as the project was revised. Runoff from the project is proposed to be conveyed to the driving range and retention areas in the putting green. The hydrology study modeled the 100-year storm event to determine the volume of water that must be contained on site. The area containing this property slopes gently to the southeast. Historically, runoff from upstream properties might have flowed across the site. However, the construction of Hwy. 111 and Adams Street have interrupted drainage from the north and west. The proposed project and grading concept assures that no water will be allowed to flow into the driving range from the properties to the north. The driving range, putting green, and other landscaped areas will serve as a runoff retention basin. �. Would the project result in changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Less Than Significant Impact. An approved drainage plan will be required prior to issuance of a grading permit, based upon the recommendations and results of the Drainage study prepared by Harold A. Vance, July 1997, and revised in October, 1997. There will be changes M absorption rates, but not drainage patterns or surface runoff as a result of the proposed project. The absorption rate will be altered by the paving of streets, construction of buildings, and landscaping. B. Would the project result in exposure of people or property to water -related hazards such as flooding? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is partially within the X designated flood hazard area. The X designation is the FIRM zone in which the hazard factors have been determined to be outside 500-year flood plain. C. Would the project result in discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? Less Than Significant Impact. Runoff from the project site will be required to be directed into the retention areas and the driving range. There are no existing bodies of surface water on or adjacent to the project site, however, a man-made lake is proposed for the center of the driving range. (Source: Site Survey; Coachella Valley Water District; Specific Plan). There is no proposed discharge into any surface waters. The range utilizes an artificial turf that will percolate storm water. Adams Street and 481 Avenue will drain to landscape easements along the right-of-way. Phase iI parking will drain to the retention areas included in the Phase I development. Page 14 v31 D. Would the project result in changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? No Impact. There are no bodies of surface water on the subject parcel. Runoff water is designed to be contained in the driving range and a retention basin in the putting green. All runoff water will be contained on site. E. Would the project result in changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? No Impact. The City of La Quinta does not have any natural bodies of water or rivers. There are many small man-made lakes and ponds on golf courses within the City. A few agricultural resenioirs are still in use. The La Quinta Evacuation Channel is a man-made stormwater channel that is usually dry except for runoff from seasonal storms. The future development of the; project site with the proposed land use designations will not affect, to a significant degree, any existing drainage corridor (Source: Site Survev; La Quinta MEA). F. Would the project result in changes in quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawal, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or by excavations? Less 'Than Significant Impact. Water supply in the City is derived from groundwater and supplementary water brought in from the Colorado River. Potable water to service this development will most likely come from existing groundwater wells in the near vicinity and a new well to be located in the northwest corner of the project site. The Coachella Valley Water District has stated that it will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to the project, but will need additional facilities to provide for expansion of its domestic water systern. The developer will be required to provide land on which some of these facilities will be located. The district will require that the restaurant install a grease interceptor, including a sample box, sanitary we and running trap with clean out, prior to any discharge to its sanitation facilities. Water from the Coachella Canal is available and shall be used for golf course and green belt irrigation purposes. CVWD is requiring additional facilities for the expansion of its irrigation water distribution system to serve the project, which may include land on which to locate these facilities (Sources: La Quinta MEA; Application Materials; Coachella Valley Water District, letter dated Sept. 10, 1997). A man-made lake is proposed for the driving range which will serve as a retention basin with sand filters to aid in percolation and evaporation of storm water. G. Would the project result in altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? Less 'Than Significant Impact. The proposed golf facility will not have a significant effect on groundwater wells by itself. As with any project using substantial amounts of water, there will be cumulative impacts to quantity of groundwater resources. It is not anticipated that there will be any significant alteration to the direction of flow of the groundwater supply, however, the rate of flow may be impacted due to high demand for water. No deep cuts are Page 15 032' proposed with this project that would reach the depth of the groundwater except for the proposed well at the northwest corner of the project. The proposed well is intended to be used cn a temporary basis, for approximately two years, until permanent well facilities can be constructed by the CVWD (Source: SP 97-030). H. Would the project result in impacts to groundwater quality? Less Than Significant Impact. Future development of the project site will include concrete and asphalt pavement of portions of the site. This pavement will reduce the absorption ability of the ground. Storm water runoff will be discharged into retention areas and the driving range. Following a heavy rain, contaminates could be transported into the retention areas or into the City's storm drain system that could contribute to groundwater and/or surface water pollution. However, this potential impact is anticipated to be less than significant. 3.5 AIR QUALITY Regional Environmental Setting The Coachella Valley is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and in particular, the Southeast Desert Air Basin (SEDAB) division. SEDAB has a distinctly different air pollution problem than the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). A discussion of the jurisdictional organization of SCAQMD and requirements is found in the La Quinta MEA. The air quality in Southern California region has historically been poor due to the topography, climatological influences, and urbanization. State and federal clean air standards established by the California Air Resources Board and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are often exceeded. The SCAQMD is a regional agency charged with the regulation of pollutant emissions and the maintenance of local air quality standards. Currently, the SEDAB does not meet federal standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter (PM-10). In the Coachella Valley, the standard for PM-10 is frequently exceeded. PM-10 is a .,particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter that becomes suspended in the air due principally to winds, grading activity, and by vehicles traveling on paved and unpaved roads. .Local Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta is located in the Coachella Valley, which has an and climate, characterized by hot summers, mild winters, infrequent and low annual rainfall, and low humidity. Variations in rainfall, temperatures, and localized winds occur throughout the valley due to the presence of thq surrounding mountains. Air quality conditions are closely tied to the prevailing winds of the region. The City of La Quinta is subject to the SCAQMD AQMD, a plan which describes measures to bring the SCAB into compliance with federal and state air quality standards and to meet California Clean Air Act requirements. The General Plan for the City contains an Air Quality Element outlining mitigation measures as required by the Regional AQMP. Page 16 ,rl n 3 The City is located within Source Receptor Area (SRA) 30. which includes two air quality monitoring stations, one located in the City of Palm Springs, and the other in the City of Indio. The Indio station monitors conditions which are most representative of the La Quinta area. The Palm Springs station monitors carbon monoxide in addition to ozone and particulate. A. Would the project violate any air standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact. The South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA AiLQuality Handbook indicates that the threshold for significance for restaurants is 20,000 square feet and 9,000 square feet for high turn over restaurants. The proposed project will have a 6,136 square foot restaurant. The project also proposes 6,400 square feet of retail area, which is substantially smaller than any of the commercial land uses listed in Table 6-2 Projects of Significance in the above referenced document. Phase two of the Specific Plan proposes a future commercial building that will be smaller than the 60.000 square feet allowed by the CR Zoning District. The threshold for requiring an air quality study for a shopping center is 56,000 square feet of building area. The Specific Plan will be conditioned to have an air quality study prepared for phase two to assess the potential impacts from the proposed commercial building. The project will also be required to submit for review and acceptance, a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan for future commercial building in phase two. Using the methodology stipulated in Chapter 9.180 Transportation Demand Management, the proposed commercial building will generate 120 employees. When a nonresidential land use reaches or exceeds 100 employees, a TDM Plan is required by the City. The purpose of a TDM Plan is to ;reduce air pollution, traffic congestion, and energy consumption caused by automobiles, by implementing a variety of measures to reduce trips. The City's ordinance lists standards that must be met and options to include in a TDM Plan. ]3. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ]Less Than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors include schools, day care centers, parks and recreation centers, medical facilities, rest homes, and other land uses that include concentration of individuals recognized as exhibiting particular sensitivity to air pollution. The proposed golf facility is considered a sensitive receptor. The adjacent land uses consist of residential to the west and south. designated regional commercial with a residential overlay vacant land to the east, and regional commercial vacant land to the north and northeast. The closest school to the proposed project is the La Quinta High School located north of Hwy. 111 on Westward Ho Drive east of Dune Palm Road. The Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) are designed to protect that segment of the public most susceptible to respiratory distress or infection, referred to as "sensitive receptors." (Sources: La Quinta General Plan; Site Survey). Page 17 0 it 4 C. Would the project alter air movements, moisture, temperature, or cause any change in climate? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed golf facility is not anticipated to result in any significant impact upon this topic area. There are no significant climatic changes anticipated with the future development of the project. There are no known significance thresholds for this topic area. I). Would the project create objectionable odors? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will include the use of some chemicals and fertilizers for the driving range and landscaping that may be odor causing. The project does not include onsite storage of these chemicals or fertilizers. A landscaping service will 'provide maintenance for the project, including topical additives that will be brought to the project site, but not stored at the there (Source: SP 97-030). Grass clippings and other landscape waste should be removed from the property and disposed of at one of the organic waste; recycling centers in the Coachella Valley. Vehicles traveling on nearby and internal project streets generate gaseous, and particular emissions that may be noticeable on the project site. However, these would be short-term odors that should dissipate quickly (Source: Site Survey). 3.6 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Regional Environmental Setting La Quinta is a desert community of over 18,600 permanent residents. The City is 31.18 square miles in size, with substantial room for development. The existing circulation system is a combination of early roadwork constructed in the 1930's by riverside County and new roadways since incorporation of the City in 1982. Key roadways include State Highway 111, Washington Street, Jefferson Street, Fred Waring Drive, and Eisenhower Drive. Traffic volumes in La Quinta experience considerable seasonal variation, with the late -winter, early -spring months representing the peak tourist season and highest traffic volumes. Existing transit service in La Quinta is limited to three regional fixed -route bus routes operated by Sunline Transit Agency. One bus route along Washington Street connects the Cove and Village areas with the community of Palm Desert to the west. Two lines operate along Highway 111 serving trips between La Quinta and other communities in the desert. There are only a few existing pedestrian, bicycle and equestrian facilities in La Quinta, however, these systems will be expanded as the City grows. These facilities, both existing and i:uture, are designated in the La Quinta General Plan. Page 18 r, 51J5 Local Environmental Setting The subject project site is located northeast of the intersection of Avenue 48 and Adams Street. Adams Street is classified as a secondary arterial requiring an 88 foot right-of-way. The intersection of Adams Street and Avenue 48 is currently controlled by stop signs. Avenue 48 is classified as a primary arterial requiring a 100 to 110-foot right-of-way. Both are designated as bikeway corridors. Both roadways are also Secondary Image Corridors. The La Quinta General Plan gives design standards for the various street classifications. According to the standards for secondary and primary arterials, the projected buildout traffic volume for Adams Street, north of the subject property will exceed the volume range. It is projected that Adams Street will experience a daily traffic volume of 14,000 north of Avenue 48, at buildout, providing a Level Of Service A (LOS-A). Avenue 48 will have a daily traffic volume of 29,500 for a LOS of C/D. A more detailed explanation of buildout traffic conditions and levels of service is found in the La Quinta General Plan. A. Would the project result in increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project traffic was addressed by the La Quinta General Plan Buildout scenario, and therefore will not be significant as project -related traffic will not exceed buildout projections for Adams Street or Avenue 48. B. Would the project result in hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? Less 'Than Significant Impact. The golf facility will not result in safety hazards as the parking lot and circulation system have been designed according to City standards. C. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access to nearby uses? Less Than Significant Impact. The golf facility will not be permitted to obstruct emergency access to surrounding land uses. The proposed project does not prevent access to any of the surrounding properties. D. Would the project result in insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed driving range includes 195 parking spaces on site in accordance with the requirements of the City for this type of land use. The fixture commercial building will include parking spaces to meet the requirements of the City's Off- street Parking Ordinance. Page 19 U�� 1?. Would the project result in hazards or barriers for pedestrian or bicyclists? Less Than Significant Impact. Both Avenue 48 and Adams Street are designated bikeway corridors. It is anticipated that hazards to bicyclists and pedestrians will not be increased significantly as a result of the proposed development ( Source: La Quinta General Plan). The bicycle and pedestrian corridors will be outside of the project perimeter wall within the roadways. F. Would the project result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Impact. Bicycle racks are required for commercial land uses (Source: La Quinta Zoning Ordinance). The closest bus stops to the project area are located along Washington Street and Hwy. 111, both over mile from the project site. G. Would the project result in rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? No Impacts. There is no rail service in the City of La Quinta. The closest rail line is approximately six miles to the north of the project site. There are no navigable rivers or waterways, or air travel lanes or airports within the City. Thus, there will be no impacts upon these: issues. The closest airports are the Bermuda Dunes Airport, a small private facility located just south of Interstate 10, approximately four miles north of the project site and the Thermal Airport, located approximately seven miles southeast of the project, on Airport :Boulevard in the Thermal area (Sources: La Quinta MEA; USGS La Quinta 7.5' Quad Map; Site Survey). :3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ,Regional Environmental Setting 'The City of La Quinta lies within the Colorado Desert regional environment. Two ecosystems .are found within the City, the Sonoran Desert Scrub and the Desert Transition. The disturbed environments within the City are classified as either urban or agricultural. A detailed discussion of these ecosystems is found in the La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment (1992). Local Environmental Setting The project site is located in the Sonoran Desert Scrub ecosystem. Typically, undeveloped land within this ecosystem is rich in biological resources and habitat. The Sonoran Desert Scrub is the most typical environment found in the Coachella Valley. It is generally categorized as containing plants which have the ability to economize water uses, go dormant Page 20 during periods of drought, or both. Cacti are very common in these areas due to their ability to store water. Other plants root deeply and draw upon water from considerable depths. The variations of desert vegetation result from differences in the availability of water. The most dense and lush vegetation in the desert is found where groundwater is most plentiful. The Sonoran Scrub areas are considered habitat for a number of small mammals. These animals escape the summer heat through their nocturnal and /or burrowing tendencies. Squirrels. mice and rats are all common rodent species in this environment. The black -tailed hare is a typical mammal. Predator species include kit fox, coyote, and mountain lion in the higher elevations. The largest mammal species found in this area is the Peninsular Bighorn sheep which is found at the higher elevations of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountain ranges. Birds and amphibians/reptiles can also be found in the Sonoran Scrub area. The Desert Transition areas are found in the alluvial fan areas and slopes of the surrounding mountains. The transition is gradual and involves an intermingling of vegetation types typically found in the Desert Scrub ecosystem and the Pinon-Juniper Woodland near the top of the Santa Rosa Mountains. The plant species in the desert transition zone benefit from slightly higher rainfall. Where creosote bush and bur -sage dominated in the desert scrub areas, cacti become more abundant and ocotillo dominate on the upper portions of alluvial fans, bajadas, and rocky mountain slopes. The La Quinta General Plan identifies the property as being within the habitat of the Fringe - toed Lizard. (Sources: Site Survey; La Quinta MEA). In addition, a biology study was conducted for the project site by James Cornett, which concludes that no endangered species were observed during the survey. Payment of the Fringe Toed Lizard fee is mitigation for this species. A. Would the project result in impacts to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? Less Than Significant Impact. The La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment and the biology study by Cornett identifies the project site as within the habitat of the Coachella Valley Fringe Toed Lizard, and the mitigation fee area. for the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan. Payment of this fee serves as mitigation for this species. No other endangered species or species of special concern were observed during the survey, thus there is no mitigation required. B. Would the project result in impacts to locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? No Impact. There are no locally designated biological resources within the City of La Quinta as there is no ordinance with which to designate local species. All significant biological resources are designated at the state and/or federal level by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Source: La Quinta MEA). Page 21 C. Would the project result in impacts to locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? No Impact. There are no locally designated natural communities found in or near the project site. Some of the surrounding parcels are developed with homes, a golf course, or roadways. D. Would the project result in impacts to wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? No Impact. There are no natural wetlands, marshes, riparian communities, or vernal pools on the project site or nearby. It is possible that during the last stand of the ancient Lake Cahuilla, the project site was within a marsh community along the lakeshore or may have been partially inundated by the lake. However, the lake dried approximately 500 years ago and the land has been dry since. The project site has become covered by aeolian and flood event deposits since the prehistoric lake dried (Sources: Site Survey; La Quinta MEA: Draft Historic Context Statement for City of La Quinta). E. Would the project result in impacts to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is part of a larger project that is surrounded by developed parcels on two sides which have effectively cut off migration corridors through the project site except to and from the Coral Reef Mountains. Wildlife corridors are still open in the Coral Reef Mountains which provide access to the higher mountains to the south. (Source: La Quinta MEA; Site Survey). 18 ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta contains both areas of insignificant and significant Mineral Aggregate Resource Areas (SMARA), as designated by the State Department of Conservation. There are no known oil resources in the City. Major energy resources used in La Quinta come from the Imperial Irrigation District (IID), Southern California Gas Company, and various gasoline companies. Local Environmental Setting There are no oil wells or other fuel or energy producing facilities or resources on or near the project site. While the project site is undeveloped, there is no significant resource to be mined, such as rock or gravel. The project site is located within MRZ-1. The MRZ-1 designation is applied to those areas where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence (Source: La Quinta MEA; Site Survey). Page 22 -n *) V ..J :'�. Would the project conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? No Impact. The City of La Quinta does not have an adopted energy plan. However, the City noes have a Transportation Demand Management ordinance in place that focuses on the conservation of fuel and travel to large commercial centers, which would pertain to the future commercial building. The Housing Element contains requirements for efficiency in housing construction and materials, thus reducing energy consumption. Future development will be required to meet Title 24 energy requirements (Sources: La Quinta General Plan; UBC). B. Would the project use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? Less Than Significant Impact. Natural resources that may be used by this proposed project include air, mineral, water, sand and gravel, timber, energy, and other resources needed for construction and operation. Title 24 requirements shall be complied with for energy conservation. Any landscaping will also be required to comply with the City's landscape water conservation ordinance as well as the requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District ( Source: La Quirita MEA; Water Conservation Ordinance; Coachella Valley Water District). 3.9 RISK OF UPSET/HUMAN HEATH Regional Environmental Setting Recent growth has increased the City's exposure to hazardous materials. Such exposure to toxic materials can occur through the air, in drinking water, in food, in drugs and cosmetics, and in the work place. Although large scale, hazardous waste generating employment is not present in the City of La Quinta, the existence of chemicals utilized in dry cleaning operations, agricultural operations, restaurant kitchen cleaning, landscape irrigation and exposure to large scale electrical facilities may pose significant threats to various sectors of the population. Currently, there are no hazardous disposal waste sites located in Riverside County. Local Environmental Setting In order to comply with AB 2948-Hazardous Waste Management Plans and Facility Siting Procedures, the City of La Quinta adopted Ordinance 184 consisting of a Hazardous Waste Management Plan. The project site has not been used for any type of manufacturing or industry, and there has not been any known dumping of hazardous substances on the property (,Sources: Site Survey; Aerial Photos). A. Would the project involve a risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including not limited to oil, pesticides, chemical, or radiation)? Page 23 G40 Less Than Significant Impact. There is a minimal risk of exposure from chemicals and pesticides that may be used within the project. No other risks are anticipated by the golf facility. Use of these chemicals shall be by trained personnel only according to local Health Department. OSHA. and EPA requirements. B. Would the project involve possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impact. Construction activities will be confined to the project site, except for minimal off -site work as is necessary for project roadways, curbs. and gutters. These activities will not be permitted to interfere with emergency responses to the site or surrounding areas nor will it obstruct emergency evacuation of the area. Needed measures to divert and control traffic shall be implemented whenever required. C. Would the project involve the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? No Impact. There are no anticipated health hazards associated with the proposed project beyond those normally associated with a construction project. I). Would the project involve exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? No Impact. There are no identifiable health hazards on the project site. The potential development of the golf facility is not expected to create any health hazards. Future development will be required to conform to zoning standards and all applicable health and safety codes. E. Would the proposal involve increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project site is on an vacant desert land with sparse natural vegetation. Thus, there is a very low fire potential from brush, grass, or trees. 3.10 NOISE Regional Environmental Setting Noise levels in the City are created by a variety of sources within and outside the City boundaries. The major sources of noise include vehicles on City streets and Highway 111, and temporary construction noise. The ambient noise levels are dominated by vehicular noise along; the highway and major arterial roadways. Page 24 �:t 4 1. Local' Environmental Setting The ambient noise level at the project site is dominated by vehicle traffic noise from Adams Street and Avenue 48. Residential areas are considered noise -sensitive land uses, especially during; the nighttime hours. The nearest residential use is located to the west and south of the project site. The State Building Code requires that interior noise level in buildings do not exceed CNEL 45. The General Plan of the City of La Quinta requires that exterior noise levels do not exceed CNEL 60 (Sources: Site Survey; La Quinta MEA). A. Would the project result in increases in existing noise levels? I.ess Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is not anticipated to have significant adverse impacts from noise levels. Existing mitigation consists of a masonry perimeter wall to the: west around the Lake La Quinta project, and a living fence around the Rancho La Quinta development located to the south. Adams Street and Avenue 48 serve as buffers to the proposed golf project. Future development adjacent to the driving range will include a solid masonry wall along the north boundary of Rancho La Quinta and along the east and north property lines of the project. The wall along the north boundary line is a requirement of the approved auto mall project adjacent to the north. The existing walls and street buffers, together with the proposed landscape setbacks within the project site, and proposed walls will adequately mitigate the potential noise impacts to the surrounding residential land uses. B. Would the project result in exposure of people to severe noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. The La Quinta General Plan regulates excessive noise and vibration in the City by establishing allowable noise levels for various land uses. Residential land uses should have a maximum exterior noise level of up to 60 CNEL. If the ambient noise level is higher than this standard, then it will serve as the standard. The proposed development will result in short-term impacts associated with construction activities. During construction, heavy machinery will be capable of generating periodic peak noise levels ranging from 70 to 95 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the source. These high noise levels are short in duration and temporary with the construction phases of the project. Such. high noise levels are not anticipated nor permitted after construction, or during the "operation" of the development (Source: La Quinta General Plan). 311 PUBLIC SERVICES ,Regional Environmental Setting Law enforcement services are provided to the City through a contract with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. The Sheriff's Department extends service to the City from existing facilities located in the City of Indio. There is a small substation located within the La C!uinta City Hall. The Department utilizes a planning standard of 1.5 deputies per 1,000 population to forecast additional public safety personnel requirements in La Quinta at Page 25 v 10 buildout. Based on this standard. the City should have a police force of 25.5 officers, but is currently under served. Currently, there are three officers per shift with three staggered shifts per day to serve La Quinta. In addition to patrol, there is also a target team, Community Services Officer. and School Resources Officer assigned to the City (Source: 101-301 Police Services Supporting Information). Fire protection service is provided to the City by Riverside County Fire Department through a contractual arrangement. The Fire Department administers two stations in the City; Station 1�32 on Frances Hack Lane, west of Washington Street, and Station #70, at the intersection of Madison Street and Avenue 54. The Fire Department is also responsible for building and business inspections, plan review, and construction inspections. Based upon a planning standard of one paid firefighter per 1.000 population, the City is currently under served (Source: La Quinta MEA). Currently, there are two paid firefighters per shift at each of the two :Eire stations in La Quinta. Volunteers supplement the paid staff (Source: La Quinta Building & Safety Department). Structural fires and fires from other man-made features are the most significant fire threats to the City. Hillside and brush fires are minimal as the hillside areas are virtually barren and the scattered brush on the valley floor is too sparse to pose a serious fire threat. Both the Desert Sands Unified School District and the Coachella Valley Unified School District serve the City. There are two elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school within the City. The City is also within the College of the Desert Community College District. Library services are provided by the Riverside County .Library System with a branch library located in the Village area of the City. The existing facility opened in 1988 and county planning standards of 0.5 square feet per capita and 1.2 volumes per capita are used to forecast tuture facility requirements to serve the City. Utilizing this 1992 standard. the City was under served in space but over served in terms of volumes (Source: La Quinta MEA; La Quinta Library staff). Health care services are provided in the City through JFK Memorial Hospital in Indio, and the Eisenhower Immediate Care Facility in La Quinta on Hwy. 111. The Eisenhower Medical Center is located in Rancho Mirage. The Riverside County Health Department administers a variety of health programs for area residents and is located in Indio. Paramedic service is provided to the City by Springs Ambulance Service. Local Environmental Setting The project site is roughly midway between two fire stations, one in Bermuda Dunes on Ave. 42, and one located on Ave. 52. Page 26 Governmental services in La Quinta are provided by City staff at the Civic Center, and by other County, state, and federal agency offices located in the desert area or region. The project site will be serviced by the local schools. A. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in the need for new or altered governmental services in relation to fire protection? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will increase the need for fire protection due to the construction of structures. Development of the project shall comply with the fire flow and fire safety building standards of the Riverside County Fire Code to prevent fire hazard on -site and to minimize the need for fire protection services. Unobstructed fire access will be required through the design of the project streets and setbacks between structures. Other code requirements (such as sprinkler systems, construction materials, etc.) shall be complied with (Source: Fire Department. Aug. 25, 1997). 13. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in the need for new or altered government services in relation to police protection? Less Than Significant Impact. Traffic collisions, patrol requests, and calls for service will impact the Sheriff s Department. This will generate a need for additional staff in the future (Source: Sheriff's Dept, Aug. 25, 1997). (1 Would the project have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in relation to school services? Less Than Significant Impact. School overcrowding is a District -wide concern for Desert Sands Unified School District. The District's ability to meet the educational needs of the public with new schools has been seriously impaired in recent years by local, state, and federal budget cuts that have had an impact on the financing of new schools. The school mitigation fee that is currently collected on all new development at the time building permits are issued will be required of this project as mitigation. 1). Would the project have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in relation to the maintenance of public facilities, including roads? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is served by existing, but limited infrastructure connected with the new facilities installed in connection with recent development to the west and south. E. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in relation to other governmental services? ]Less Than Significant Impact. Building, engineering, inspection, and planning review needed for the proposed project will be partially offset by application, permit and inspection i:ees charged to the applicant and contractors. Page 27 104 4 3.12 UTILITIES Regional Environmental Services The City of La Quinta is served by the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) for electrical power supply and The Gas Company (TGC) for natural gas service. Existing power and gas lines and substations are found throughout the City. IID has :tour substations in La Quinta, with electricity generated by a steam plant in El Centro and hydroelectric power generated by the All American Canal. General Telephone Exchange (GTE) provides telephone services for the City. Colony Cablevision serves the area for cable television service. There are several wireless communication companies that provide services in the La Quinta area. The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) provides water and sewer service to the City. CVWD obtains its water from underground aquifers and from the Colorado River. CVWD operates a water system with potable water pumped from domestic water wells in the City. The wells range in depth from 500 to 900 feet. Potable water is stored in five reservoirs located in the City. The City's stormwater drainage system is administered by the CVWD, which maintains and operates a comprehensive system to collect and transport flows through the City. The City is served by Waste Management of the Desert for solid waste disposal. Nonhazardous, mixed municipal solid waste is taken to the only open landfill (Edom Hill) within the Coachella Valley. Local Environmental Setting The project is adjacent to developed areas on the west and south. Vacant land is found to the north and east. An auto mall is approved on land adjacent to the north. ��. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to power and gas service? ]Less Than Significant Impact. Power, water, sewer, and natural gas lines have been brought in to the community and are available to the project site. It is not anticipated that the project will require a significant level of electricity or natural gas to result in the need for new systems or alterations to existing systems. The project developer will have to coordinate with IID, CVWD, cable company, and TGC for the timely provision of utilities. B. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to communication systems? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed development will require service from General Telephone Exchange (GTE) for telephone communication. The developer will be required to coordinate the installation of telephone service infrastructure with GTE. Page 28 f) 45 C. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? Less Than Significant Impact. It is not anticipated that the project will result in a significant adverse impact upon the water resources of the area. with the construction of a new well on t.ie project site. The proposed private well will be approximately 250 to 275 feet deep and will be used as an interim irrigation system until the CVWD installs a permanent water well facility adjacent to the north of the project site. A response letter from CVWD has been received that states that the district will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to the project. The project will be required to be annexed into Improvement District No. 55 to obtain sanitation service (Source: CVWD. Sept. 10, 1997). I). Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to sewer services or septic tanks? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will generate sewage which will have to be transported and treated by CVWD. The developer will be responsible for the cost of connection and installation of an on -site sewer system. A response from CVWD has been received. See discussion above in subsection 3.12 (C) (Source: CVWD letter dated Sept. 10, 1997). E. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to storm water drainage? Less Than Significant Impact. The project will result in substantial construction of buildings, pavement and landscaping. Additional on -site retention facilities will be required f'or the development of the project. The Whitewater River Storm channel is located approximately 3/4 mile north of the project site. There are no anticipated adverse impacts to the channel (Source: Site Survey; La Quinta General Plan). The La Quinta Evacuation Channel is located '/ mile to the east and provides drainage protection for the area. F. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to solid waste disposal? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will require solid waste disposal services from the current franchisee when the golf facility is developed. Solid waste is transported to the one existing landfill in the Coachella Valley. This landfill is reaching capacity and may be closed in the near future. Development must comply with the City's Source Reduction and Recycling policies. Any on -site programs will be coordinated with Waste Management. Page 29 nItU 3.13 AESTHETICS Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta is partially located within a desert valley cove and partially on the desert floor. There are hillsides to the west and south of the City. Views of the desert and surrounding mountains are visible on clear days throughout most of the City. Local Environmental Setting The project site is located in a predominately regional commercial zoned area in the northern portion of the City. The proposed project site is in the CR district with a residential overlay that allows development*up to 50 feet in height. Views from the project site consists of the Santa Rosa and Coral Reef Mountains to the south and southeast, the alluvial fan area to the southwest, and the open valley floor to the north and northeast (Source: Site Survey; La Quinta MEA). A. Would the project affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The project site is located within designated viewshed No. 1, which includes both distinctive and attractive types of viewsheds. The vistas from the project site include the Coral Reef Mountains adjacent to the east and south, the Santa Rosa Mountains to the south and west, and the valley floor to the northeast. Potentially significant impacts are anticipated by this project from the building height (35 feet) proposed by the Specific Plan. The future commercial building has the potential of being constructed to thirty-six feet in height. The proposed driving range building is proposed to be 35 feet in height. Given the relatively low profile and elevations of the residential development to the west land south, a 35 foot commercial building would be a relatively tall building surrounded by low profile buildings. The building would be seen from some distance away and would be very noticeable, thus, impacting the viewshed. To mitigate this tall profile, it is recommended that the maximum height allowed for any building on the project site be no greater than 35 feet. At 35 feet there would be a transition from the low profile residential units and reduce the visual impact in the project area. I he driving range will have a 110-foot high black nylon netting around it for safety concerns. The netting will be attached to the 110 foot tall light tripods (modular steel) towers The towers would be visible away from the project site. The black netting becomes more difficult to discern as the distance away from the project increases. Black had been demonstrated to be the least visible color for netting. There is no identifiable mitigation for the netting other than color and the, applicant is proposing the most invisible color available. There is no identifiable mitigation for the towers other than color or a lowering of height. The least intrusive color for the towers is black. Page 30 047 B. Would the project have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will be required to comply at the time of development with architectural and landscaping policies and ordinances of the City in effect at the time of development. The proposed commons building will be 35 feet in height. The CR Zoning District allows potential building height of 50 feet for the future commercial building. A 50-foot high commercial building surrounded by low profile residential units would, create a noticeable visual impact. In order to mitigate this impact it is recommended that the maximum height of all buildings be limited to 36 feet. This reduction in potential height, would lessen the visual impact and provide a transition from the low profile residential areas to the 110-foot light towers around the driving range. C. Would the project create light or glare? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. Fourteen modular steel towers are used to mount light fixtures to light the course for night use. seven towers on each side of the range provide east and west facing lighting. Each tower has three fixtures mounted at both 80 and 100 feet, fabric shields of 9' by 12' intertwined with the netting to reduce light spillage is proposed. Four l00' high steel poles, two on each side of the Commons Building, with three mounted and shielded fixtures on each pole provides north facing light to the tee area for the driving range. All tower and pole light fixtures are proposed to have 1,000 watt metal halide and high pressure sodium lights. In order to flush the ground with light to illuminate dark spots on the range., bunker lights are strategically placed in eight locations; two fixtures ( at 85 degrees and 35 degrees) mounted at four -feet at each location not exceeding beyond the 100 feet level of the tower lighting. The bunker lights fixtures are 400 watt metal halide. Staff has worked with the applicant to reduce light spillage from the golf range lighting as determined from the site photometric studies. To light the range for night use and minimize light spillage on adjacent properties, the applicant is proposing tower and pole mounted shielded fixtures in combination with ground mounted fixtures to provide sufficient foot candle power. The shielded light fixtures are proposed to be mounted on the netting towers at 80 and 100 feet and are directed downward. However, due to the foot candles needed to illuminate the range, there is light spillage. The golf range will close at 10 p.m. every night. Exterior lighting for the golf school/training area consists of 4 steel poles with 4 light fixtures, mounted twenty five (25) feet in height. The lights are all 250 watt metal halide shoe boxes which illuminate in all parking areas. Three 1000 watt fixtures facing west are mounted at 80 feet on the modular steel towers. The golf school/training area lighting is proposed to match parking lot lighting with four fixtures (250 watts) each mounted on a steel pole at 25 feet; and three fixtures (1000 watts) are proposed to be mounted on netting towers at 80 feet. A mitigation measure is recommended to reduce the tower mounted lights to 25 feet and no more than 250 watts to reduce the lighting intensity. Page 31 r. 4 8 Exterior lighting for the parking consists of 16 steel poles with 19 light fixtures, mounted twent.v five (25) feet in height. The lights are all 250 watt metal halide shoe boxes which i-luminate in all parking areas. 3.14 CULTURAL RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting A portion of the prehistory of the La Quinta area is known through the archaeological record gained from various archaeological investigations over the past twenty years and from extensive ethnographic information. A discussion of the prehistory and history of La Quinta is provided in the Draft Historic Context Statement of the City of La Quinta. Other discussions are found in the La Quinta General Plan and the Master Environmental Assessment. Local Environmental Setting The project site is located in the southern portion of the City. There are recorded archaeological sites within a one mile radius of the project site as well as sites on the project site. The project site was previously surveyed for archaeological or historical resources, with both archaeological or historical sites recorded on the property. In 1992, the first archaeological investigation took place on the project site in conjunction with a proposed regional shopping mall project that was never approved. This Phase I investigation was conducted by UCR ARU. Approximately six archaeological sites (prehistoric and historic) were recorded on the golf facility project site at that time. A. Would the project disturb paleontological resources? Less Than Significant Impact. It is known that marine -associated paleontological resources are found at elevations below 42 feet above mean sea level. The proposed project site is located at elevations ranging between 60 and 70 feet above MSL. Thus, it was determined that . the project site was outside of the area designated by the Lakebed Paleontological Determination Study (Source: Lakebed Paleontological Determination Study). B. Would the project affect archaeological resources? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. There are numerous archaeological sites within close proximity of the proposed project. The archaeological survey conducted in 1992 which included the project site did locate and record a total of 13 archaeological sites, 6 of which appear to be on the golf facility project site. A discussion of these sites and their status is provided in the archaeological report. There has been no Phase II significance evaluation of these sites, thus the significance is not known. For purposes of this environmental assessment, all of the site will be considered significant until the Phase II evaluation is performed. This evaluation shall be performed prior to issuance of any type of permit (clearing, grubbing, or Page 32 v 4 9 grading) for the Conditional Use Permit. Site Development Permit, or the Specific Plan. No clearing, grubbing, or grading shall be conducted without a permit. The evaluation report shall be submitted to the City for review and consideration by the City's Historic Preservation Commission. Because of the potential for subsurface cultural deposits, it is recommended that archaeological monitoring during the clearing and grubbing, grading and trenching of the project should be done for all on -site and project -related off -site work (Source: Everson 1992; Brock 1997). C. Would the project affect historical resources? Potential Impact Unless Mitigated. There are historical archaeological sites located and docurriented on the project site. A Phase II significance evaluation of these resources has not been conducted. These resources shall be considered significant until such evaluation is performed. No clearing, grubbing, or grading permits shall be issued for this project until the evaluation has been completed and the report submitted to the City for review and consideration by the Historic Preservation Commission. Additional mitigation shall include monitoring of all clearing, grubbing, grading, and trenching for both on -site and off -site work associated with this project. (Sources: Everson, 1992; Site Inspection). D. Would the project have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic values? No Impact. There is no identifiable unique ethnic values associated with the proposed project site. E. Would the project restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? No Impact. There are no known current religious uses or sacred uses on the proposed project site. 3.15 RECREATION Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta has an adopted Parks and Recreation Element and Master Plan that assesses the existing resources and facilities and the future needs of the City. The City has approximately 28.7 acres of developed parkland for Quimby Act purposes. The 845 acre regional Lake Cahuilla Park is not included in this count. There are also unimproved bike and equestrian corridors within the City and designated pedestrian hiking trails. Local Environmental Setting The project site is vacant desert land. There is no evidence that there have been any organized or approved public recreational uses on the property. Page 33 050 A. Would the project increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? No Impact. The proposed project will not impact the existing park and recreation facilities. The golf facility will add a new privately -owned recreation opportunity for the City. B. Would the project affect existing recreational opportunities? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed golf facility will not affect existing parks and recreation facilities except by adding a new recreation opportunity. �E�'TION 4• MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The proposed project will not have unmitigable significant adverse impacts on the environmental issues addressed in the checklist and addendum. The following findings can be made regarding the mandatory findings of significance set forth in Section 15065 of the C'EQA Guidelines and based on the results of this environmental assessment: o The proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, with the implementation of mitigation measures. o The proposed project will not have the potential to achieve short term goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals, with the successful implementation of mitigation. o The proposed project will not have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable when considering planned for proposed development in the immediate vicinity. o The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect human, either directly or indirectly, with the implementation of mitigation. SECTION 5• EARLIER ANALYSIS A. Earlier Analysis Used. Also utilized in the current analysis was the La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment (MEA), prepared in 1991, in conjunction with the 1992 General Plan Update and related EIR. The :3pecial studies prepared for the proposed project consist of: 1. Hydrology Study - The Pairings at La Quinta. Harold A. Vance, Consulting Engineer. July 8, 1997. 2. Cultural Resources Assessment: La Quinta Center, City of La Quinta. Dicken Everson, Archaeological Research Unit, April 6, 1992. Page 34 0191 3. USDA Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey of Coachella Valley. 1979. 4. City of La Quinta Historic Context Statement (Draft- Dec. 1996). Prepared by Leslie Mouriquand. 5. Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis of the proposed Bienek Golf Driving Range Located within the City of La Quinta, California. James W. Cornett, Ecological Consultants. July 14, 1997. 6. Lighting Study. Robert J. Dupuy, Interface Engineering Inc. September 16, 1997. 7. Cultural Resources Assessment for the Widening of Adams Street from Avenue 48 north 1000 feet, City of La Quinta. California. James Brock, Archaeological Advisory Group, May 1997. B. Impacts Adequately Addressed. The archaeological issues have not been evaluated for significance for the project site. The project will be conditioned to evaluate the archaeological sites, submit a report to the City for review prior to any disturbance of the project site. All other potential impact/issue areas, such as lighting, are considered to be adequately addressed with this environmental assessment. Certification of this EA by the City Council will confirm the adequacy of the environmental assessment. C. Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures are discussed in this addendum as they relate to the proposed project. A Mitigation Monitoring Plan containing these measures will be included as part of the Environmental Assessment and project conditions of approval. Page 35 r. v�►2 N (Y) O C) 0 0 t0 O z W U cc a 0 W U) U) Q z �I N CO rn CL a in It O It cn tM O r cn n. cn U r- cn cn r- L a� .n O U W z O Z z U uj Q Q Q a. U w Q W i-� Q W z W f" Q U p W S F-� S z p U W z z 0 U G W m z w cn Q U w c m Q W S H O LL z c H Q ix Q J U LL 0 W Q W U Z m aW J a Y � U w O � U U Q W U O z F- U. C7 W Z .J FC m O N o Z 0 W Q z 'n @ co J O C7 m .. O z Q z LU Q y U �y a c w cc Q ^2 N 4.. m m 27 CL W o > W to Q �, U = CL) CO m Q ma)C c O ri a- O � z W Q — 0 U m Z Q 0 J X U W O U U Q a W F- U C7 Z_ F- O C7 U.LU Z J � m O cn M— O O a. 5 y W cr t ct7 C Z C7 m _7 d O Z U (0 H N cdCL C7 � W O E ° va d! a � U W O "' U -� C Q N Q CD Lli cn dCo O CO W to 2L CaC N G i W Qcu C M t/� Z 0 Z 25 w 0 Q a w u w w w a W Q — U m Z LU Q _ W a cY.� � w O = U U Q W H U U m 0 ei U D 1- vi n. 0 m o _ m n. 0m °C E E O W Z -j O a � O O ►- �_ C ii U E `— .fl E a ' CL U 0 m O `J O Q ;D Q cn y C7 W O E cna) 0 _C J C Wco �_ E W C W CD .c E cu 0 al+r O N v-, C3) cr c0 co n w CL � C — W N U � -� c9 Q .0 cn M U Z 0 F- U Q U in W F- - Q - Q LU U co Z Q LU J � G. U W O � U U O m m C Q co � Q � O > U O a C am Q n. L •- O N cu r 0) cn U E O L co m O. Z O) M Q. m C O O *' C U O Q) a E O) C 0 O O O C E FL o au O O E .0 a. m c C o C m E E E J o U Co BE aa) m O • . ca 0 Fn Z Z O �_ N '� .. C N U C � n. a ° o a • UQ CL = > n. m a� v c Q.. c O •«. m c vi Z N m O U cn O E N C O O cn o. CD a f- Q tU0 a C aCi E m •C C O U' W E O 4" `) C m C CO ma) 3 ��co � c EE•� ° m ca W aci T O d O CD O p LU C y ,� m i co cC0 Q O) 0 w X y y L cd C O N C O +• co O) C g i- C: > � w m 0 — aEi 3 Q cn Q m c U m C' E �, U CD O ._� -a N >, a r t' a m E .0 U co N N u: W a a O Q U E m v co c M O 2 U Z W ® O? 1— in O F- W O O CD U U 4• M = a N Co nA" ti a / . � - O m b 2 a � 13.b E w O u � C: d « cu \ O c ®.g 2.§ / / / G +, E § _ Q G a) c M o % a c G m « _ � M c O ° § a) § / / CL 3 w 3 O S n E CL 0 3 2CL � y / ƒ m a) 2 ƒ § > o a2 U . >f E 2 ck\ f E % k CL E cn L 3 z2 ._ 24f \ E a w 2 _ o 2 C Q o § ƒ § / 3 \ ƒ 2 2 2 ' a o u / / - 2 \ c , E3/ S@ k / nm 5 cn« a) « g t % >° E O a)O 2 m K k / o cr\ � E u U) CL c $ w 2 « / Q g @ c CO a) C � E CO U 5 2 d 2 ° // m k R y C ° ° A K 2 7 uj S § 2 q § U @\ ¥ k C o a \� W Q 0 � W } i m Z Q � J Y U � W O = U U m O U Q a d co c cu w H co co o. o a J _ +1 cc U +- co cv O O U c`o •- > c _0 a UUILQ a� ca s IL o Z co f0 c c 0 E U C .D ❑. :3 O ° c > c a`) O O n, CL U O : - C C C a) N E E E n. a LL' Z co O O J m O a)> > O m a) cnr �,0 0 Zo Z Y C +,, c y O F O E E UE m co .o E a E a ' 0-Uc U0 VJ m O O h O m ar > o U O ` �' Q CL � U N ° o LU M_- o 4" c > w -0 ° n- a- co —cc tn Q Z U ca U a� ®Q LL cu 3�,(n a� N c :-� > �' w> o C. o O Z V co U F- c O U OC a o a w CL w co +1 L) N o a I` co F o '7 w W (� cv d: n M N JU Z O �: Q oa Q cco i� W Q - W >- U m Z � Q W ,J Y �U W O x U U � C A co co Q) N_ a_ N F- co O to E U f- ` a� a) m o� U C)) y •. co m C C E C CO UUU=Z .-: E 03 a O � Z H rn O a 0 CL c (D U U.Q..0 JZ CL Cr NO aa) ccco Z Z 00 � +, W aci E E t c Q Y CCD t O U 0 m W Q D U .» co N O N O f:. w cc c cc o -� w m N N = E O 0 0 CQ 9 w O n F" a) F' W C U +CO , CMU- L) U °: n c C y Q OC w -j Q = m c o m CL LL O u .- o CO O— to ui C co al N O co co =O- p U 0 CD rn �. co +�' m N — W i CU cn 0 Q m ++ _N CL fn Z 0 N to ul (L w 2 fo Q 2 O W Q — LU U m Z Q W J Y �U W O= U U co C a •5 � p W h co J � U r— O �m U a> co f. CD O U U c a M N FL C C CD E 00 a 0 J CL > w m Q cn O Cn ❑ Z Z > pp y g a) co (D E E E co co E CL — a t O 0 � 0 U ❑ m ❑ C a� n. co Z m m cu N U O A °D C C:c co �y n E c° C N� w m aoci H ccw c U �p '—' c N V g cn y a g cn »- a; N o CD o a) a) o p� w w e a � E_ ` .. C �_ as a) w cc C 3 0 3 O LU en co a f- > `L° _ �- v a cn z uw w ct F- E w -� cn a ", a E 1 E co N 0 co a E w g U v Z -A O at w F- - Q - w } U 00 Z Q � a U w O_ U U G W _ X-- F— U c`O � aU •u. O c ("� U c0 ` C _ ca O O O C O U a w O U O U �— CLUO v'Ji C � L � O E N oZ CO LU O2 m a > a) O Ll O p .�, c CD LU E O O O ' Ua m cn ac a Q •c c n Q = a E _ CD _ o a N w L ° .`- N a _ F- oG H o CO co w 4" N N cm N L u C U. O N w ►O- ui J c u Co > a m 3 m U N N co V w N E> OC= N E L a+ Q -U Q: N O co Ocu w O Q O M 0 w Z O '0 O L (� +L+ I W — Q - Cl LU U m Z Q 0 J � CL W O = U U ca C Q) C W O U cc ca OC U ram.. _L O U ? C +1 O v c O U a`r C Cm Z v om U O N C O O U a,cc C Cl) O L a a. CL O a� CU CD O a > O .J m ca > cn f- a Z Z am t7 . + `-' y Q) a C_ E ' E a O a) m U 0 m Z Q cca O C -° 'O O •_ U cu m a > V) m o co cm a_ ID wE m 4' T C C U U N rn �-4 U cr. c O �L W C a) C 3 V% C > ccC LU �' i O C)L ro i-- c co O a , E t/� Z C Q c O u) U Ucu n�i / _ � . c b m 2 uj a v � w OI Q � 5 < oUl ( ± '\ § O - 2 co W 0 ) ° D @ _ ƒ O g 3 . E -0\ IL 2 �f E §cx § # § m 0 o § \ a) 2 U o c cn CL EO 3 m q � = Q > $ f � kk 5 / M 2 © m cl L11 � E p 5 > ' U- m g c § 2 a c o co C .E co 2 O UJ L a cx o a cn ° (D k / CD2 � / @ . •- e E / c E c » p m uj CL a m > Q 2 a Q 2 k k / a. Q a) .- U •© a &ƒ •- § O 2 > � \oa v 0 / k < 2 U Q§ W _ Q A ul ca U QLU J ]C �U uJ O � U U co J Q O W H U co U C� � N C a) co N m V, O) L C C' Z m o C U O 4• i N O C O CL U c0 C_ O O C7 d W L c0 .a � J m o to F= O 0 O p tJ u a y W 6 c U ® a� a m co O Q C U C 0Uo C C Z N O O co U a U w E ', a O 0 u C7 O N — �' U Q O CO � C U N N N N U U M cr C V W Q N W C Q) R7 m. O C. n. c M N O U N C cn t.. (n W cn O CL . M C N- co o— inr— U a m_ N cn W cu o a) Q- ` ` Q f- U OCL m of co O U W O W uj U m Z Q uj J lid EU W O= U U EL r a. r ° p rn p cn c Q Q U) a. Ul a w ccoo� �U �U FEW- C Q N U? N co T n. r` 4 a. r 4 i a. Un M M Un m C7 cn O c N a) co C co U =a Z C ca ° co cn (D f. U C N Cl O O O 0) a� +r C ca C O O O n C O U o a. -c cD a n. a O E Z O .W., oc > > ` L > m O au a) a. a) w 0 0 0 0 �, c .., c c ., c M c a� o .` c aD LU co m U 0 U 0 u 0 m is C w cn C a) .a O CM z cn cnticn ° rn aU o :c c cn Q E .C-- a' ° °' .n ch ° a)° +. C7 to s +. o� F- � ° cn CO 4) C rn a cn .� in U U ,, = can `3 •(D w Lo O }ii W C C +UO+ 3 E M U N Q 2 W _ 2) to U OL ° o E n X n (M° au) U Co ° O C L — L O tC a) I�- o C W CD ._ C n' Ucn Q J ti O h°- a W Q 00 U trf W h— Q ' O W >• U m Z Q Q Lu a U gw O U U - cc n. r- N O Q � a) CaU � C C c0 CL c� U > .— H c-a)° u ) Q a m or — o oo a)o cc EQaC) 'cm °a, cn E o O U m . a) o 0 O U W m` cO> C �ca U U m a vi c a) > Z m m � � c cm .-. m f° > C _ co U a) C oc E CL U. W Z O a) J Li > m p a) Fn F— Q ZO >' C a-+ a) v :5 E W E E a o a) U 0 U cn C `C Q O U a7 � CU co p }UO. 7 Ocn cn OZ W U rn ) > +--0 o oVC cl a a) a) ° ' � ° o u� W O E E CL _' c E o }' H cc N W o ° cn O O a) a. o U z E °? a W cc Cin u cn cn in .. w N to :D Q CCCU E E o o? E '° CM a ? oO C E+ ui N CD (n CD LU -O cn N co E o n a) a c .D m a) _ L cl -0 x • UaU Uc_C U cco a- C 'a L Cl) U G O a) = "+O (n O co iwC 't e- cn 0- O m O cn O n W m t0 M -j a. Z 0 F- F— Q m / - « - c . im q k0 a b o I Q� � ■ LU _ Q 0 z E w ■ E 2 w_ k E F G . 0 0 w Q . r � c C. 2 m — O \ 2 \ / cli c ) 2 § �cc >- ® n _ 'LU kk CU LU / f . ƒ § / LU cou o / C. w § ) 2 (D LD � LU w 0) 17 ° 2 k k k q, U I � �I�►1`►11►CKK1]►� lu 1 �XY[�l�i� �Yi]_rli�1 � [�]►L]�E A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN 97-030 CASE NO. SP 97-030 APPLICANT: THOMAS BIENEK WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 14th day of October, 1997, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing and continued said Public Hearing to the 28`' day of October and 12`' day of November, 1997 to consider "The Pairings at La Quinta", a Specific Plan with development guidelines and standards, consisting of a combination of retail, office, commercial services, entertainment, and restaurants on 21.4 acres, generally located at the northeast corner of Adams Street and 48' Avenue, more particularly described as: A PORTION OF APN: 643-003-032 WHEREAS, said Specific Plan has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63). The Community Development Department has prepared Environmental Assessment 97-344 which states this Specific Plan will not have a significant impact on the environment based on approved Conditions of Approval. Community Development Director has conducted an Initial Study and has determined that, although the project could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, the mitigation measures incorporated into the Conditions of Approval will mitigate those project impacts to levels of insignificance WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings of approval to justify a recommendation for approval of said Specific Plan: That the proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan in that the property is designated Mixed Commercial which permits the uses proposed for the property. The Land Use Element, Mixed/Regional Commercial (M/RC) (Policy 2-3.1), allows major retail business. The project floor area ratio is .08 which is consistent with General Plan development standards. The project is consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan Land Use Element (Chapter 2) provided the conditions are met. pereso.sp97-612 Planning Commission Resolution 97- 2. That the Specific Plan is compatible with the existing and anticipated area development in that the project, as conditioned, provides adequate circulation. The General Plan Circulation Element identifies Adams Street and 48t' Avenue as secondary image corridors; it will have street improvements with a landscaped median and abundant landscaping contiguous to the street right-of-way consistent with Circulation Policy 3-4.1.2. The landscape setbacks are consistent with Circulation Element Policy 3-4.1.11. The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan Circulation Element. 3. That the project will be provided with adequate utilities and public services to ensure public health and safety. 4. That the proposed Specific Plan is conceptual; further review of Phase II development will be required under a Site Development Permit review process at which time project related conditions will be attached to mitigate impacts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby recommend confirming the conclusion of Environmental Assessment 97- 344 indicating that the proposed Specific Plan will not result in any significant environmental impacts as mitigated by the recommended Conditions of Approval; 2. That it does hereby recommend approval of the above -described Specific Plan request for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 12th day of November, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: pereso.sp97-612 Planning Commission Resolution 97- RICH BUTLER, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: TERRY HERMAN, Commuhity Development Director City of La Quinta, California pereso.sp97-612 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 97- 612 NOVEMBER 12, 1997 MISCELLANEOUS 1. Applicant agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out the City's approval of this project. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel at its sole discretion. CONAPRV.SP97-030 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-612 TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 12,546 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING, AND A 1,000 SQUARE FOOT MAINTENANCE BUILDING CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-612 APPLICANT: THOMAS BIENEK WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 14`' day of October, 1997, hold A duly noticed Public Hearing and continued said Public Hearing to the 28t' day of October and the 12`' day of November, 1997, for a 21.4 acre site with a two-story 12,546 square foot commercial building and a 1,000 square foot maintenance building, generally at the northeast corner of Adams Street and 48th Avenue, more particularly described as: A PORTION OF APN: 643-003-032 WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63). The Community Development Department has prepared Environmental Assessment 97-344 for this project which states the project will not have a significant impact on the environment based on approved Conditions of Approval; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings of approval to justify a recommendation for approval of said Site Development Permit 97-612: l . The proposed commercial building is consistent with the City's General Plan. A. The property is designated Mixed/Regional Commercial (M/RC). The Land Use Element (Policy 2-3.1) of the 1992 General Plan Update allows major retail business. The project floor area ratio is .08 which is consistent with General Plan development standards. The project is consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan Land Use Element (Chapter 2) provided conditions are met. pereso.sdp 97-612 B. The General Plan Circulation Element identifies Adams Street and 48' Avenue as secondary image corridors; it will have street improvements with a landscaped median and abundant landscaping contiguous to the street right-of-way consistent with Circulation Policy 3-4.1.2. The landscape setbacks are consistent with Circulation Element Policy 3-4.1.11. The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan Circulation Element. 2. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Specific Plan in that the project is a permitted use and complies with the development standards and design guidelines. 3. The proposed commercial building is consistent with the City's Zoning Code in that development standards and criteria contained in the "The Pairings" Specific Plan supplement replace or are consistent with those in the City's Zoning Code. 4. The site design of the proposed project is compatible with the high quality of commercial development in the area and azcommodates site generated traffic at area intersections. 5. The site design of the proposed project is compatible with adjacent residential in that the development is set back 92 feet from property lines and is restricted to 36 feet in height providing adequate transition of land uses. 6. The landscape design of the proposed project complements the building and the surrounding commercial area in that it enhances the aesthetic and visual quality of the area and uses a high quality of materials, and provides an adequate buffer for adjacent residential development. 7. The architectural design of the project is compatible with surrounding development in that it is similar in scale to the development in the area; the building materials are a durable, aesthetically pleasing, and low maintenance and a blend of surfaces and textures are provided. 8. The conceptual sign program of the project is consistent with Chapter 9.160 of the Sign Code in that it provides building identity using common elements of size, color, and materials. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: pereso.sdp 97-612 That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of Site Development Permit 97-612 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission, held on the 12th day of November, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICH BUTLER, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California pereso.sdp 97-612 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97- 612 NOVEMBER 12, 1997 1. The development shall comply with The Pairings Specific Plan (on file in the Community Development Department), the approved exhibits and the following conditions, which shall take precedence in the event of any conflicts with the provisions of the Specific Plan. 2. SDP 97-612 shall comply with all applicable conditions and/or mitigation measures for the following related approvals: • Environmental Assessment 97-344 • Specific Plan 97-030 • Conditional Use Permit 97-035 2. Adequate trash and recycling areas for each phase as constructed shall be approved by the Community Development Department prior to Certificate of Occupancy. Plan to be reviewed for acceptability by franchised waste hauler prior to City review. 3. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, or ground disturbance, mitigation measures as recommended by the Archaeological Assessment for the site shall be completed at the applicant/developer's expense. This consists of a Phase II Archaeological Assessment and providing an archaeological monitor on -site during grading and earth disturbance operations. A final report shall be submitted prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. 4. Handicap access, facilities and parking shall be provided per State and local requirements. 5. Prior to any site disturbance being permitted, including construction, preliminary site work and/or archaeological investigation, the project developer shall submit and have approved a Fugitive Dust Control Plan (FDCP), in accordance with Chapter 6.16 of the La O.uinta Municipal Code. The plan shall define all areas proposed for development and shall indicate time lines for any phasing of the project, and shall establish standards for comprehensive control of both anthropogenic and natural creation of airborne dust due to development activities on site. Phased projects must prepare a plan that addresses control measures over the entire build out of the project such as for disturbed lands pending future development. CONAPRV.SI)P97-612 1 Resolution 97- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 97-612 November 12, 1997 7. Construction shall comply with all local and State building code requirements as determined by the Building and Safety Director. 8. Prior to issuance of any land disturbance permit, the applicant shall pay the required mitigation fees for the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Program, as adopted by the City, in the amount of $600 per acre of disturbed land. 9. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Community Development Director demonstrating compliance with those Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures of SDP 97-612 and EA 97-344. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Community Development Director demonstrating compliance with those Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures of SDP 97-612, and EA 97-344. Prior to final building inspection approval, the applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Community Development Director demonstrating compliance with all remaining Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures of EA 97-344 and SDP 97-612. The Community Development Director may require inspection or other monitoring to assure such compliance. GENERAL 10. Upon their approval by the City Council, the City Clerk is directed to file these Conditions of Approval with the Riverside County Recorder for recordation against the properties to which they apply. 11. Prior to the issuance of a grading, improvement or building permit, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: - Fire Marshal - Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) - Community Development Department - Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department - Desert Sands Unified School District - Coachella Valley Water District - Imperial Irrigation District CONAPRV.SDP97-612 2 Resolution 97- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 97-612 November 12, 1997 California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. For projects requiring NPDES construction permits, the applicant shall include a copy of the application for the Notice of Intent with grading plans submitted for plan checking. Prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit, the applicant shall submit a copy of an approved Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan. 12. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. PROPERTY RIGHTS 13. All required easements, rights of way and other property rights shall be granted prior to issuance of a grading, improvement or building permit for this development. 14. The applicant shall grant public and private street right of way and utility easements in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and as required by the City Engineer. Property rights required of this development include: A. Avenue 48 - 55-feet, half of 1 10-feet right of way B. Adams Street - 55-feet, half of 110" right of way Right of way grants shall include additional width as necessary to accommodate bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes and other improvements shown on the approved improvement plans. 15. The applicant shall grant any easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and CONAPRV.SDP97-612 3 Resolution 97- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 97-612 November 12, 1997 common areas. 16. The applicant shall create 20-foot perimeter setback lots or areas adjacent to Avenue 48 and Adams Street . Minimum widths may be used as average widths for meandering wall designs. If a meandering wall is utilized, the applicant shall dedicate blanket sidewalk easements over the setback areas. IMPROVEMENT PLANS 17. Improvement plans submitted to the City for plan checking shall be submitted on 24" x 36" media. On -site plans shall be submitted in the categories of "Grading, Paving and Drainage" and "Precise Grading and Plot Plan." Cff-site improvements shall be submitted in the categories of "Grading," "Streets & Drainage," and "Landscaping." The "Precise Grading and Plot Plan" shall have signature blocks for the 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. Offsite street and drainage plans for this development will be limited to modifications, if any, made to the improvements installed by the City. If water and sewer plans are included on street and drainage plans, the plans shall have an additional signature block for the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The combined plans shall be signed by CVWD prior to their submittal for the City Engineer's signature. "Landscaping" plans shall normally include landscape improvements, irrigation, lighting, and perimeter walls. Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City Engineer. 18. The City may maintain standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements of construction. For a fee established by City resolution, the applicant may acquire standard plan and/or detail sheets from the City. 19. When final plans are approved by the City, and prior to issuance of grading, improvement or building permits, the applicant shall furnish accurate computer CONAPRV.SDP97-612 lfl Resolution 97- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 97-612 November 12, 1997 files of off -site (street, drainage & sidewalk) plans constructed by the applicant. The files shall be on storage media and in a program format acceptable to the City Engineer. At the completion of construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall update the files to reflect as -constructed conditions including approved revisions to the plans. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT 20. The applicant shall construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations, or enter into a secured agreement to construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations required by the City prior to issuance of a grading, improvement or building permit. For secured agreements, security provided, and the release thereof, shall conform with Chapter 13, LQMC. Improvements and obligations for this development include: A. Reimburse the City for the cost to design and construct improvements made to the north half of Avenue 48 and the east half of Adams Street including thirteen and four -tenths 0 3.4%) of the cost to design and construct the traffic signal at the intersection of the two streets. B. Construct left -in turn lanes and median breaks as approved for the project access drives. C. Construct six -foot -wide sidewalk and irrigated landscaping in the area between the street curbs and the project wall along the full frontage of Avenue 48 and Adams Street. D. Underground any utility lines within or adjacent to the site which the utility authority will accept underground. 21. If the applicant desires to phase improvements and obligations required by the conditions of approval and secure those phases separately, a phasing plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval by the City Engineer. The applicant shall complete required improvements and satisfy obligations as set forth in the approved pnasing plan. Improvements and obligations required of each phase shall be completed and satisfied prior to occupancy of permanent buildings within the phase. CONAPRV.SDP97-612 5 f li Resolution 97- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 97-612 November 12, 1997 GRADING 22. Graded, undeveloped land shall be maintained to prevent dust and blowsand nuisances. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other wind and water erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. 23. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the Applicant shall submit and receive approval of a fugitive dust control plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. In accordance with said Chapter, the applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the city, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit. 24. The applicant shall comply with the City's Flood Protection Ordinance. 25. The applicant shall conduct a thorough preliminary geological and soils engineering investigation and shall submit the report of the investigation ("the soils report") with the grading plan. 26. A grading plan, which may be combined with the on -site paving and drainage plan, shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and must meet the approval of the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report and shall be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or an engineering geologist. 27. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide a separate document, bearing the seal and signature of a California registered civil engineer or surveyor, that lists actual building pad elevations. The document shall list the pad elevation approved on the grading plan, the as -built elevation, and the difference between the two, if any. DRAINAGE 28. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. 29. Stormwater falling on site during the peak 24-hour period of a 100-year storm shall be retained within the development unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of public streets adjacent to the development. CONAPRV.SDP97-612 Resolution 97- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 97-612 November 12, 1997 30. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property and drainage in excess of the required retention capacity shall be retained on site or passed through a designated outlet into the historic downstream drainage relief route. 31. Drainage retention shall be in common retention basins or other approved retention/infiltration system(s). In design of retention facilities, the soil percolation rate shall be considered to be zero unless the applicant provides site -specific data that indicates otherwise. 32. Nuisance water shall be retained and disposed of on site in an approved facility. If storm water retention is in an open basin, a trickling sand filter and leachfield of a design approved by the City Engineer shall be installed to percolate nuisance water. The sand filter and leach field shall be sized to percolate 22 gallons per day per 1,000 square feet of drainage area. 33. No fence or wall shall be constructed around retention basins except as approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. UTILITIES 34. All existing and proposed utilities within or adjacent to the proposed deveDopment shall be installed underground. High -voltage power lines which the power authority will not accept underground are exempt from this requirement. 35. In areas where hardscape surface improvements are planned, underground utilities shall be installed prior to construction of surface improvements. The applicant shall provide certified reports of utility trench compaction tests for approval of the City Engineer. STREET TRAFFIC AND SITE ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS 36. The applicant shall construct any bus turnouts, median breaks, dedicated turn lanes and any other necessary or desired modifications to the existing street improvements as shown on the approved site construction plans. 37. The applicant shall relocate the two most southerly access drives on Adams Street , if necessary, to achieve a minimum of 250' of distance between curb CONAPRV.SDP97-612 7 Resolution 97- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 97-612 November 12, 1997 returns of adjacent driveways and between curb returns of driveways and streets. 38. Access points and turning movements of traffic shall be restricted to the three 28-foot drives on Adams Street and the Avenue 48 main entry, centered approximately 1,440 feet east of the centerline of Adams Street , which may be no more than 74' wide including two 24-foot drives and a 26-foot median. The access drives shall be restricted to right-in/right-out movements with left -in movements permitted if the applicant installs dedicated left -in lanes with median breaks which prevent right -out turn movements. 39. Street pavement sections shall be based on a Caltrans design for a 20-year life and shall consider soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including site and building construction traffic). The minimum pavement sections shall be as follows: Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" a.b. Primary Arterial 4.5"/6.00" The applicant shall submit mix designs for road base, Portland cement concrete and asphalt concrete, including complete mix design lab results, for review and approval by the City. Construction operations shall not be scheduled until mix designs are approved. 40. The applicant shall provide public transit amenities as required by Sunline Transit and/or the City Engineer. LANDSCAPING 41. The applicant shall provide landscape improvements in the setback areas and right of way planting areas along Avenue 48 and Adams Street. 42. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots, landscape setback areas, medians, and retention basins shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. CONAPRV.SI)P97-612 0 Resolution 97- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 97-612 November 12, 1997 Landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Planning Commission. Landscape and irrigation construction plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval by the City Engineer. The plans are not approved for constructicn until they have been approved and signed by the City Engineer, the Coachella Valley Water District, and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner. 43. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 in landscape areas outside the right of way. 44. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or spray irrigation within 5-feet of curbs along public streets. 45. The applicant shall ensure that landscaping plans and utility plans are coordinated to provide visual screening of above -ground utility structures. QUALITY ASSURANCE 46. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 47. The applicant shall employ or retain California registered civil engineers, geotechnical engineers, or surveyors, as appropriate, who will provide, or have their agents provide, sufficient supervision and verification of the construction to be able to furnish and sign accurate record drawings. 48. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all plans for construction or modification of Avenue 48 and Adams Streets. Each sheet of the drawings shall have the words "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" clearly marked on each sheet and be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. CONAPRV.SDP97-612 M Resolution 97- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 97-612 November 12, 1997 MAINTENANCE 49. The applicant shall make provisions for perpetual maintenance of the perimeter landscape improvements and sidewalk. FEES AND DEPOSITS 50. The applicant shall pay all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposit and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. FIRE MARSHAL 51. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 1750 g.p.m. for a 2 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 52. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super hydrant(s) (6x4" x2-1 /2") located not less than 25' or more than 165' from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travel ways. 55. Blue retro-reflective pavement markets shall be mounted on private streets, public streets and driveways to indicate location of fire hydrants. Prior to installation, placement of markers must be approved by the Riverside County Fire Department. 54. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, applicant/developer shall furnish one blue line copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans must be signed by a registered Civil Engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department. 55. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front within 50' of a CONAPRV.SI)P97-612 10 Resolution 97- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 97-612 November 12, 1997 hydrant, and a minimum of 25' from the building. 56. Install a supervised water flow fire alarm system as required by the Uniform Building Code/Riverside County Fire Department and National Fire Protection Association Standard 72. 57. Install panic hardware exit signs as per Chapter 10 of the Uniform Building Code. 58. Install a Hood/Duct automatic fire extinguishing system. System plans must be submitted, long with a plan check/inspection fee, to the fire Department for review. 59. Install Knox Key Lock boxes, Models 4400, 3200 or 1300, mounted per recommended standard of the Knox Company. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval of mounting location/position and operating standards. Special forms are available from this office for the ordering of the Key Switch, this form must be authorized and signed by this office for the correctly coded system to be purchased. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be referred to the Fire Department Planning and Engineering staff at (760) 863-8886. MISCELLANEOUS 60. Applicant agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out the City's approval of this project. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel in its sole discretion. CONAPRV.SDP97-612 11 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-035, TO ALLOW TOWER MOUNTED GOLF RANGE LIGHTS IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN 12,546 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON 17.9 ACRES CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-035 APPLICANT: THOMAS BIENEK WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 14"" day of October, 1997, hold the original duly noticed Public Hearing and continued Public Hearings on October 28`h and November 12'h, 1997 to consider Conditional Use Permit 97-035, to allow tower mounted golf range lights in conjunction with requesting approval for a 12,546 square foot commercial project on a 17.9 acre site; and, WHEREAS, said Conditional Use Permit has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83- 63). The Community Development Department has prepared Environmental Assessment 97-344 for this project which states the project will not have a significant impact on the environment based on conditions, and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings of approval to justify a recommendation for approval of said Conditional Use Permit 97-035: That the proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan in that the property is designated Mixed Commercial which permits the uses proposed for the property. 2. The proposed commercial building with a lighted golf range is consistent with the City's Zoning Code in that development standards and criteria contained in the "The Pairings AT La Quinta" Specific Plan as conditioned, supplement, replace, or are consistent with those in the City's Zoning Code. pueso.cup 97-035 Planning Commission Resolution 97- 3. The requirements of CEQA have been complied with, in that an Initial Study was prepared (EA 97-344), which concluded that no significant impacts from implementation of the Specific Plan will occur, with incorporation of mitigation as identified in the Environmental Assessment. The applicant has agreed to implementing the necessary mitigation prior to site development activities and is in concurrence with project conditions relating to this. 4. Approval of this Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare or incompatible with surrounding properties. The area to the north and east is designated and zoned for commercial use the area to the west and south is residential, and the site is located at the intersection of two arterial roadways, which commonly attracts automotive -based commercial uses. The conditional uses proposed are a consistent representation of the uses which would be proposed for surrounding sites. The adverse aesthetic impact of tower mounted golf range lights are mitigated to an acceptable level and generally in conformance with the Dark Sky Ordinance with a soft lighting design which includes limiting the height, direction and wattage of the lights fixtures, shielding the light fixtures, -and limiting the hours of night operation. Noise has been assessed and found to be below the maximum permissible levels. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: That the above recitations are trae and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby recommend confirming the conclusion of Environmental Assessment 97- 344 indicating that the proposed Conditional Use Permit will not result in any significant environmental impacts as mitigated by the recommended Conditions of Approval; 2. That it does hereby recommend approval of the above -described Conditional Use Permit request for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 12th day of November, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: pereso.cup 97-035 Planning Commission Resolution 97- RICH BUTLER, Chairman City of La Quinta, California r:1109WW JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California pereso.cup 97-035 ATTACHMENT #3 Planning Commission Meeting October 14, 1997 22. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Woodard/Abels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97-068 recommending the certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 97.341, subject to the attached Mitigated Monitoring Plan ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None. 23. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Woodard/Abels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution•47-069 recommending approval of Zone Change 97-084, as submitted. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Butler. NOES: Commissioner Gardner. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None. 24. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Woodard/Seaton to adopt Planning Ccmmission Resolution 97-070 recommending approval of Tentative Tract 28611, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval as amended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and • Chairman Butler. NOES: Commissioner Gardner. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 97-344. SPECIFIC PLAN 97-030, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-612. AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-035; a request of Thomas Bienek for certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, approval of a specific plan guidelines and standards, approval of a site development permit application to allow construction of a 12,546 square foot two story building with 80 tees for a golf driving range, and a 1,000 square foot maintenance building, and approval of a conditional us permit for a lighted golf range, at the northeast corner of Adams Street and 48`h Avenue. 1. Chairman Butler 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. PC I 0-14-97 6 Planning Commission Meeting October 14, 1997 PC 10-14-97 2. Commissioner Tyler asked if the property to the east of this project, which is planned for an affordable housing project, was contiguous with this project. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the project that the City is currently having designed, is located at the northwest corner of Jefferson Street and 48th Avenue. It is to be comprised of 48 single family houses, and 101 senior rental units. The driving range is approximately one half mile to the west of the City's project. Commissioner Tyler asked what the land in-between the two was planned for. Staff stated this land was also zoned Mixed Regional Commercial. The City's Redevelopment Agency owned the 2C-acres site and the 30 acres east of the affordable housing project and it too was designated for an affordable housing project. There are no design plans at the present. 3. Commissioner Seaton asked if the 195 parking spaces was sufficient. Principal Planner Fred Baker stated they were sufficient and consistent with the zoning recuirements for a project of this size. 4. Commissioner Woodard asked if the telephone poles along 48th Avenue would be removed. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated the power poles on the south side, adjacent to Rancho La Quinta, carry 92,000 kila volts (KV) and cannot be placed underground. Anything under 12,000 kila volts (KV) can be under grounded. None of those appear on the north side. 5. Commissioner Woodard stated that from a planning point of view, he did not understand how the City can go from Low Density Residential to high density/intensity commercial across the street. There should be a transition between the two. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that 48th Avenue was a four lane Arterial with a median. It serves as a transition from a country club environment, separated by an Arterial, to a Regional Commercial zoning on the north. It was designated in 1985 as Regional Commercial and was never changed. What was changed was to allow residential on the north side, as an option on the southern half. Lake La Quinta was originally designated as Mixed Regional Commercial and then the zoning changed, when the ownership of Lake La Quinta changed, to Low Density Residential, except for the piece along Washington Street, which remained commercial. It was the property owner who requested the change. VA Planning Commission Meeting October 14, 1997 PC 10-14-97 6. Commissioner Woodard then asked how the property on Adams Street changed. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated it had been zoned Mixed Regional since 1985. Commissioner Woodard stated he did not believe this was good planning. Staff stated there has been residential adjacent to commercial in numerous locations. Highway 111 is a Major Arterial and there is residential next to it. It is an acceptable practice to have single' family residential development along a Major Arterial and to use Major Arterials as a buffer. Principal Planner Fred Baker stated that in 1985 the City looked at opportunities to reduce the total amount of commercial in the City, even along Highway 111. Commissioner Woodard stated he had no problem with commercial, but the transition zone between the low density to commercial. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that Lake La Quinta when developed, had major commercial on Washington and across a small collector street was a Low Density Residential zone with no buffer. 7. Commissioner Woodard asked what the Commission was to approve on the proposed Phase II future regional commercial site. Community Development Director Jerry Herman clarified that whatever was to be developed would have to go through a site development permit and come back to the Commission for review and approval. Commissioner Woodard asked what are they were approving for this site. Staff stated they were approving a concept for a future office/retail use. Commissioner Woodard asked what the heigh limit was for this zone. Principal Planner Fred Baker stated it was up to 50 feet. Commissioner Woodard asked if they could condition the project to be lbwer. Staff stated they had conditioned it to be reduced to 35-feet. 8. Commissioner Woodard asked if there were any drawings that showed a line of site from across the street, if the building was built at 35-feet. Principal Planner Fred Baker stated they did not because it was a part of Phase II. Commissioner Woodard asked if the height could be changed at a later time. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated if the Commission wanted to rec;uce the height of the building, they would need to include it in the conditions for the Specific Plan. If the applicant wanted to change it in the future, it could be addressed at that time by an amendment. �3 Planning Commission Meeting October 14, 1997 PC 10-14-97 9. Commissioner Woodard asked about the south entrance into the office site appears to be close to the entrance into Lake La Quinta. Has the Engineering Department addressed this in regards to traffic to see that the left turn coming out of the office site and the right turn coming out of the residential development will not have a problem. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that Adams Street is going to have a median. Therefore, on the south entrance into Phase II, none of the entrances matched up, so none of them would have a. full turning movement. Discussion followed regarding the traffic circulation. 10. Commissioner Woodard stated that on the drainage concept, the drainage was being taken from the office site and directed to the driving range; should the driving range fail and the conditional use permit be removed, and if someone wants to have office buildings, can they still put drainage off one parcel to the next if the property is subdivided in the future'? Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that a condition, or easement, could be placed on the property, in perpetuity, to see that it stays with the office building. The Commission may want to consider this at a later time, after the configuration is determined. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated it would be appropriate to add the condLion at this time. The condition should read: "The owners of the commercial property have an easement right to drain onto the adjacent property or make sufficient arrangements with the City." 11. Commissioner Woodard asked if the color of the exterior surfaces was to be a different color than shown. Staff stated that the applicant would make a presentation which would clarify all the colors. 12. Commissioner Woodard asked if Exhibit 23B showed the sidewalk along the entire length of Adams street and was there a height limit to hide the cars. Principal Planner Fred Baker stated that a condition had been included to require berming, but not to a height of three feet. Commissioner Woodard asked that a condition be added requiring the berming to be three feet. 13. Commissioner Woodard asked if the trees shown on Exhibit 23D, on the side property lines. where there were extensions for the netting and wall, what size trees are being required. Staff stated they would look it up. G' Planning Commission Meeting October 14, 1997 PC I 0-14-97 14. Commissioner Woodard stated that the photometric light plan shows the lighting is going to be thrown directly down onto the driving range and therefore no vortical impact except the eastern property line where they have an 8-12 candle foot. His problem is the blanket of light, even though it does not come into his yard, the neighbor will see the light. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the applicant had a lighting consultant present to answer these questions. In regard to the property to the east, it is owned by the City's Redevelopment Agency's and as the Agency is selling the property, it would be taken into consideration when a project is proposed. 15. Commissioner Woodard asked if the lights on the extension are shining straight down. will the neighbors see the white light source. Staff stated the applicant's consultant would answer this question. 16. Commissionex Gardner asked where the parking spaces for the driving range in Phase I were indicated on the plans. Staff stated that on Exhibit 4 it showed 195 parking spaces. Commissioner Gardner asked what the height of the light standards were on the Sports Complex. Staff stated they were 80- feet and 100-feet. Commissioner Gardner asked what the wattage w•as. Staff stated they were flood lights, but shielded and directed to stay on the ball field. The City conducted a thorough redesign to help reduce the intensity on the surrounding neighborhoods. 17. Commissioner Kirk asked if the environmental impact report indicated whether or not there would be an impact on the transportation system. Or at least showed it to be mitigatable. Did the City do any "back of the envelope" or any. other estimates regarding the number of trips to be generated by this specific project. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated they did not ask for a traffic study. Commissioner Kirk asked if this project was under any type of limitations that did not require such a study. Principal Planner Fred Baker stated that an air quality study would generate the criteria to request a traffic study. This size of a project does not meet the criteria to require the study. Commissioner Kirk asked what the criteria was to determine a traffic study. Staff stated it was determined by a formula, the square footage of the building and number of employees anticipated. A formula determined by the certain size and type of uses that have a list of indicators that would require a traffic 10 Planning Commission Meeting October 14, 1997 PC 10-14-97 study. Community Development Director Jerry Herman clarified that the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of this site is .35. Their proposal is .08. The arterials were designed to accommodate the .35 which is more than what the development proposes. 18. Commissioner Kirk asked if this project was to be built out at .35 FAR, would it generate more or less trips. Principal Planner Fred Baker stated it would create more trips due to the total number of square feet, but it depends on the type of use. Each use generates more trips per square feet of building. 19. Commissioner Kirk stated that it is noted in the environmental assessment that the light impacts could be mitigated and the project is striving to comply with the Dark Sky requirements. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that recreational facilities are exempt from the Dark Sky Ordinance. However, they are trying to make it come into compliance due to the concerns that have been raised. 20. Commissioner Kirk asked if the applicant would be able to discuss the archaeological and historic objects found. Staff stated they had completed a Phase I survey and will conduct a study for Phase II. A monitor will be on site during grading of Phase II. The City cannot require this before any grading is started. 21. Commissioner Kirk stated that when the public addresses the Commission, he would like to hear what their expectations were for this property. 22. Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Thomas Bienek, applicant, stated he would address the Commission about the project, but would like to allow time for the Commission to question the consultants he had brought with him. He was very sensitive to the City of La Quinta's Dark Sky Ordinance. He moved to La Quinta from Palm Desert and has been in the Coachella Valley for 24 years. He likes the Valley and has been a member of the PGA for 23 years and associated with some very class facilities. When he and his wife decided to build this practice driving range, it was their desire to have it be the best known to man. The Coachella Valley has 80+ golf courses, and they want The Pairings to be the best. They have come up with a "state of the art" facility and lighting has been as much a concern to them as the City. It is their desire to be good neighbors. 11 Planning Commission Meeting October .4, 1997 PC 10-14-97 23. Commissioner Tyler asked Mr. Bienek to give an overview of the entire project. Mr. Bienek stated there are three types of poles on the market; wood, steel, and modular. Poles and netting are unsightly and they want them to blend into the sky as best as possible. The practice putting facility will have a golf school that will be open to the public. The street corner will have a park -like setting. The two story building will have a restaurant, golf shop, and other retail amenities with outdoor seating. They will be open 365 days a year with hours of operation 7:00 a.m. in the winter and 6:00 a.m. in summer to be closed at 10:00 p.m. The restaurant will close at 11:00 p.m. They will contract with a local security company for monitoring. All entrances are to be gated and will be closed at midnight. One employee will be working from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. who will be cleaning up and acting as a night watchman. 24. Mr. Bienek introduced Mr. Steve Lee, LSR Architects in Portland, Oregon, with a residence in Palm Desert. He stated he had originally started the design to conform to all City zoning ordinances. In working with staff, they had actually tried to meet the given conditons prior to coming before the Commission. They have reduced the height of the office building and tried to meet Dark Sky Ordinance. In terms of the height of the office building, they had no firm plans. When staff asked that it be reduced to 35-feet, they had no objections. They do not have any plans for the site and will wait to see what the market will dictate. It could be an assisted living facility. Mr. Lee went on to discuss the line of site and stated the facility was moved as far as possible from Lake La Quinta. It is 380 feet away from the west boundary line. On the south, the facilty is 250 feet to the north of the north right of way line for Rancho La Quinta. The corner was designed as a garden setting that will hide the cars, with a soft light on 25-foot high poles. The west and south sides will be landscaped. Within the driving range, trees border on all sides with water features with internal systems to handle the drainage. The driving range is sunken in a bowl -like function in the center. The exterior materials are cement plaster with the construction being concrete block, steel beams, earth tones colors, and reveals to break up the plane of the building and tie in the window and door headers. The roof will have a copper roof with patina p'.cked up on the fascia. 12 Planning Commission Meeting October 14, 1997 PC 10-14-97 25. Commissioner Tyler asked if the copper roof would take too long to patina and blind ot;:iers in the interim. Mr. Lee stated it would have an acid treatment to patina it more rapidly. 26. Commissioner Woodard asked if there would be a public address system. Mr. Bienek stated there would be no public address systems. 27. Commissioner Woodard asked if parking was allowed on Adams Street. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that the cross sectional plan for Adams Street and 48th Avenue, calls for a bike lane which restricts parking. 28. Commissioner Woodard asked if landscaping would hide the maintenance area. Mr. Lee stated it would. 29. Commissioner Woodard if it would be a hardship to reduce the height of the office building to 28 feet. Mr. Lee stated he did not see any problem, but they could not dic�.ate what will happen in the future. 30. Commissiner Woodard asked what the purpose was for the video room. Mr. Lee stated it was video golf that would allow customers to play on different coursas. 31. Commissioner Abels stated he thought the project had been well presented. 32. Commissioner Gardner asked why the building for Phase I could not be reduced to 28-feet as well. Mr. Lee stated the major part of the facility, to the top fascia, is 27-feet. The tower is 36-feet to take advantage of the view and add light to the interior of the second floor. 33. Commissioner Tyler asked if the facility would have automated tees. Mr. Bienek stated all 80 tees would be automated. The customers will never touch the bal:,. 34. Commissioner Kirk appaulded the applicant on his specific plan. 35. Mr. Bienek introduced Mr. Robert DuPuy of Interface Engineering of Milwaukee, Oregon, who stated that this project does comply with the Dark Sky Ordinance as well as being in comformance with the Dark Sky 13 Planning Commission Meeting October 14. 1997 requirements of the International Dark Sky Ordinance Association. The proposed lighting plan complies with both ordinances in all ways. There are two small areas that show footcandles going over the property line, those areas will be corrected. In regard to the question of what you see when you look out at the range at night, the range is enclosed with netting that acts as a diffuser and give an appearance of a fuzzy light. On the drawings the light grey shading is where the light is and dark grey is where the light is not. Mr. DuPuy pointed out that the proposed auto mall will have greater lighting levels than this project. 36. Commissioner Woodard asked how the netting would diffuse the lighting. Mr. D.uPay stated that the light is diffused by all sort of objects and is absorbed by the black netting the further away you are. The light does not go straight down, it is traveling at a forward angle. 37. Commissioner Woodard asked if the auto center lighting level was as high as this. Principal Planner Fred Baker stated that according to the City's ordinance they must be an average of one foot candle. He was asked if the height of the light standards was higher or lower for the auto center. Staff stated they were reduced in intensity the further away from the showrooms you move. 38. Commissioner Woodard asked if the light standard was 400 feet in the air and shines down, could it meet the Dark Sky Ordinance. Where does the height come into play. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the ordinance deals with shielding and keeping the light on the property. The intensity can be increased, but the light must be on the subject property and shielded. 39. Chairman Butler asked what the height was of the light standards on the south standards on Exhibit 23. Mr. DuPuy stated the lighting at the netting is 100-feet. Mr. Bienek stated the lighting behind the tee is 100 feet. Mr. DuPuy stated the lighting at the north end was 80 feet and shielded. Mr. DuPuy stated that for this light to comform to the International Dark Sky Ordinance it must be completely shielded. No light is going upward at all and to ensure confinement, they have placed additional shielding on the netting behind the lights in a 9-foot by 12-foot square to stop any back spill. PC 10-14-97 14 Planning Commission Meeting October 14, 1997 PC 10-14-97 40. Comissioner Kirk stated Exhibit 25-B showed an optional curve house -side shield and asked which one was to be used on the netting. Mr. DuPuy stated it would be the nine foot by 12 foot and it is possible for additional shielding that could be curved. The shield that is on the netting is proposed to be rectangle and is shown as possibly being curved. Their computer computations are saying that the rectangle is working. Commissioner Kirk asked if the curve was more affective. Mr. DuPuy stated their design was based on the rectuangle. He went on to explain the lighting system. 41. Commissioner Kirk asked if the surface of the driving range would reflect any light back upwards. Mr. DuPuy stated that it would to some degree, but the surface is not a hard surface. Some bounce will come off the grass and is accounted for in the analysis. 42. Commissioner Gardner asked why the poles and netting had to be 100 feet. The balls would be hit from the upper level, why was the netting and poles required to be so high. Mr. DuPuy stated the physical limitations for the lighting to throw the light out. They are using lower wattage than the national average calls for. It does requires the height to get the distance. As you lower the light it travels less of a distance. You have to have the height to have the distance. Comissioner Gardner stated that golfer do not need to see where the balls lands. Mr. DuPuy stated that in order to know how to adjust your swing you have to see where you hit the ball. 43. Commissioner Tyler stated it was his understanding that on the perimeter the poles serve a dual purpose; they hold the lights and netting. The only freestanding lights are at the clubhouse. Mr. DuPuy stated that was correct. 44. Chairman Butler asked if the winds would impact the netting and cause a problem with the poles. Mr. Bienek stated the poles are engineered to withstand 70 mph winds. 45. Chairman Butler asked if the netting would bemaintained. Mr. Bienek stated that if they appeared to be a run down facility, they were not doing their job. 46. Chairman Butler asked if there were any other questions of the applicant. Commissioner Tyler asked to hear from the landscaping consultant. 15 Planning Commission Meeting October 14. 1997 PC 10-14-97 47. Mr. John Vogley, landscape architect, stated he would be happy to answer any questions. Commisioner Woodard asked about the size of the trees on the east property line. Mr. Vogley stated they would plant as big a tree as Mr. Bienek could afford. Nothing less than a 24-inch box. Exhibit 23A shows the landscaping plan. Staff stated the calipher of the tree is not identifed on the plan. They have conditioned the project to show the size. Mr. Vogley stated the plan would come back to the Commission for review and approval. 48. Comissioner Woodard stated the condition should be changed to come back to the Commission for final approval. 49. Commissioner Tyler asked that the sidewalk be meandering along the east boundary as well as the other boundaries. He did not believe there should be a meandering sidewalk on the east as there was not enough room. Mr. Vogley stated that it would be a maintenance path only. 50. Chairman Butler stated that several letters had been received and asked for public comment. 51. Mr. John Fleck, 48-425 Via Solana, within Rancho La Quinta, stated he lived one half mile from the development. He was attracted to the desert because of the beauty and the housing developments. He was notified of this project two or three days prior to the meeting from the Homeowners' Association. His concern is the visual impact that this project will have. The height of the poles that support the netting, tag, the lights will be visible no matter how filtered, dim, or bright they are. The hours of operation are a concern; 17 hours of operation. With 195 parking spots it is not designed to be a small project. He is also concerned with what happens if this business does not succeed. It is a single use complex that can only be used for a driving range without extensive modifications. Sounds like a well designed project, but it needs to be moved to the Highway 111 commercial area. Why was this site selected in view of the residential developments surrounding it. It is his opinion that the project will negatively affect his property values. Had it been built before he purchased, he would not have bought his home. It is well designed, but in the wrong location. [U Planning Commission Meeting October 14, 1997 PC 10-14-97 52. Mr. Ralph Baggs, 78-705 Descanso Lane, stated he had learned of this project a week or so before the meeting. He looked over the plans at City Hall and initially found that the lighting would be a big problem. Lights 100 feet in the air are going to expose light to the surrounding communities. The diffusion of the lights by the netting is true if you are looking to the east and west, but not the south, where he lives. He was also concerned about the noise. Eighty people hitting balls with metal clubs is going to create noise. It is his opinion that his property values will be affected and he is opposed. 53. Mr. Tom Cullinan, Ranch La Quinta, representing TD Desert Development and the HOA association. He sent each of the residents a letter informing them of this meeting, but did not voice any opinion for or against the project. A few years ago PacTel Cellular came to the City to install a cellular antena at the school site south of Rancho La Quinta. It was their desire to put up poles 110 fee,: in the air. It was the opinion of the City, at that time, that this was not what La Quinta wanted. From that decision funds were put together to mitigate the lights at the Sports Center. The City purchased this property to develop low income housing and this is what was portrayed to their residents. Catellus Housing will be developing the eastern portion of the property at 48th Avenue and Jeffeson Street on a residential corridor. Residential communities can exist on a Major Arterial. The project is a good project, but planned for the wrong location. He would urge the Planning Commission to vote "no" on the project in light of the extreme impact it will have on the residents of Rancho La Quinta and Lake La Quinta. 54. Commissioner Woodard stated he understood the City had purchased the land for low income housing. Communty Development Director Jerry Herman stated the City's Redevelopment Agency purchased the 50 acres. Commissioner Woodard asked Mr. Cullinan if he. purchased his house thinking that .he City was going to build an affordable housing project on the adjacent site. Mr. Cullinan stated that he did not live at Rancho la Quinta. He was acting on behalf of the developer and HOA. When Rancho La Quinta was purchased it was his understanding that the adjacent sites would be residential. Even though low income housing is not the best development to have next door, it is preferred to be a reasonable alternative. 55. Commissioner Tyler asked staff how long this property had been zoned as it is. Staff stated since 1985 it had been designated as Regional Commercial. Commissioner Tyler asked if the zoning changed as a result of the City purchasing tl.1e property. Staff stated that in 1985 it was designated as 17 Planning Commission Meeting October 14, 1997 PC 10-14-97 Regional Commercial in the General Plan. The zoning was not consistent with the designation. In 1992 during the updating of the General Plan this site retained the Regional Commercial zoning, but added a high density overlay. The Geneal Plan is the ultimate plan and any development that is approved must be found to be consistent with the General Plan. 56. Mr. Tom Cullinan asked staff if the property to be developed by Catellus Housing was zoned the same as the property at 48th Avenue and Adams Street. Staff stated it was the same. 57. Commissioner Kirk asked Mr. Cullinan if it was his understanding that an affordable housing project was a better use than this type of Regional Commercial. Is this use a better use than any other higher intensity commercial use that would create more impacts? Mr. Cullinan stated the reason they did not oppose the auto mall was because they understand this type of development would be on the Highway 111 Commercial Corridor. Maybe it is not the best scenario, but it would benefit the comunity. It was his assumption however, there would be a residential buffer between their property and'the Regional Commercial on Highway 111. Commissioner Kirk asked what would be a better neighbor; this comercial use, affordable housing, or a higher intensity commercial use? Mr. Cullinan stated obviously a drivng range is generally a timed delay of another use. Ultimately, these developers have an out later on down the road. They are not sure that it will be there in perpeturity. It would be better than a bad looking residential development. 58. Mr. Ray Neufeld 48-205 Paseo Teimpo Lane, within Rancho La Quinta, stated that if he had known this driving range was going to be built, he doubts he would have bought his home. They did do some research as to what was going on in -this neighborhood before buying. He remembers reading the publications about the purchase of this property by the Redevelopment Agency and at that time it was stated it was for satisfying the low income moderate housing needs of the City. He was surprised to see the Redeveloment Agency intending to sell the land to this type of develoment. People have expressed concerns about the night time lighting, especially to the south, but also daytime visual impairment as you drive along Adams Street. It is his understanding the standards will withstand winds up to 70 mph, but sometimes the winds may exceed this speed. He would be opposed to the development. 18 Planning Commission Meeting October 14, 1997 PC 10-14-97 59. Mr. Jim Brenrwald, 48-070 Via Vallarta, stated that besides the lighting, he was concerned that the restaurant owners would obtain a liquor license and the amount of drinking that would occur. 60. Mr. John Boil, 48-600 Capistrano Way, stated he shares the concern mentioned, but more specifically he is concerned about traffic. Washington Street is a speedway. The golf range could bring additional traffic. If you go to hit balls, you don't go for half a day, but half an hour and 80 tee times a half an hour times 16 hours is a lot of traffic. 61. Mr. Tony Rushent 79-235 Rancho La Quinta Drive, stated he lives on the main road that looks right across at this development and in his opinion, will have an impact on him. He would not have bought his house if he had known. They did not buy on the other side of the development because of the school lights. The hours of operation will make noise and traffic. He would prefer housing be developed at this location, but maybe an office that would close at 6:00 p.m. would be best. 62. There being no further public comment, Chairman Butler closed the public hearing. 63. Commissioner Tyler stated he had heard a lot of "not in my back yard" comments. He recalled that a number of people had stated they would not have bought on Sagebrush Avenue if they had known Rancho La Quinta was going to expand. We all live in the city and there is a give and take as progress goes on whether we like it or not. The purpose of this meeting is to determine if the project meets all the requirements of the City. Personally, he thanked the applicant for his patience in bringing this development to the City. He then asked how many entrances are to be allowed on Adams Street. The site plan shows three. Principal Planner Fred Baker stated there were two on Adams entrances under this Site Development Permit. The middle entrance will :not be constructed until Phase II. 64. Commissioner Tyler asked if under Section 330.1 of the grading plan, if 80,000 yards of dirt was to be removed. Staff stated that was correct. Commissioner Tyler questioned Section 360.5.2 regarding noise where it stated no noise would be generated during the day. This needs to be deleted. Section 360.5.3 regarding scheduled events, needs to be tied into the noise section to maintain the same hours and operation requirements. Section 360.5.2 needs to have the condition added regarding the prohibition of a [us, Planning Commission Meeting October 14, 1997 PC 10-14-97 public address system. Section 370.3 talks about public transportation and he asked if bus turnouts were to be constructed. Staff stated they were not planned for because bus service was not provided for on these streets. Commissioner Tyler asked if Exhibit 24-A showed a monument sign to be used at the corner and at the main entrance off 48 Avenue. He was confused as to where the sign would be placed. Staff stated the applicant would have to apply for an amendment to the site development permit to do the ancillary functions other than what is shown at this time. Commissioner Tyler stated the text and exhibits do not agree with each other. 65. Commissioner Tyler asked if the applicant intended to have satellite dishes and if so, where. Mr. Lee stated the satellite dishes would be screened as they will be in the east maintenance yard and will be the smaller dish size. 66. Commissioner Tyler commented that in the staff report the 80-foot high light fixtures are conditioned to be lowered to 25-feet. On Page 5 of the site plan, the last sentence is garbelled which makes it confusing as to what is going to happen. Page 71, Condition #5 should refer to Section 330.1 which is the grading plan and not Section 330.2. In Condition #7, the word "netting" should be removed. Staff clarified that there were lights on the tower netting that light the practice putting area which are at 25-feet. Page 76, Condition #3, delete the first word "provide". Need to fix where Dune Palms Road appears and should not. On Page 83, Commissioner Tyler questioned Condition #38 as to whether or not it gave the applicant the option of making the entrances left turn in and if he wanted to modify the center medians. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that was true, he could modify the center median to create a left turn in, but not out. He cannot create a full turn intersection. 67. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 86 be changed to reflect the correct area code for the Fire Department. Page 90, Condition #4, the last sentence should be clarified to read, "the height of the towers shall not exceed 110 feet". 68. Commissioner Seaton stated she had concerns. She complimented the developer for the work, but believes it is not a suitable use for the area nor is it compatible with the neighbors. It does not come close to the theme for La Quinta. PIC a Vk 4 Planning Commission Meeting October 14, 1997 PC 10-14-97 69. Commissioner Woodard asked the applicant if there would be a liquor license. Mr. Bienek stated it would be for beer and wine only. Commissioner Woodard asked if a condition could be added which would not allow alcohol. Commissioner Tyler challenged this and asked why we would deny him what ever country club in the area has. Staff stated a condition could be added to deal with beer and wine sales. 70. Commissioner Woodard stated he liked the design of the building, the land planning is wonderful, and the corner landscaping treatment is beautiful, but he has a problem with the lighting. A line of site drawing is needed from Rancho La Quinta over 48th Avenue, over past the proposed buildings, to show the height of the light standards. The elevations have the two standards drawn in front: of the building which are shown on Exhibit 25 to be 100 feet high. Commissioner Woodard asked why they were needed at this location. The neighbors can see the light source whether or not it is shining on them. 71. Commissioner Kirk commented that if you look at Exhibit 26, the site section looking west shows 48`' Avenue in sections, the Commons Building, and the light standards. Commissioner Woodard stated the homes across from the project will see the light source at 100-feet. Why are the poles needed to show where the ball is traveling? Lower lights that would light the levels, would a sufficient. Mr. Lee explained the purpose in having the lights at this height was to allow the patron to judge what he is doing. Discussion followed regarding the light source. 72. Commissioner Woodard stated he would like to continue this project to allow the applicant time to remove the four lights and show that the property owners at Rancho La Quinta will not see the light source. He then asked the applicant why the four poles were so high. Mr. Bienek stated that initially their thought was to have three behind the tee, poles similar to those at College of the Desert, shining out and bunker lights the rest of the way. This plan would not conform to the Dark Sky Ordinance. In order to conform with the Ordinance, they designed the lights high and shining down. In this program, the only lights you see are in the cube area, midway down the driving range. Discussion followed regarding the lighting. 73. Commissioner Kirk stated that on this issue of lighting, the 100 foot pole facing directly opposite Rancho La Quinta is not a significant lighting impact, maybe an aesthetic impact to have a 100-foot pole in your viewshed. The 21 Planning Commission Meeting October 14, 1997 PC 10-14-97 option in this plan is to extend the 110-foot poles the entire length of the project all the way to the Commons Building. Rather than having the 110, 100-foot, 80-foot, 60-foot, or 40-foot, you could have one more 110 foot pole, stick a light very close to the Commons Building, extending the light all along. You would have a higher viewshed impact, and the light instead of being 180-degrees from Rancho La Quinta, it would be 90-degrees. This may be a more significant impact. So as proposed, this lighting plan may be even better than the alternative. Commissioner Woodard stated he did not think this would work according to what the applicant had stated. The applicant stated that after many studies on the computer, the dark sky is causing more lights to do the same job due to the shielding requirements. Alternatives were discussed between the Commission and the applicant. 74. Mr. Dupuy asked if the Dark Sky Ordinance could be waived so they could lower the light standards so the source could not be seen. The light source could be lowered and directed away from the residential community. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the Commission could create the standards in the Specific Plan. If the Planning Commission wanted to change the requirements, those changes could be added to the Specific Plan. 75. Commissioner Abels complimented the applicant and staff on their presentation. He concurred with Commissioner Tyler about the comments regarding "Not in my back yard." This project will be an asset to La Quinta and will not detract from property values. It is setback far enough away from Rancho La Quinta, that it will not be a detriment to them. 76. Commissioner Gardner stated he too thought it was a very well designed project. He lives close to the Sports Complex and even with the adjustment to the lights, he can still read a newspaper at 10:00 p.m.. Based on that he could not vote yes. 77. Commissioner Kirk stated he too commended the applicant on a fine job and extended his compliments to developer. He, however, did not hear the public comments as "not in my back yard" as he shares some of their concerns. He appreciates the concerns raised by Commissioner Woodard, but the applicant has done all that he can to conform, and respond to the integrity of the Dark Sky Ordinance and the result is the high poles. He would be concerned if the Commission tried to relax their stand on the Dark Sky Ordinance. He does 22 Planning Commission Meeting October 14, 1997 PC 10-14-97 not believe that reducing the poles and sending the leakage out into the sky is a benefit. The photo pictures of the proposed lighting plan do not show any leakage. Any changes in the lighting scene would result in his negative vote. He is generally happy with the project as presented. 78. Chairman Butler stated he too was concerned about the lighting as well as the impact of the lighting on the surrounding neighborhood. Rather than taking a vote at this time, maybe the Commission should continuing the project and allow the developer time to look at lighting alternatives. 79. Commissioner Tyler stated he too agreed with Commissioner Woodard to continuing the project and suggested the applicant obtain a line of site exhibit showing the impact on the adjacent communities. The poles used by the Sports Complex were three or four feet in diameter at the base and this aspect was not even discussed at this meeting 80. Mr. DuPuy stated he shared Commissioner Kirk's concern about deviating from the Dark Sky requirements. This leaves them caught in the middle. If the Commission wants to look at different studies, can they have the flexibility to work with the requirements of the Dark Sky and could they have an understanding as to why the Dark Sky Ordinance is being pushed. 81. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Gardner to continue Environmental Assessment 97- 344, Specific Plan 97-030, Site Development Permit 97-612, and Conditional Use Permit 97-035 to the Planning Commission meeting of October 28,1997, to allow the applicant an opportunity to review the lighting and line of site information in regards to the lighting, poles, and netting concerns. 82. Chairman Butler asked that the Commission be shown the previous lighting plan as well. 83. Commissioner Woodard asked why the poles could not be arranged differently to meet the Dark Sky Ordinance and the surrounding neighbors concerns. 84. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that if the Commission is proposing to continue the project, staff will take the comments made at this meeting, along with the requested condition changes, 23 Planning Commission Meeting October 14, 1997 and bring it back to the Commission. The applicant will be asked to bring back the three prior lighting plans, and address the 100-foot poles, the four poles in front, along with all three elevations with the support poles. Chairman ?utler asked that the structure of the support poles holding the netting be included in the report. 85. Community Development Director Jerry Herman summed up the areas the Commission was concerned with: the two story building being reduced to 28- feet for Phase II; three foot berming and landscaping to be reviewed by the Planning Commission as well as the sign program; the four poles in front of the building; the line of site from Rancho La Quinta and Lake La Quinta; and the items as noted by Commissioner Tyler. Principal Planner Fred Baker asked that the drainage issue between the properties also be addressed. 86. Commissioner Abels stated that he did not believe it was fair to judge this lighting program against the Sports Complex lighting. 87. Following the comments, the vote was taken. The motion passed with Commissioner Seaton voting no. 88. Commissioner Kirk recommended the applicant look into the Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance to see what was put into their ordinance. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VIII. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS: A. Commissioner Tyler informed the Commission that an existing home on Forbes Circle with adding a second story and in his opinion it had "0" compatibility. The Zoning Code required no review for compatibility. If the Commission is going to be reviewing the Code, this needs to be added. Staff stated that a review of the Zoning Code was tentatively scheduled for the Planning Commission meting of October 28, 1997. B. Commissioner Gardner asked staff how many used cars were allowed on the Used Car Lot. Staff stated that to date they had not complied with the conditions and staff will be talking with the City Attorney to determine what the next course of action should be. PC 10-14-97 24 ATTACHMENT #4 10/18/97 Chairman, Planning Commission City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Item VB Planning Commission Agenda 10/14/97 Project - 80 Tee, Lighted Driving Range 17.9 Acres Pairings at La Quinta Phase I 48th & Adams Streets Dear Sir: iii' i ; ^ 1997 i appeared before the Commission on 10/14/97 and spoke in opposition to the approval by the Commission of the above commercial development. I and my neighbors appreciated your response to the community's concerns in delaying a decision until additional information could be gathered. To that end, I felt it incumbent on me to put in writing my concerns. I live within 1/2 mile from the site. it is my concern that the proximity of this proposed project with no "buffer zone" will impact negatively on the adjoining communities and residents. Specifically, the visual impact of: A 35 foot high 12,546 square foot structure A lighted 2- tier 80 Tee Driving Range A "Bistro Type" Restaurant with liquor license A 200 car parking lot with 16 2 1 /2 story poles light poles In Addition to the above: 1000 yards of Black Mesh Netting up to 11 stories high around the perimeter 43 Steel Towers supporting the Black Mesh Netting (Is this netting a hazard to our "feathered friends?) A flood of high intensity light over a 60,000 square yard area clearly visible to neighboring homes 18 ten story steel towers and poles with approximately 100 -1000 Watt Halide and High Pressure Sodium lights The developer stated the project will be open 365 days a year with hours of operation from 6 A.M. to 11 P.M. It stands to reason that this enterprise will bring noise, additional traffic and potential public safety problems for the neighboring homes. It is my understanding the the city of La Quinta designated this property for low and moderate income housing when purchased in 1992. Why is this development being sited in this area? Clearly there are more suitable locations for the developer, as well as better land use options for the city. Finally, what assurances does the community have for the on -going viability of this driving range? Will the community, at some point in the future, be left with a "White I`lephant"? Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, John G. Fleck 48-425 Via Solana La Quinta, CA 92253 c.c. La Quinta City Council ') 1997 THE PAIRINGS OF LA QUINTA 80-840 Vista Bonita Trail LA QUINTA, CA 92253 MR. JERRY HERMAN OCTOBER 21, 1997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR CITY OF LA QUINTA 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 SUBJECT: SPECIFIC PLAN (SP 97-030), SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (SDP) 97-612, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 97-344. DEAR MR. HERMAN, I AM REQUESTING THE CONTINUANCE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FOR THE PAIRINGS BE MOVED FROM OCTOBER 28TH AGENDA TO NOVEMBER 12, 1997 AGENDA. THIS WILL GIVE OUR CONSULTANTS ADEQUATE TIME TO PREPARE ADDITIONAL LIGHT STUDIES, AND PROVIDE A LINE OF SIGHT DRAWING FOR BOTH LAKE LA QUINTA AND RANCHO LA QUINTA. YOURS VERY TRULY, THOMAS L. BIENEK PRINCIPAL cc: FRED M. BAKER AICP PRINCIPAL PLANNER 00 October 21, 1997 La Quinta Planning CommissiOrI City of La Quinta 78-495 Calie Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: Proposed Driving Range Development at the comer of Adams Street and Avenue 48, City of La Quinta Dear Members of the Commission: 1 am a full time resident of Rancho La Quinta. The above proposed development has recently come to my attention. As a real estate developer 1 am generally pro development. However, I find the proposed driving range to be inconsistent with the immediate area. Three of four comers at the intersection of Adams and Avenue 48 tyre currently developod with high quality single family developments (Rancho La Quinta being on two). While I strongly feel the proposed development is a negative to the surrounding area, it is hard to believe the proposed lighting would even be considered by the Commission. The proposed development would have a strong negative impact on hundreds of homeowners in the area, many of whom have not arrived for the season and hence are unaware of the proposed plan. The desert nights would never be the same in the area if this proposal was approved. 1 thank you for taking your time to eview my comments lSiin�cere , W William Bloodgood Diane Bloodgood 79105 Via San Clara La Quinta, CA 92253 STONERIDGE REALTY & INVESTMENT, INC. 6M25 PEIZEz RD. SUITE 11 CATHEDRAL CITY, CA 92234 (760) 321-5957 * (760) 328-8095 FAX 22'd s6ee E2z e9L Jul"Ib36 9r0I69NC16 ZS:SS 2.E6ti-22-1CC OCT 2 ? 1997 October 21, 1997 City of La Quinta Planning Commission 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Gentlemen: I am writing concerning the plan to develop an 80 tee night -lighted driving range and restaurant at the comer of Avenue 48 and Adams Avenue. I must vehemently object to this proposed plan. I moved to La Quinta 9 months ago from San Diego because the beauty and quuet of Rancho La Quinta Country Club. After such a short time enjoying La Quinta I'm now faced with bright lights, noise pollution, and almost certain declining market value of my property. I find this totally unacceptable. Do we really need additional driving ranges and restaurants at the cost of a tranquil quiet life style? Will this encourage more people to move to the beauty and quiet of La Quinta? Numerous housing developments will suffer should this plan be approved!! I'm not alone! Please consider the long term effect on La Quinta when considering this proposal. Lets keep La Qunita "the secluded place" and turn down "The Pairings Driving Range". Sincerely, FRANCIS G. FABE 48-560 Capistrano Way La Quinta, CA 92253 Donald J. Moulin 78-863 Via Car-mel La Quinta, California 92253 (760) 564-1081 o{�c � � "11 1997 I October 20, 1997 City of La Quinta Planning Commission 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Commission Members: Re: Application for Driving Range and Structures at Adams and Avenue 48 In August 1997, my wife and I purchased a home in Rancho La Quinta for use as our full-time permanent residence. So far, we love it. However, it has been brought to our attention that an application was filed for a golf driving range with adjacent structures including a restaurant and arcade at the intersection of Adams Street and Avenue 48. We believe that such a development would spoil the character and serenity of the adjacent residential areas. We understand the site is zoned commercial. A well -designed office complex with normal business hours can blend - in as a desirable neighbor. But a driving range with evening hours, night lights, and an alcohol serving restaurant is totally out of character and inappropriate for the site. We strenuously oppose it. We are unable to attend the hearing scheduled for October 28, 1997. However, please record our opposition. We urge you to recommend disapproval of the application. Very truly yours, Donald I Moulin 4J-4� Barbara T. Moulin David T. Dana 78-625 Descanso Lane -_ - La Quinta, CA 92253 ACT 2.90 1997 City of La Quinta Planning Commission 78-495 Calle Tampico ' r - '`` `'''j' "�;;,�(_ ",�i 11"ENT La Quinta, CA 92253 �_ RE: Adams & 48`' Street Driving Range & Bistro; Hearing Oct. 28"'. Dear Planning Commission: We are full time residents of La Quinta. Our home is immediately parallel to 48 h Street near Adams. We purchased our home last year relying on the beauty of the mountain views and La Quinta's small town atmosphere. We could not imagine that A PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT OPERATION would be our neighbor. We could not imagine that a 300 YARD LONG, 110 FOOT HIGH EYESORE would be across the street from our home. We are writing to record our strongest opposition to the proposed lighted driving range and restaurant/retail operation at Adams & 48 h Streets. These are the reasons: 1. A Sports Bistro and Video ARCADE operating mostly OUTDOORS until 11 o'clock at NIGHT — with NOISE, DRINKING, TRAFFIC AND LIGHTS immediately next to two single family residential developments is simply a bad plan. 2. The light towers and black net are an obvious DAY AND NIGHT eyesore. 3. The LIGHTS CANNOT BE SHIELDED. 4. Even if lights and net could be disguised, we oppose. We believe that La Quinta already has two public driving ranges — plus all the private ones. Why must La Quinta have another? We accept many other commercial uses — low rise office - retail —restaurant (not fast food) — medical — senior care. But a HIGH TRAFFIC PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT operation is NOT compatible with the peaceful atmosphere of La Quinta's residential areas. A poor precedent would be set. This operation should not be close to any residential development. We urge the Commission in the strongest terms possible to reject this project. Sincerely, David T. Dana & Marcia S. Dana S20kc � 9 THE :PAIRINGS OF LA QUINTA 30-840 Vista Bonita Trail LA QUINTA, CA 92253 MR. JERRY HERMAN OCTOBER 21, 1997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR CITY OF LA QUINTA 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 SUBJECT: SPECIFIC PLAN (SP 97-030), SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (SDP) 97-612, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 97-344. DEAR MR. HERMAN, I AM REQUESTING THE CONTINUANCE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FOR THE PAIRINGS BE MOVED FROM OCTOBER 28TH AGENDA TO NOVEMBER 12, 1997 AGENDA. THIS WILL GIVE OUR CONSULTANTS ADEQUATE TIME TO PREPARE ADDITIONAL LIGHT STUDIES, AND PROVIDE A LINE OF SIGHT DRAWING FOR BOTH LAKE LA QUINTA AND RANCHO LA QUINTA. THANK YOU. YOURS VERY TRULY, THOMAS L. BIENEK PRINCIPAL cc: FRED M. BAKER AICP PRINCIPAL PLANNER 1397 MARY SEWELL 261 MONTCLAIR ROAD LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA 95030 M � e 10/21 /97 ()C i 211997 City of La Quinta Planning Commission 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Gentlemen: We have just heard of the plan before you to develop an 80-tee night -lighted golf driving range, restaurant, and retail building along Adams St. and Avenue 48! ! can't believe it! We bought our cassita at Rancho La Quinta just this last spring after looking at various properties from Palm Springs on down. The moment we saw Rancho La Quinta and the surrounding area, the nice town, the mountains, the tranquillity, etc. etc., we knew immediately where we wanted to be. Looking out on those beautiful tall palm trees, the desert, and those intriguing black mountains was perfect. Now this plan, lighting on stanchions up to 110' tall with black fabric netting, a video arcade,. and more, so close to our cassita, a most different view! We are crushed. Please do not recommend approval of this plan. There certainly must be more appropriate areas for a project such as this than in a quiet residential area. We are sorry that we cannot come to the meeting as we will still be in Los Gatos, but are looking forward to coming down in the near future. We hope you will give this plan some very serious thought and agree that the planned area is wrong, wrong, wrong. Sincerely, Mary S. Sewell . DAUM Commercial Real Estate Services WAYNE ALV/EY 7 le 4Lz "--�-X� � -mil u� G't���s �-�-� C�,� yh� w • f G' cc� . THE WESTON-WESTPORT AGENCIES, INC. REAL ESTATE AND APPRAISALS WESTON SHOPPING CENTER, WESTON, CT 06883 TEL: (203) 227-5191 (OFFICE) FAX: (203) 227-5193 October 21, 1997 City of La ;uinta Planning Commission 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA. 92253 Re: Thomas Bienek application Gentlemen: It is unconceivable to me - a former Selectman and a member of numerous boards in our town of ;Weston over the past forty years - that Mr. Bienek's proposed commercial development is even being discussed. He obviously has no regard for the neighborhood or the fact that his complex would devalue the homes of all in the area. If Mr. Bienek cannot be refused because of a zoning violation ... then your zoning laws need to be corrected immediately. We, in Weston, instituted two acre zoning back in 1953... and greatly restricted commercial development.... so much so -that there has been none since. I urge.your commission to reject his application and encourage him to locate on Route 111 where his type of operation belongs. Si , Jame T. Hogg Q 4 0 Via Sold a La quinta, CA, 92253 1997 cc T.Cullinan R. Baggs = _ Atty P. Hover F'_r -97 October 21, 1997 City of La Quinta - Planning Commission 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Attention: Mr. Stewart Woodward Dear Mr. Woodward, I am not normally one of those who would write a letter objecting to the development of a project. I normally feel that development is a positive thing for the community and it's residents, and have worked diligently for development of similar projects to this one near my home in Southern California. The operative word in the above paragraph is projects "near" my home. The projects which I have supported have been projects in properly zoned areas and have been non - intrusive to the country lifestyle in which I presently live. The golf course development and lighted driving range which I supported was in no way intrusive to any homeowners and was in property which was suited to this purpose. This couldn't be more different than the project you are now looking at. The project you are now looking at is across the street from a residential development. The long hours of lighting, noise and additional traffic will adversely affect the homeowners at Rancho La Quinta, of which I am one. As a matter of fact, my home is nearly across the street from where this project will take place and I find it hard to believe that a project like this could even get this far with your Commission. In addition to the lighting, noise, and traffic problems, the fact that a driving range must put up ugly and intrusive barriers in order to prevent stray golf balls from damaging property is also a factor which must be considered. Many homeowners like myself at Rancho La Quinta have spent a great deal of money to buy a home which is quiet and removed from the exact effects this project would have on us. Even though I am mostly pro -development, I must express my vehement opposition to this project in any form. Even if the lighting requirements were to be removed, I would still find this project objectionable due to the degradation this would cause to the beauty of this area. This project should be moved elsewhere. The property on which it is based must not be zoned properly and I hope that the Planning Commission will vote it's unanimous opposition to this project because it is not suited to this area. Sincerely, eill E. Anderson ANDERSON-BARROWS METALS CORPORATION 2800 ANDERSON AVENUE PALMDALE, CALIFORNIA 93550 (805) 272-4600 • (800) 8281300 0 FAX(805) 272-4649 7 7 City of La Quinta - Planning Commission 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Attention: Mr. Robert Tyler Dear Mr. Tyler, I am not normally one of those who would write a letter objecting to the development of a project. I normally feel that development is a positive thing for the community and it's residents, and have worked diligently for development of similar projects to this one near my home in Southern California. The operative word in the above paragraph is projects "near" my home. The projects which I have supported have been projects in properly zoned areas and have been non - intrusive to the country lifestyle in which I presently live. The golf course development and lighted driving range which I supported was in no way intrusive to any homeowners and was in property which was suited to this purpose. This couldn't be more different than the project you are now looking at. The project you are now looking at is across the street from a residential development. The long hours of lighting, noise and additional traffic will adversely affect the homeowners at Rancho La Quinta, of which I am one. As a matter of fact, my home is nearly across the street from where this project will take place and I find it hard to believe that a project like this could even get this far with your Commission. In addition to the lighting, noise, and traffic problems, the fact that a driving range must put up ugly and intrusive barriers in order to prevent stray golf balls from damaging property is also a factor which must be considered. Many homeowners like myself at Rancho La Quinta have spent a great deal of money to buy a home which is quiet and removed from the exact effects this project would have on us. Even though I am mostly p:ro-development, I must express my vehement opposition to this project in any form. Even if the lighting requirements were to be removed, I would still find this project objectionable due to the degradation this would cause to the beauty of this area. This project should be moved elsewhere. The property on which it is based must not be zoned properly and I hope that the Planning Commission will vote it's unanimous opposition to this project because it is not suited to this area. Sincerely, Neill Neill E. Anderson ANDERSON-BARROWS METALS CORPORATION 2800 ANDERSON AVENUE PALMDALE, CALIFORNIA 93550 (805) 272-4600 • (800) 828-4300 • FAX(805) 272-4649 City of La Quinta - Planning Commission 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Attention: Ms. B.J. Seaton Dear Ms. Seaton, I am not normally one of those who would write a letter objecting to the development of a project. I normally feel that development is a positive thing for the community and it's residents, and have worked diligently for development of similar projects to this one near my home in Southern California. The operative word in the above paragraph is projects "near" my home. The projects which I have supported have been projects in properly zoned areas and have been non - intrusive to the country lifestyle in which I presently live. The golf course development and lighted driving range which I supported was in no way intrusive to any homeowners and was in property which was suited to this purpose. This couldn't be more different than the project you are now looking at. The project you are now looking at is across the street from a residential development. The long hours of lighting, noise and additional traffic will adversely affect the homeowners at Rancho La Quinta, of which I am one. As a matter of fact, my home is nearly across the street from where this project will take place and I find it hard to believe that a project like this could even get this far with your Commission. In addition to the lighting, noise, and traffic problems, the fact that a driving- range must put up ugly and intrusive barriers in order to prevent stray golf balls from damaging property is also a factor which must be considered. Many homeowners like myself at Rancho La Quinta have spent a great deal of money to buy a home which is quiet and removed from the exact effects this project would have on us. Even though I am mostly pro -development, I must express my vehement opposition to this project in any form. Even if the lighting requirements were to be removed, I would still find this project objectionable due to the degradation this would cause to the beauty of this area. This project should be moved elsewhere. The property on which it is based must not be zoned properly and I hope that the Planning Commission will vote it's unanimous opposition to this prof ect because it is not suited to this area. Sincerely, . ���-9-. Neill E. Anderson ANDERSON-BARROWS METALS CORPORATION 2800 ANDERSON AVENUE PALMDALE, CALIFORNIA 93550 (805) 272-4600 0 (800) 828-1300 0 FAX(805) 272-4649 .� 1( r17 .., _ October 21, 1997 City of La Quinta - Planning Commission 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Attention: Mr. Tom Dirk Dear Mr. Kirk, I am not normally one of those who would write a letter objecting to the development of a project. I normally feel that development is a positive thing for the community and it's residents, and have worked diligently for development of similar projects to this one near my home in Southern California. The operative word in the above paragraph is projects "near" my home. The projects which I have supported have bee;a projects in properly zoned areas and have been non - intrusive to the country lifestyle in which I presently live. The golf course development and lighted driving range which I supported was in no way intrusive to any homeowners and was in property which was suited to this purpose. This couldn't be more different than the project you are now looking at. The project you are now looking at is across the street from a residential development. The long hours of lighting, noise and additional traffic will adversely affect the homeowners at Rancho La Quinta, of which I am one. As a matter of fact, my home is nearly across the street from where this project will take place and I find it hard to believe that a project like this could even get this far with your Commission. In addition to the lighting, noise, and traffic problems, the fact that a driving range must put up ugly and intrusive barriers in order to prevent stray golf balls from damaging property is also a factor which must be considered. Many homeowners like myself at Rancho La Quinta have spent a great deal of money to buy a home which is quiet and removed from the exact effects this project would have on us. Even though I am mostly pro -development, I must express my vehement opposition to this project in any form. Even if the lighting requirements were to be removed, I would still find this project objectionable due to the degradation this would cause to the beauty of this area. This project should be moved elsewhere. The property on which it is based must not be zoned properly and I hope that the Planning Commission will vote it's unanimous opposition to this project because it is not suited to this area. incerely, Neill E. Anderson ANDERSON-BARROWS METALS CORPORATION 2800 ANDERSON AVENUE PALMDALE, CALIFORNIA 93550 (805) 272-4600 0 (800) 828.4300 0 FAX(805) 272-4649 �...... _., . _ ,17 Q T 2 - J City of La Quinta - Planning Commission 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Attention: Mr. Jacques Abels Dear Mr. Abels, I am not normally one of those who would write a letter objecting to the development of a project. I normally feel that development is a positive thing for the community and it's residents, and have worked diligently for development of similar projects to this one near my home in Southern California. The operative word in the above paragraph is projects "near" my home. The projects which I have supported have been projects in properly zoned areas and have been non - intrusive to the country lifestyle in which I presently live. The golf course development and lighted driving range which I supported was in no way intrusive to any homeowners and was in property which was suited to this purpose. This couldn't be more different than the project you are now looking at. The project you are now looking at is across the street from a residential development. The long hours of lighting, noise and additional traffic will adversely affect the homeowners at Rancho La Quinta, of which I am one. As a matter of fact, my home is nearly across the street from where this project will take place and I find it hard to believe that a project like this could everget this far with your Commission. In addition to the lighting, noise, and traffic problems, the fact that a driving range must put up ugly and intrusive barriers in order to prevent stray golf balls from damaging property is also a factor which must be considered. Many homeowners like myself at Rancho La Quinta have spent a great deal of money to buy a home which is quiet and removed from the exact effects this project would have on us. Even though I am mostly pro -development, I must express my vehement opposition to this project in any form. Even if the lighting requirements were to be removed, I would still find this project objectionable due to the degradation this would cause to the beauty of this area. This project should be moved elsewhere. The property on which it is based must not be zoned properly and I hope that -the Planning Commission will vote it's unanimous opposition to this project because it is not suited to this area. .ncerely, Neill E. Anderson ANDERSON-BARROWS METALS CORPORATION 2800 ANDERSON AVENUE PALMDALE, CALIFORNIA 93550 (805) 272-4600 • (800) 828-1300 • FAX(805) 272-4649 7 City of La Quinta - Planning Commission 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Attention: Mr. Wayne Gardner Dear Mr. Gardner, OCT ? 1 1397 I am not normally one of those who would write a letter objecting to the development of a project. I normally feel that development is a positive thing for the community and it's residents, and have worked diligently for development of similar projects to this one near my home in Southern California. The operative word in the above paragraph is projects "near" my home. The projects which I have supported have been projects in properly zoned areas and have been non - intrusive to the country lifestyle in which I presently live. The golf course development and lighted driving range which I supported was in no way intrusive to any homeowners and was in property which was suited to this purpose. This couldn't be more different than the project you are now looking at. The project you are now looking at is across the street from a residential development. The long hours of lighting, noise and additional traffic will adversely affect the homeowners at Rancho La Quinta, of which I am one. As a matter of fact, my home is nearly across the street from where this project will take place and I find it hard to believe that a project like this could even get this far with your Commission. In addition to the lighting, noise, and traffic problems, the fact that a driving range must put up ugly and intrusive barriers in order to prevent stray golf balls from damaging property is also a factor which must be considered. Many homeowners like myself at Rancho La Quinta have spent a great deal of money to buy a home which is quiet and removed from the exact effects this project would have on us. Even though I am mostly pro -development, I must express my vehement opposition to this project in any form. Even if the lighting requirements were to be removed, I would still find this project objectionable due to the degradation this would cause to the beauty of this area. This project should be moved elsewhere. The property on which it is based must not be zoned properly and I hope that the Planning Commission will vote it's unanimous opposition to this project because it is not suited to this area. Sincerely, Neill E. Anderson ANDERSON-BARROWS METALS CORPORATION 2800 ANDERSON AVENUE PALMDALE, CALIFORNIA 93550 (805) 272-4600 • (800) 826-1300 • FAX(805) 272-4649 _17 City of La Quinta - Planning Commission 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Attention: Mr. Richard Butler Dear Mr. Butler, I am not normally one of those who would write a letter objecting to the development of a project. I normally feel that development is a positive thing for the community and it's residents, and have worked diligently for development of similar projects to this one near my home in Southern California. The operative word in the above paragraph is projects "near" my home. The projects which I have supported have been projects in properly zoned areas and have been non - intrusive to the country lifestyle in which I presently live. The golf course development and lighted driving range which I supported was in no way intrusive to any homeowners and was in property which was suited to this purpose. This couldn't be more different than the project you are now looking at. The project you are now looking at is across the street from a residential development. The long hours of lighting, noise and additional traffic will adversely affect the homeowners at Rancho La Quinta, of which I am one. As a matter of fact, my home is nearly across the street from where this project will take place and I find it hard to believe that a project like this could even get this far with your Commission. In addition to the lighting, noise, and traffic problems, the fact that a driving range must put up ugly and intrusive barriers in order to prevent stray golf balls from damaging property is also a factor which must be considered. Many homeowners like myself at Rancho La Quinta have spent a great deal of money to buy a home which is quiet and removed from the exact effects this project would have on us. Even though I am mostly pro -development, I must express my vehement opposition to this project in any form. Even if the lighting requirements were to be removed, I would still find this project objectionable due to the degradation this would cause to the beauty of this area. This project should be moved elsewhere. The property on which it is based must not be zoned properly and I hope that the Planning Commission will vote it's unanimous opposition to this project because it is not suited to this area. Sincerely, Neill E. Anderson ANDERSON-BARROWS METALS CORPORATION 2800 ANDERSON AVENUE PALMDALE, CALIFORNIA 93550 (805) 272-4600 • (800) 828-1300 • FAX(805) 272-4649 J 1 Robert J. Kohler 48-180 via Solana La Quinta, CA 92253 9 C T - gna7 City of La Quinta Planning Commission October, 24 1997 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 To Whom it May Concern, I wish to voice my opposition to the driving range complex proposed for development adjacent to Rancho La Quinta. We bought our home in Rancho La Quinta after careful consideration of many alternatives in many other desert cities. Not only is La Quinta still a nice place to live, but Rancho La Quinta holds the promise of being one of the premier developments in the desert. The combination of a very nice environment, pleasant surroundings and the quiet atmosphere are something that La Quinta should try and preserve for communities such as Rancho La Quinta. The economic well being of the people who buy in Rancho La Quinta should be the kind of tax payers the local government should want to attract. I encourage you not to give us a reason to want to move by the approval of the proposed driving range. Your consideration of the homeowners views is greatly appreciated. Y, r Robert T. Kohler C�t - i �, l/ -- -- ---- ----- OCT 2 4 1997 L ■ ■ ■ ober 20, 1997 John M Sewell 261 Montclair Road Los Gatos, CA 95030 y of La Quinta Planning Commission 495 Calle Tampico Quinta, CA 92253 r Members of the Planning Commission: ■ ■ ■ !'-97 etter notifying me of Thomas Bienek's plan to create a monster, noisy, ht-illuminated golf driving range within a stone's throw of my newly chased residence at Rancho La Quinta is causing me great distress. did you choose a date for the public hearing that is clearly well in ance of the arrival of many of the seasonal residents? And why, in an a with much vacant land, must a driving range be located adjacent to a -drawer residential development? m appalled that the Commission would even consider such a project, much s, apparently, consider it seriously. this project were to be approved I should be obliged to sell my idence, undoubtedly at a substantial loss since no one in their right d would buy into such a disaster, and move to an area where the planning more wisely and considerately executed. ,ASE discharge your responsibility in this matter wisely, with careful ,sideration of rights of the citizens of La Quinta and the residents of .cho La Quinta. y truly yours, � in M. Sewell 055 Via Vallarta Quinta, CA 92253 El October 21, 1997 La Quinta Planning Commission City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: Proposed Driving Range Development at the corner of Adams Street and Avenue 48, City of La Quinta Dear Members of the Commission: OCT 2 ^ 1997 I am a full time resident of Rancho La Quinta. The above proposed development has recently come to my attention. As a real estate developer I am generally pro development. However, I find the proposed driving range to be inconsistent with the immediate area. Three of four corners at the intersection of Adams and Avenue 48 are currently developed with high quality single family developments (Rancho La Quinta being on two). While I strongly feel the proposed development is a negative to the surrounding area, it is hard to believe the proposed lighting would even be considered by the Commission. The proposed development would have a strong negative impact on hundreds of homeowners in the area, many of whom have not arrived for the season and hence are unaware of the proposed plan. The desert nights would never be the same in the area if this proposal was approved. I thank you for taking your time to feview my comments. Sincerel , � 3 William Bloodgood Diane Bloodgood 79105 'Via San Clara La Quinta, CA 92253 STONER.IDGE REALTY & INVESTMENT, INC. 68-625 PEREz RD. SUITE 11 CATHEDRAL CITY, CA 92234 (760) 321-5957 0 (760) 328-8095 FAX N. Dexter Williams Jr. Karen Williams 48-135 Via Vallarta La Quinta, CA 92253 21 October 1997 OCT 21 11997 City of La Quinta Planning Commission 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Planning Commission; As residents of La Quinta we are writing with regard to the proposed development of a lighted driving range and retail building on Avenue 48. This proposed development is in complete contrast to the primarily residential nature of the surrounding area. Would you wish your home to be awash in artificial lighting during the evening, much less until 11 PM? Would you wish heavy auto traffic and the accompanying noise to fill your home during the day and until 11 PM. Would you welcome the unsightliness of 10 story tall light stanchions and the requisite black fabric hung from equally imposing poles along the length of this facility? The question we ask, if this proposed facility had already existed would it have negatively affected our decision to purchase our current home? The answer is obviously yes and. therefore defines this development as an intrusive land use. This proposed facility will not only have a detrimental impact on property values but more importantly on the quality of life and the environment that attracted our family to La Quinta. We are not anti -growth fanatics but we find the proposed use of this land completely inappropriate and in opposition to the residential, small retail feel of the area. We strongly urge you not to recommend approval of this development to the City Council. Please vote no on this development. Thank you for your consideration of this correspondence. Sincerely, N. Dexter Williams Jr. Kare Williams rumilON-i- (760) 771-2135 ELLIS M. YARNELL - -- -- - 48-235 VIA VALLARTA LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 9M3 October 21, 1997 City of La Quinta Planning Commission 78-4495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 As a La Quinta homeowner I object to the proposed night -lighted driving range and related commercial buildings at the corner of Adams Street and Avenue 48. The project is inappropriate immediately adjoining residential communities. It should be permitted only in industrial or major commercial areas well removed from residences. As described, by day it will present an ugly facade of fabric netting to the public and to the neighborhood. The most offensive feature will be the. glaring night lighting for the driving range. Most communities in western Coachella Valley require and take pride in subdued lighting that permits enjoyment of the beauty and tranquility of desert nights —one of the characteristics that make such communities attractive. I hope La Quinta city officials consider La Quinta a community of that caliber. The Commission should recommend against this plan. If the project is permitted at all, the city should impose an absolute requirement that all floodlighting be directed entirely away from residential areas and the light sources be shielded to prevent direct radiation beyond the boundaries of the project. Yours truly, C AIC� l/( 01'JT -11997 City of La Quinta Planning Commission 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 I understand that you have before you an application from Thomas Bienek to develop a 80-tee night -lighted golf driving range and two story 13,536 sq.ft. restaurant/retail building located at Adams Street and Avenue 48. I have invested several thousand dollars in by home at Ranch La Quinta and pay a lot of taxes to the City of La Quinta. This type of development being proposed would only decrease the value of property of all the homes in the area. The heavy vehicle traffic in the area cannot be good for the future of La Quinta. The 110' tall light poles, along with the black fabric netting being hung on these poles, is this what the Planning commission wants for the city, I THINK NOT. Your responsibility as the Planning commission is to look at the development and ask yourself if this is good for the future of La Quinta or will the city just be another Cathedral City???? You cannot allow this type of development to be built in a high dollar residential area. Do your job and tell Mr. Bienek that we do not want this type of high traffic, ugly development in a residential area. DAVE C FT 48-185 P so Tiempo Lane La Quinta, CA 92253 8 Mr. Richard Butler Chairman City of La Quint. Planning Commission 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Mr. Butler. OCT 2 4 1997 October 21, 1997 I am writing you with regard to the proposed plan to develop an 80 tee night lighted golf driving drive and two story retail building adjacent to the Rancho La Quinta Country Club. I want to voice my strongest objection to this type of development being situated immediately adjoining the Rancho La Quinta perimeter. The combination of night lighting, traffic noise, and activity which typically accompanies an establishment which serves alcohol and has a video arcade is profoundly inconsistent my lifestyle and those of my neighbors who live in Rancho La Quinta. Mr. Butler, I have made a very substantial investment in the City of La Quinta and its merchants because I see this community as valuing a tranquil and serene desert lifestyle. A development such as the one proposed at Adams Street and Avenue 48 is incompatible with the fine qualities which have drawn me and my family to this community. I strongly urge you as the Chairman of the Planning Commission to reject this proposal and preserve the qualities which make La Quinta such a desirable community. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, N 0. Mer, U ❖ 79-N0 TW SM Gad ❖ la Oft U OZ53 October 21, 1997 City of La Quinta - Planning Commission 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Planning Commission, OCT 2 4 1997 t. ;IT I am not normally one of those who would write a letter objecting to the development of a project. I normally feel that development is a positive thing for the community and it's residents, and have worked diligently for development of similar projects to this one near my home in Southern California. The operative word in the above paragraph is projects "near" my home. The projects which I have supported have been projects in properly zoned areas and have been non - intrusive to the country lifestyle in which I presently live. The golf course development and lighted driving range which I supported was in no way intrusive to any homeowners and was in property which was suited to this purpose. This couldn't be more different than the project you are now looking at. The project you are now looking at is across the street from a residential development. The long hours of lighting, noise and additional traffic will adversely affect the homeowners at Rancho La Quinta, of which I am one. As a matter of fact, my home is nearly across the street from where this project will take place and I find it hard to believe that a project like this could even get this far with your Commission. In addition to the lighting, noise, and traffic problems, the fact that a driving range must put up ugly and intrusive barriers in order to prevent stray golf balls from damaging property is also a factor which must be considered. Many homeowners like myself at Rancho La Quinta have spent a great deal of money to buy a home which is quiet and'removed from the exact effects this project would have on us. Even though I am mostly pro -development, I must express my vehement opposition to this project in any form. Even if the lighting requirements were to be removed, I would still find this project objectionable due to the degradation this would cause to the beauty of this area. This project should be moved elsewhere. The property on which it is based must not be zoned properly and I hope that the Planning Commission will vote it's unanimous opposition to this project because it is not suited to this area. Sincerely,. Neill E. Anderson OC i 2 4 1997 October 21, 1997 City of La Quinta - Planning Commission 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quanta, CA 92253 Dear Planning Commission, I am not normally one of those who would write a letter objecting to the development of a project. I normally feel that development is a positive thing for the community and it's residents, and have worked diligently for development of similar projects to this one near my home in Southem California. The operative word in the above paragraph is projects "near" my home. The projects which I have supported have been projects in properly zoned areas and have been non - intrusive to the country lifestyle in which I presently live. The golf course development and lighted driving range which I supported was in no way intrusive to any homeowners and was in property which was suited to this purpose. This couldn't be more different than the project you are now looking at. The project you are now looking at is across the street from a residential development. The long hours of lighting, noise and additional traffic will adversely affect the homeowners at Rancho La Quinta, of which I am one. As a matter of fact, my home is nearly across the street from where this project will take place and I find it hard to believe that a project like this could even get this far with your Commission. In addition to the lighting, noise, and traffic problems, the fact that a driving range must put up ugly and intrusive barriers in order to prevent stray golf balls from damaging property is also a factor which must be considered. Many homeowners like myself at Rancho La Quinta have spent a great deal of money to buy a home which is quiet and removed from the exact effects this project would have on us. Even though I am mostly pro -development, I must express my vehement opposition to this project in any form. Even if the lighting requirements were to be removed, I would still find this project objectionable due to the degradation this would cause to the beauty of this area. This project should be moved elsewhere. The property on which it is based must not be zoned properly and I hope that the Planning Commission will vote it's unanimous opposition to this project because it is not suited to this area. Sincerely / /Neill E. Anderson 48-10SVia Naffarta La Q anta, Ot 92253 Louis A. Fisher, Jr. 48-170 Paso Tiemmpo Lane $)P j 10,97 La Qrcinta, California 92253 October 21, '1978 City of La Quinta Planning Commission 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Re: The Pairings Driving Range Dear Planning Commission: As registered voters in the City of La Quinta and as residents in the Rancho La Quinta community, we wish to express our objections to the proposed commercial enterprise referenced above: (1) We do not feel that it is correct to extend the commercial corridor of Hwy 111 south to Avenue 48 whereby creating two different zonings, that are diametrically opposed to each other - heavy commercial across the street, enveloped by quite and established residential communities. (2) We object to the very nature of this commercial project in this specific site. If this land has to be developed commercially, why not a more typical project such as office building, etc. that adhere to normal 9 to 5 business hours with registered tenants. We do not see this type of proposed development in any of the most commercial sections of the Valley's cities - why here. Any enterprise that requires a very large number of 100 foot lighting poles in order to operate, that requires 18 hours of daily operating hours, that serves beer and wine surrounded by video games, that could potentially attract 1300 cars with visitors on a daily basis and with the potential of acting more like an amusement park in order to generate revenues; is totally intrusive to La Quinta's residential communities. This is not why we recently moved to La Quinta. In consideration of the good and well being of all La Quinta's residents and visitors who moved here, visit here, and live here because of the quite residential image portrayed by the City of La Quinta, we implore you not to recommend approval of this development to the City Council. Respectfully, Louis A. i er, Jr. Beverly Fisher a 40 plr6i , [�AUM Comffercel Red Est& Services WAYNE ALVEY 7, OCT 2 1997 4 L) -ell L L V— 7 Y-7 from the desk of C.L. WEBBER 1q-7 � � � � � �.,u1r>�� 6��✓ru� Lvmmv%a��anA �aaS3 L a, Q,•Gl.(/►^.,� l(/ �.�y+uiLf� ivti��u�..� �''�'/�-f�u'.��=F��, �c�,sz.C��U q�.C�✓ ��. ��.�c_ Lam.- �v..�,c�. . %i,v �. � . ; e evl A F ,.�/��y1r�/�,Y/1/i�L.Gi ��' /�'.-L /Y1..1'�7�C��� �" ��..L''-t�-���iy�r.C�✓!T' s i `/ _ r l ire ,� L • C 4,� �b �r O.A. FxmND 79-035 Via San Cara - La Quint,, CA 92253 - tel (760) 771-0090 - fax (760) 771-1720 October 22, 1997 City of La Quinta Planning Commission 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 I have just returned to the desert and became aware of Thomas Bienek's plan to develop an 80-tee, night -lighted driving range adjacent to Rancho La Quinta. I am completely opposed to this project since the lighting, stanchions, and resultant traffic would be extremely intrusive and devaluate not only the environment, but also the lifestyles and property values of the residents of Rancho La Quinta and other nearby developments affected by this proposal. I am joining the chorus of other residents in vehemently opposing this project. Very truly yours, O.A. Friend OAF/jc cc: Tom Cullinan October 23, 11997 City of La Quinta Planning Commisstion 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Commissioners: My name is Don Spears and I am a full time resident of the City of La Quinta residing at 78-864 Via Carmel. It is my understanding that the Commission is considering the plans of Thomas Bienek for a golf driving range and two story restaurantiretail building to be located in the vicinity of Avenue 48 and Adams. The hearing on this matter is currently scheduled to come before the Commission at your regularly scheduled meeting on October 28, 1997. I urge the Commission to reject the proposed golf driving range for the following reasons: • It is inappropriate to build a two story commercial structure next to a residential community consisting primarily of single story residences. • The plan to include a video arcade, which typically attracts youths, and an establishment that serves alcoholic beverages is an inappropriate environment for the young people of our community. • The lighting required to operate the driving range will have an extremely detrimental effect on the ability to view the night sky. The preservation of the night sky, as you are aware, is an important issue with the residents of our city and was, within the past year, reaffirmed by the City Council. • The safety netting required for the golf course will be unsightly, detracting from the esthetics and home values in the surrounding areas of Lake La Quinta and Rancho La Quinta. Your consideration of the above points and their application to the proposed project is greatly appreciated. Yours truly, S DoNSpe OLD FASHION MEAT MARKET • VISALIA LOCKERS and WHOLESALE MEATS, INC. 620 West Murray Street - Visalia, California 93291 City of La Quinta Planning Commission 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: The Pairings Driving Range To whom it may concern: - Telephone (209) 732.6439 October 23, 1997 As residents of Rancho La Quinta Country Club, my wife and I are vehemently opposed to Thomas Bienek's plan to develop an 80 tee night lighted golf range. We spent over two years shopping for a home in the desert, and we considered many factors before making our decision to purchase a home at Rancho La Quinta Country Club. One of the factors was the tranquility of the area, affording us peaceful days and evenings, with no obtrusive noise or lighting to spoil cur privacy. With the proposed driving range, we feel that we will be cheated out of the peacefulness that drew us to the area in the first place. We have only owned our home for six months, but if this project is apprcved, we will sell our residence and relocate elsewhere. We are not interested in a "Los Angeles" type of atmosphere being created next to our desert home. It is imperative that you consider all of the concerns and objections of Rancho La Quinta residents. We ask that you do not approve this project, as it will adversely affect our quality of life, as well as having a negative -impact on our property values. D lr address is: 78-950 Rancho La Quinta Drive, 92253. t ,.l� Pa T..�•t� Sincerely, James E. Byrd Luanne C. Byrd CUTTING CURING SMOKING Discovery 1997 it Academv tt the It-v Tolver D. Eugene Thorne, Ph.D., J.D. Robert H. Crist, M.D. ABPH, ABPP, ABFP Psuchiatric Consultant Director Curtis N. Van Alfen, Ed. D. Carol W. Thorne Tori K. Ballard Educational Consultant Administrator Admissions Director October 25, 1997 City of La Quinta Planning Commission 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, Ca. 92253 Re. Proposed lighted golf driving range by Thomas Bienek adjacent to Rancho La Quinta Country Club Dear Sirs Having served on similar commissions, I am somewhat aware of the awful burden you bear in trying to actually have a "plan" for a community, while trying "make everyone happy." Still, the job must be done, and it must be done well: whatever your decisions are, they will impact the lives and lifestyles of people for many generations. Often, the best you can do is study the various proposals carefully, gather as much information as you can about the nature and quality of the proposed entity and its builder, then survey those who would be most impacted by your decision. I'm glad you are doing that, and, it is with this assurance that I write this letter. I am a homeowner in Rancho La Quinta Country Club. My wife and I are already planning on more and more rapidly transitioning into full-time residents of "RLQ." Hopefully within the next year or two. We purchased our home in RLQ after receiving various kinds of "assurances" that this was a well - planned community; that it was quiet, attractive, sheltered from the glare, din and distraction of "commercial" enterprises. It was already apparent from our neighboring communities that there was an explicit comnutment to beauty and style that would be attractive and grow in terms of property values while insulating the occupants from the encroachment of various social and commercial nuisances. There is already a wonderful homogeneity that exists among the various La Quinta communities where Mr. Bienek is proposing to build a lighted, golf driving range with accompanying restaurant and parking for 195 autos? The site where Mr. Bienek proposes to invade with a golf driving range (which is expected to operate from early morning through late evening hours) is immediately adjacent to a lovely living community which has (had) the great potential of expanding toward the highway and Indio. But, not so, Lf your commission were to approve Mr. Bienek's hostile and distracting business enterprise. Please: do not approve Mr. Bienek's commercial proposal. To do so would most certainly frustrate what appears to have been La Quinta's former planner's hopes and dreams for this community to become and remain a peaceful and lovely living community. Were your recommendation on this proposal to be favorable, 1 know that my wife and I would want to sell our lovely home in RLQ immediately, before its value and tranquil living style are trashed by such a divergent and alien enterprise. Mocstincerely Dr. & Mrs. D. Eugene Thorne 105 North 500 West • Provo, Utah 84601 • (801) 374-2121 October 22,1997 City of La Quinta Planning Commission 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92255 Re: The Pairings Driving Range Dear Sir/Madam: l recently purchased a home in Rancho La Quinta. I understand that a Public Hearing was held on October 14,1997 before the La Quinta Planning Commission to consider their recommending City Council approval of the Pairings Driving Range. I cannot attend the next meeting in Council Chambers on Tuesday, October 28, 1997 but would like to voice my opinion. 7 UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES do I agree with this proposal. This development would be extremely harmful to our current tranquil lifestyle (one of the reasons I bought a home here). It would negatively impact my property value due to the night lighting, nets, and heavy traffic caused by the restaurant and video arcade. I req,ueot that members of the Planning Commission do not recommend approval to the City Council. I car be contacted at (248) 641-2601 if neces6ary. Sincerely, enneth R. Be le 3F= KAISER }S 250 P.A-%()'IIFMP() LVNF. 1(3I'INI'.:,A. f)2253 Mr. and Mrs. John E. Hulse 79-215 Rancho La Quinta Driver" J97 La Quinta, CA 92253 27 October 1997 Gentlemen: I am writing as a resident homeowner of the City of La Quinta to state my vehement objection to the application of Thomas Bienek to develop an 80--tee, night -lighted golf driving range and two-story 13,536 sq. ft. restaurant/retail building plus a pad for a future retail building on the property located on the corner of Adams Street and Avenue 48. I purchased my home in the Rancho La Quinta Country Club development in May of 1996., My home on Rancho La Quinta Drive would be directly across 48th Street from the proposed driving range. I can't imagine any commercial facility with a worse fit for the property around it than what is being proposed. Lake La Quinta is north of the project on Adams Street and Rancho La Quinta west on 48th Street, both areas are upscale residences whose value would be seriously eroded by this project, in addition to its being an eyesore, noisy, a nuisance, causing traffic congestion; a nightmare for those of us living in these two residential developments. I can't imagine anyone considering approving a commercial project with 110 ft. tall lighting stanchions with black fabric netting hung on these poles for a distance of at least 300 yards south, directly across from our homes at Rancho La Quinta. The two-story building proposed would include a bistro -type restaurant, an arcade serving wine and beer, with parking for an unbelievable 195 vehicles. How could anyone consider such a project in the light of its impact on the privacy of the homes on adjacent streets? I can't imagine the noise and traffic congestion that this would create in our neighborhood. The hours of operation are proposed to be 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. -- 17 hours a day, with staff cleaning up for another hour, lit by the floodlights on the 110 ft. high poles - a nightmare I can't completely envision. When I purchased my home I asked about the property which Mr. Bienek is applying to develop and I was told that it was owned. by the City of La Quinta and the planned future use was additional residential units. A project like the one submitted for approval should, as a minimum, be located in a commercial area off of 111 on the corner of Adams and ill. I can't imagine anyone thinking a golf driving range as described has a place in the City of La Quinta. KNIGHT, FORD, WRIGHT, ATWILL DAVID L KNIGHT PARSHALL & BAKER RAMP FORD EDWARD L. t LTNN MARVINE "BI;tiKY"WRk;HT ATTORNEYS AT LAW, L.L.C. RICHARD1, MONTGOMERY,JR DANIEL K ARVILL 609 EAST WALNUT JLSTI* R DAMS JEFFREV" () PARSHALL ELIZABETFI H WEBER MICHAEL R BAKER LAMES R. GREEN, M.D SUSA.N FORD ROBERTS()N' COLUNMIA, MISSOURI 65201-4490 OF COUNSEL JEFFREY H BLAYLO CK DAVID W WALKER MARIA.M DECKER. R N (573 one Tele h449-2613 FAX 573 875-5873 � �� P ' ALSU ADMFITED I',J [LLINOIS October 23, 1997 City of La Quinta Planning Commission ' 1997 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Planning Commission: I am writing this letter to you on behalf of my clients, Mr. and Mrs. Norman Stewart. Mr. and Mrs. Stewart own a residence at 48-125 Via Solana in the Rancho La Quinta Country Club Development and are quite concerned with the application to install a night -lighted golf driving range near their property. My clients believe that this lighting would be intrusive and would greatly diminish the value of their property and, most importantly, their "quality of life". Norm and Virginia Stewart elected to acquire their property with the thought that they would be avoiding commercial developments of this type. They wish to retire to the property from Missouri and are truly distressed over the possibility of the construction and operation of such a facility (night -lighted golf driving range) in close proximity to their home. You are encouraged to deny the application for this development and to preserve the character of the neighborhood by doing so. DLK/gmk/Enclosure Mr. and Mrs. Norman E. Stewart cc: incerely yours, David L. Knight Sabine Pfeiffer 79-045 Via San Clara ♦ La Quinta, CA 92253 October 23, 1997 }(' ; ° ' 11997 Citv of La Quinta Planninv, Commission 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Re: Thomas Bienck's 80 tee night -lighted golf course Dear Sirs: Several months ago, my husband and myself searched the Coachella Valley for a new home. We had contemplated a move to Rancho Mirage or Indian Wells because of their reputation for a beautifully maintained and well -planned community. However, we came upon a development called Rancho La Quinta and were very impressed with quality, thought, planning and beauty of the area. We decided that the town of La Quinta was the up and coming Indian Wells. The town already had a resort with a well-known and respected reputation. The La Quinta Resort. With surrounding new communities such as PGA West, The Citrus, and of course, Rancho La Quinta, we felt that the Town of La Quinta had a bright future. Imagine our shock and dismay, when only a few days ago, we received a letter detailing the proposed plans for this eye -soar. What is the Town Planning Commission thinking? What planning commission could allow such an intrusive and tasteless project to take place amongst a beautiful residential community. There are certainly better suited areas for such a project. Areas were a project such as this would enhance business for neighboring businesses. It is obvious that such a project is misplaced. I plead with the commission to think heavily before approving this 80-tee nightlighted golf driving range and 13,536 sq. ft. restaurant building across from a tranquil residential community such as Rancho La Quinta. Approval of this will certainly impact future investment amongst the residential communities in La Quinta. It will be a sign to future investors that the Town of La Quinta does not have a plan. That the Town of La Quinta does not care about it's residents. That the Town of La Quinta is void of the taste and quality that other desert cities have a reputation for. What do you want the Town of La Quinta to be known for? What is it's identity? Can we as residents take pride that we have a well though -out, planned community that will be beautified even further in the future. Or will the residents of La Quinta fear future developments and monstrosities of this sort to spring up in various vacant properties within the community caring not what impact it will have on property values, crime, tranquility, and beauty of the area. With the proposal of a Video Arcade and Bistro selling beer and wine, crime will certainly present. The nightlighted driving range with it's long night hours and obtrusive lighting will certainly impact any future that Rancho La Quinta's residents have regarding tranquility and beauty. 1, myself, will be directly facing this eye -soar. I may as well have purchased a piece of property next to Murphy Stadium in San Diego where I previously resided in the tranquil community of Point Loma. if this project is approved, I seriously regret my decision to move to this community. Again, l voice my opposition to this project as a new homeowner of Rancho La Quinta and my hope that no one in the planning commission would give such a project even a second thought, except to wonder what impact this will ve on our future as an up and coming community in the Desert. Sin rely nkL ine Pfeiffer October 24, 1997 City of La Quinta Planning Commission 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA. 92253 To Whom It May Concern: As residents of Rancho La Quinta, we join in vigorously protesting the proposed development of an 80-tee night -lighted golf driving range and accompanying restaurant/retail building on Adams Street and Avenue 48. This proposal to locate such a set of facilities so close to homes in Rancho La Quinta strikes us as some kind of urban planning nightmare. We express our vehement objection to the plan. We urge that approval NOT be granted for this project and that the facilties be moved to another location sufficiently distanced from established homes. Thank you for considering seriously our objection and recommendation. Urgently, /' Rita L. Olin Sin 'ce r C. Olin 48-630 Capistrano Way La Quinta, CA. 92253 cc: Mr. Tom Cullinan Vice President/Project Manager Rancho La Quinta ',7 City of La Quinta Planning Commission 78-495 Calle Tampico 1997 LaQuinta,Ca.92253 Dear Sirs; I am writing to you because I cannot attend the next meeting when you plan to talk or vote on the propopsed developement at Adams and Avenue 48... How can you possibly approve such a developement next to a housing complex, the magnitude od RLQ CC. I live there and would never have invested my life savings ,only to have lights at night shining down into my property. Who needs the traffic, and who needs to have beer and wine bottles tossed around my back yard... I am strongly oppopsed to this project and would like my city to fight for me... Thanking you in advance for your kind attention to this matter. Alvyn Resident '&f Rancho La Quinta C.C. 48-620 Capistrano Way La Quinta<Ca. ti „997 October 24, 1997 City of La Quinta Planning Commission 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Subj: The Pairings Driving Range; Thomas Bienek's plan to develop night -lighted driving range near Adams Street & Avenue 48 Dear Sir/Madam: As a resident of the City of La Quinta, I object strongly to the prospective development of the driving range currently under consideration. What prompted us to purchase our home in La Quinta was the serenity of the setting particularly in the evenings, as well as the high quality and top-notch appearance of all the surrounding properties and residential developments. Placement of the driving range at the location proposed would be completely inappropriate. It would undermine the quality of life and appearance of La Quinta. I, myself, am an avid golfer. Further, most would characterize me as pro -development and pro -industry. Therefore, I believe my view is a balanced one. Although the driving range would provide me, personally, with ready access 17 hours a day, it is really better placed in a more industrial environment where traffic and bright lights would be more readily accepted — and certainly not in the residential and recreational environment proposed. It would not be in keeping with the appearance or design intent of the surrounding neighborhoods. Proper city planning that maintains the integrity of La Quinta is your charter. The quality and nationwide prestige of La Quinta are the results of such superior planning. I object strongly to, and respectfully request that you refuse, this prospective development as wholly inappropriate for this area. Kind regards, Kevin M cgillivray City of La Quinta resident CEO, Splash Technology (NASDAQ: SPLH) THE WESTON-WESTPORT AGENCIES, INC. - REAL ESTATE AND APPRAISALS WESTON SHOPPING CENTER, WESTON, CT 06883 TEL: (203) 227-5191 (OFFICE)}� 9 1Q FAX: (203) 227-5193 October 21, 1997 City of La Quinta Planning Commission 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA. 92253 Re: Thomas Bienek application Gentlemen: It is inconceivable to me - a former Selectman and a member of numerous boards in our town of Weston over the past forty years - that Mr. Bienek's proposed commercial development is even being discussed. He obviously has no regard for the neighborhood or the fact that his complex would devalue the homes of all in the area. If Mr. Bienek cannot be refused because of a zoning violation ... then your zoning laws need to be corrected immedi at ely. We, in Weston, inst:Ltuted two acre zoning back in 1953... and greatly restricted commercial development.... so much so -that there has been none since. I urge.your commission to reject his application and encourage him to locate on Route ill where his type of operation belongs. Si , Jame T. Hogg C� 48 0 Via Sold a La Quinta, CA. 92253 cc T.Cullinan R. Baggs Atty P. Hover Page 2 I urge you to deny Mr. Bienek's application and await an application that will use the property in a way that enhances and is compatible with our neighborhoods and meets the standards of attractiveness of the many other developments you have approved in La Quinta. sincerely C-ty of La Quinta Planning Commission 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 cc: Mr. Tom Cullinan Vice President/Project Manager Rancho La Quinta Country Club 79-285 Rancho La Quinta Drive La Quinta, CA 92253 � L r FROM M M0 JAMES T. HOGG 10/22/97 To: Planning Commission secretary....... Kindly replace the letter I mailed yesterday with the enclosed. This whole affair had me so agitated - when I sal.' down to complain - I forgot to correct the spelling of inconceivable before mailing. Have a good day. Sincerely( yours, yJ Wue �i s 48- 0 Vi hiana L uinta, CA. 92253 WESTON WESTPORT AGENCIES, INC. WESTON SHOPPING CENTER WESTON, CT 06883 TEL. 203-227-5191 FAX: 203-227-5193 Heinz R. Seck 78-895 Via Carmel La Quinta, CA 92253 October 29, 1997 City of La Quinta Planning Commission 78-495 Calle Tempico La Quinta, CA 92253 Re: The Pairings Driving Range 1997 As a resident of both Rancho La Quinta and the city of La Quinta, I want to take the opportunity to express objection to the proposed driving range. I will not waste your time repeating all of the objections with which you are only too familiar, only to state that I fully concur. However, I do wish to point out that I am appalled at the notion of combining the healthy activities of golf with the need to dispense alcohol and to operate a Video Arcade. Both, the booze as well as the arcade, can only lead to difficulties further down the line and are detrimental to the clean and quiet residential environment we are currently enjoying. I request, respectfully, that you do not recommend to the City Counsel the approval of this project. Sincerely, Heinz R. Seck ctober 30,1397 r, ic:-Z_r.z 2ha ,rman - - - wui.�ta lan:�in:� commission �ity of �a (­--�95 ,;alle -a .,uinta, :a. ?2253 --he='airin7s-)rivin_�- _,an:;e -)ear :r. sutler, :s a full-time resiaent and registered voter i:n t:-ie .ity of La. juinta, I Irish to express my stron;;est opposition to the Jite development plan submitted by Thomas i,ienek. after attendin; the ?ublic :fearing on Cctober 14,1997 T have had an opportuni-�y to carefully consider the severe environmental Lapact this -oro ject will have on the immediate residencial co:�raunity as well as the siDnal being „iven ay the :'fanning 'ommission to other similarily inclined ievelopers. I'he drivinr- range site, adjacent to both Lake La )uin,.-a and rancho La---,Iuinta will destroy the beauty of these commun- ities ,due to: A. Cver 40 steel stanchions up to 110' tall drape, with black fabric nettin- will in- terfere with the natural desert and mount- ain views so valued in our City of La �uinta. 7. "he c30 tee driving range will cause consid- erable noise pollution, especially during the evening hours. :fetal clubs and hard cover .,olf balls are a devestating combination. C. Bistro type restaurant and Video Prcade operating until 11:00 i:.i, 365 days a year, 'Pith parking for 195 vehicles will draw un- ,vanted and excessive traffic to the surround.- ing residential community. 'his "Beer and ine Bar" may also attract I::onciay iiiI foot- ball patrons with inherant security and safety problems. The intrusive "liig:lt Lighting" was extensively discussed during the previously mentioned Public Hearing and Y r. 31enek was allowed a continuance in order to submit a revised "Plan" which may satisfy some concerns which a number of Board :Members voiced. Not withstanding any form of revised lighting, as a res- ident of the City of La .quintalmust ask the Planning Commission NOT recommend certification off this Applicants Request to the City Council. Thank you for your consideration. rr Ral City of La Quints Planning COn M19sion October 75�. 78.495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA, 92253 Re: The pairings Drib Rang Adams Street Dear Sir: Please accept this rather last minute Objection to the above development as we were out of town and just received Nford Of this proposal. We own a residence in La Quints at T8-888 aia re armel, Which grew upset developmen is only a few biociks from the p�roposerder�ed So dose to large upscale such a development is being been a owner in La ()Uinta for over 10 years residential areas. We moved to outer rrew residence and have always been and have just nni that teas be" done in impressed by the orderly and careful VAll town tarnished by a reckless the past and vue trust that this image decision on this pmP°saI sualize night lighting on stanchions up 110 fe$t tali with Vi the Video Arcade and goK range black netting hung for over 300 Y&de oandn until after 11:00 p.m located next to all open and running with lights fully that this is a residential areas. KwOuld be hard for anyone not to agree tordble iocation for this kind of operation. Please record our strong objection to this proposal. Bohn A Storvrick g Barbara R Stouwick ,04 - TS-888 Via Carmel La Quinta, CA 92253 16-27-97 69:38 TOTFL P.01 RECEIVED FROM:619 777 7787 P.81 October 29, 1997 D EC,IE R//E NOV 0 3 1997 City of La Quinta Planning Commission ' CITY OF LAC1UeNTA 78-495 Caile Tampico PLANNING DEPARTMENT La Quinta, Ca. 92253 RE: Golf driving range and commercial building at Adams and Avenue 48 in La Quinta.. To: All members of the La Quinta Planning Commission: We urge you to deny approval of this inappropriate project proposed by Mr. Thomas Bienek. The lighting towers and the black netting suspended from these towers would create an enormous negative impact on the aesthetics and tranquility of our neighborhood. The increased vehicular traffic not only during the day, but well into the night and early morning hours would be intolerable. There is no question but this proposed project would have a negative impact on our property values as well as other neighboring home owners. The financial investments in our homes in Rancho La Quinta are sub- stantial and Mr. Bienek's project would unfairly affect these values. We understand that eventual development of this property is unavoidable, but this is not the type of project that serves the best interests of this community. We will appreciate your thoughtful consideration and deny approval of this project to Mr. Bienek. Very truly yours, Mr & Mrs F.E ussey 48-050 Paso Tiempo Lane La Quinta, Ca. 92253 October 27, 1997 City of La Quinta Planning Commission 78 495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Gentlemen: NOV 0 3 '1997®rJ l I CITY OF l.AOUINTA I PLANNING DEPARTMENT We are new residents to your city and have invested a sizable amount of money on property chosen by its overall beauty and desert scenery. We just heard that you are planning on letting a developer ruin our natural landscape with intrusive night lighting and a video arcade & other things which can not enhance La Quinta but just add commercial growth to a total residential area. Please reconsider, keep La Quinta from becoming like other cities without long range foresight. Sincerely, n Rancho a Qu to Hom owner Jack & rene Foate October 31, 1997 'ill Nov 0 41997 "Ui 1 CITY OF LAQUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT City of La Quinta Planning Commission 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, Ca. 92253 Re: Proposed driving range at Adams & 48' I am a resident of Rancho La Quinta and very concerned about the impact of the proposed driving range on our QUALITY OF LIFE and PROPERTY VALUES in this residential area. This property located directly across the street ::rom Rancho La Quinta and Lake La Quinta should only be zoned for residential use not commercial. From my standpoint it is imperative that the Planning Commission turn down this proposed driving range at this location. Sincerely, Morgan B. Knechtel 48310 Paso Tiempo Lane La Quinta, Ca. 92253 (760) 771-3058 i 'w- ECE -r�� t NOV 0 5 1997 `Cij It UINTA •ni e�n DA nOTWA�AIT `? 1997 ;l T MR. JERRY HERMAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF LA QUINTA CITY COUNCIL 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO LA QUINTA, CA. 92253 SUBJECT: SPECIFIC PLAN (SP97-030), SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (SDP97-612), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP97-344) - THE PAIRINGS OF LA QUINTA DEAR MR. HERMAN, HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL: I STRONGLY SUPPORT THE PROPOSED NIGHT LIT PRACTICE CLUB FACILITY ON THE CORNER OF AVENUE 48 AND ADAMS STREET IN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA. LIVING IN A TOURIST/SERVICE ORIENTATED COMMUNITY, MANY OF US MAINTAIN WORKING AND LIFESTYLE SCHEDULES OF VARYING HOURS. THIS PRACTICE CLUB OFFERS EACH OF US THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK, ON OUR GOLF GAME AT OUR CONVENIENCE - DAYS, EVENINGS THE YEAR ROUND. IT PROVIDES A SAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR OUR CHILDREN TO LEARN THE FUNDAMENTALS OF GOLF. THIS PROJECT AND ALL ITS AMENITIES CAN BE ENJOYED BY VALLEY RESIDENTS OF ALL AGES. A RECREATION FACILITY OF THIS SCALE IS LONG OVERDUE FOR THE AREA AND A WELCOME ADDITION TO THE CITY OF LA QUINTA. I STRONGLY URGE YOU TO APPROVE COMMISSION MEETING ON NOVEMBER MEETING, DECEMBER 16, 1997. 1 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, I THIS PROJECT AT THE PLANNING 12, 1997, AND THE CITY COUNCIL 11-7,4711 MR. JERRY HERMAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF LA QUINTA CITY COUNCIL 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO LA QUINTA, CA. 92253 ,in V1 79, SUBJECT: SPECIFIC PLAN (SP97-030), SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (SDP97-612), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP97-344) - THE PAIRINGS OF LA QUINTA DEAR MR. HERMAN, HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL: I STRONGLY SUPPORT THE PROPOSED NIGHT LIT PRACTICE CLUB FACILITY ON THE CORNER OF AVENUE 48 AND ADAMS STREET IN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA. LIVING IN A TOURIST/SERVICE ORIENTATED COMMUNITY, MANY OF US MAINTAIN WORKING AND LIFESTYLE SCHEDULES OF VARYING HOURS. THIS PRACTICE CLUB OFFERS EACH OF US THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK ON OUR GOLF GAME AT OUR CONVENIENCE - DAYS, EVENINGS THE YEAR ROUND. IT PROVIDES A SAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR OUR CHILDREN TO LEARN THE FUNDAMENTALS OF GOLF. THIS PROJECT AND ALL ITS AMENITIES CAN BE ENJOYED BY VALLEY RESIDENTS OF ALL AGES. A RECREATION FACILITY OF THIS SCALE IS LONG OVERDUE FOR THE AREA AND A WELCOME ADDITION TO THE CITY OF LA QUINTA. I STRONGLY URGE YOU TO APPROVE COMMISSION MEETING ON NOVEMBER MEETING, DECEMBER 16, 1997. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, THIS PROJECT AT THE PLANNING 12, 1997, AND THE CITY COUNCIL 1, �)O-s 3 Nov 1997 CITY OF LNOUMTA I MR. JERRY HERMAN PLANNINU CEPARTMENl COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF LA QUINTA CITY COUNCIL 78-495 CCALE TAMPICO LA QUINTA, CA. 92253 SUBJECT: SPECIFIC PLAN (SP97-030), SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (SDP97-612), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP97-344) - THE PAIRINGS OF LA QUINTA DEAR MR. HERMAN, HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL: I STRONGLY SUPPORT THE PROPOSED NIGHT LIT PRACTICE CLUB FACILITY ON THE CORNER OF AVENUE 48 AND ADAMS STREET IN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA. LIVING IN A TOURIST/SERVICE ORIENTATED COMMUNITY, MANY OF US MAINTAIN WORKING AND LIFESTYLE SCHEDULES OF VARYING HOURS. THIS PRACTICE CLUB OFFERS EACH OF US THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK ON OUR GOLF GAME AT OUR CONVENIENCE - DAYS, EVENINGS THE YEAR ROUND. IT PROVIDES A SAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR OUR CHILDREN TO LEARN THE FUNDAMENTALS OF GOLF. THIS PROJECT AND ALL ITS AMENITIES CAN BE ENJOYED BY VALLEY RESIDENTS OF ALL AGES. A RECREATION FACILITY OF THIS SCALE IS LONG OVERDUE FOR THE AREA AND A WELCOME ADDITION TO THE CITY OF LA QUINTA. I STRONGLY URGE YOU TO APPROVE THIS PROJECT AT THE PLANNING COMMI$$TON MEETING ON NOV'EMBER 12, 1997, AND THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING, DECEMBER 16, 1997. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, vc-�Y. f t;�� Nov Q 7 1997 UJ MR. JERRY HERMAN , COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR i Ci T 1' OF LAQUfNTA P CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING COMMISSION ! PLANNING DEPARTMENT . LA EPA` CITY OF LA QUINTA CITY COUNCIL 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO LA QUINTA, CA. 92253 SUBJECT: SPECIFIC PLAN (SP97-030), SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (SDP97-612), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP97-344) - THE PAIRINGS OF LA QUINTA DEAR MR. HERMAN, HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL; I STRONGLY SUPPORT THE PROPOSED NIGHT LIT PRACTICE CLUB FACILITY ON THE CORNER OF AVENUE 48 AND ADAMS STREET IN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA. LIVING IN A TOURIST/SERVICE ORIENTATED COMMUNITY, MANY OF US MAINTAIN WORKING AND LIFESTYLE SCHEDULES OF VARYING HOURS. THIS PRACTICE CLUB OFFERS EACH OF US THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK ON OUR GOLF GAME AT OUR CONVENIENCE - DAYS, EVENINGS THE YEAR ROUND. IT PROVIDES A SAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR OUR CHILDREN TO LEARN THE FUNDAMENTALS OF GOLF. THIS PROJECT AND ALL ITS AMENITIES CAN BE ENJOYED BY VALLEY RESIDENTS OF ALL AGES. A RECREATION FACILITY OF THIS SCALE IS LONG OVERDUE FOR THE AREA AND A WELCOME ADDITION TO THE CITY OF LA QUINTA. I STRONGLY URGE YOU TO APPROVE THIS PROJECT AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON NOVEMBER 12, 1997, AND THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING, DECEMBER 16, 1997. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED; NOV 0 7 1997 i MR. JERRY HERMAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR CIT`P OF LAQUINTA I CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING DEPARTtOENT ' CITY OF LA QUINTA CITY COUNCIL 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO LA QUINTA, CA. 92253 SUBJECT: SPECIFIC PLAN (SP97-030), SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (SDP97-612), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP97-344) - THE PAIRINGS OF LA QUINTA DEAR MR. HERMAN, HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL: I STRONGLY SUPPORT THE PROPOSED NIGHT LIT PRACTICE CLUB FACILITY ON THE CORNER OF AVENUE 48 AND ADAMS STREET IN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA. LIVING -IN A TOURIST/SERVICE ORIENTATED COMMUNITY, MANY OF US MAINTAIN WORKING AND LIFE.'STYLE SCHEDULES OF VARYING HOURS. THIS PRACTICE CLUB OFFERS EACH OF US THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK ON OUR GOLF GAME AT OUR CONVENIENCE - DAYS, EVENINGS THE YEAR ROUND. IT PROVIDES A SAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR OUR CHILDREN TO LEARN THE FUNDAMENTALS OF GOLF. THIS PROJECT AND ALL ITS AMENITIES CAN BE ENJOYED BY VALLEY RESIDENTS OF ALL AGES. A RECREATION FACILITY OF THIS SCALE IS LONG OVERDUE FOR THE AREA AND A WELCOME ADDITION TO THE CITY OF LA QUINTA. I STRONGLY URGE YOU TO APPROVE THIS PROJECT AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON NOVEMBER 12, 1997, AND THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING, DECEMBER 16, 1997. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 7yG is I N 0 V 12 1997 J CITY OF LA,'_�LIN IA PLANNING DEPARTMENT MR. JERRY HERMAN ( � � ��� �' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF LA QUINTA CITY COUNCIL 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO LA QUINTA, CA. 92253 SUBJECT: SPECIFIC PLAN (SP97-030), SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT' (SDP97-612), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP97-344) - THE PAIRINGS OF LA QUINTA DEAR MR. HERMAN, HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL: I STRONGLY SUPPORT THE PROPOSED NIGHT LIT PRACTICE CLUB FACILITY ON THE CORNER OF AVENUE 48 AND ADAMS STREET IN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA. LIVING IN A TOURIST/SERVICE ORIENTATED COMMUNITY, MANY OF US MAINTAIN WORKING AND LIFESTYLE SCHEDULES OF VARYING HOURS. THIS PRACTICE CLUB OFFERS EACH OF US THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK ON OUR GOLF GAME AT OUR CONVENIENCE - DAYS, EVENINGS THE YEAR ROUND. IT PROVIDES A SAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR OUR CHILDREN TO LEARN THE FUNDAMENTALS OF GOLF. THIS PROJECT AND ALL ITS AMENITIES CAN BE ENJOYED BY VALLEY RESIDENTS OF ALL AGES. A. RECREATION FACILITY OF THIS SCALE IS LONG OVERDUE FOR THE AREA AND A WELCOME ADDITION TO THE CITY OF LA QUINTA. I STRONGLY URGE YOU TO APPROVE THIS PROJECT AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON NOVEMBER 12, 1997, AND THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING, DECEMBER 16, 1997. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, �A" �ir s P'r� 1`t- � K-eQ �,fs 4 V 1. MR. JERRY HERMAN N O V 12 1997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF LA QUINTA CITY CCUNCIL CiT'. Cr i .A.:.�U rJTA 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO PLANN!!;;G r-lE?r.FITMENT LA QUINTA, CA. 92253 SUBJECT: SPECIFIC PLAN (SP97-030), SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (SDP97-612), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP97-344) - THE PAIRINGS OF LA QUINTA DEAR MR. HERMAN, HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL: I STRONGLY SUPPORT THE PROPOSED NIGHT LIT PRACTICE CLUB FACILITY ON THE CORNER OF AVENUE 48 AND ADAMS STREET IN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA. LIVING IN A TOURIST/SERVICE ORIENTATED COMMUNITY, MANY OF US MAINTAIN WORKING AND LIFESTYLE SCHEDULES OF VARYING HOURS. THIS PRACTICE CLUB OFFERS EACH OF US THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK ON OUR GOLF GAME AT OUR CONVENIENCE - DAYS, EVENINGS THE YEAR ROUND. IT PROVIDES A SAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR OUR CHILDREN TO LEARN THE FUNDAMENTALS OF GOLF. THIS PROJECT AND ALL ITS AMENITIES CAN BE ENJOYED BY VALLEY RESIDENTS OF ALL AGES. A RECREATION FACILITY OF THIS SCALE IS LONG OVERDUE FOR THE AREA AND A WELCOME ADDITION TO THE CITY OF LA QUINTA. I STRONGLY URGE YOU TO APPROVE COMMISSION MEETING ON NOVEMBER MEETING, DECEMBER 16, 1997. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, K"-- . 0c td) (+k -m cG174 THIS PROJECT AT THE PLANNING 12, 1997, AND THE CITY COUNCIL J/ �' OV 12 1997 "IT` OF LA',)Lj1NTA ' PLANNING DEPARTMENT MR. JERRY HERMAN� y 1-7 9 7 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF LA QUINTA CITY COUNCIL 78-495 CAALE TAMPICO LA QUINTA, CA. 92253 SUBJECT: SPECIFIC PLAN (SP97-030), SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (SDP97-612), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP97-344) - THE PAIRINGS OF LA QUINTA DEAR MR. HERMAN, HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL: I STRONGLY SUPPORT THE PROPOSED NIGHT LIT PRACTICE CLUB FACILITY ON THE CORNER OF AVENUE 43 AND ADAMS STREET IN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA. LIVING IN A TOURIST/SERVICE ORIENTATED COMMUNITY, MANY OF US MAINTAIN WORKING AND LIFESTYLE SCHEDULES OF VARYING HOURS. THIS PRACTICE CLUB OFFERS EACH OF US THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK ON OUR GOLF GAME AT OUR CONVENIENCE - DAYS, EVENINGS THE YEAR ROUND. IT PROVIDES A SAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR OUR CHILDREN TO LEARN THE FUNDAMENTALS OF GOLF. THIS PROJECT AND ALL ITS AMENITIES CAN BE ENJOYED BY VALLEY RESIDENTS OF ALL AGES. A RECREATION FACILITY OF THIS SCALE IS LONG OVERDUE FOR THE AREA AND A WELCOME ADDITION TO THE CITY OF LA QUINTA. I STRONGLY URGE YOU TO APPROVE COMMISSION MEETING ON NOVEMBER MEETING, DECEMBER 16, 1997. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, THIS PROJECT AT THE PLANNING 12, 1997, AND THE CITY COUNCIL MR. JERRY HERMAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING COMMISSION NOV 10 1997 J, CITY OF LA QUINTA CITY COUNCIL _Jt 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO CITY OF LAOUIf,JTA LA QUINTA, CA. 92253 i PLANNING DEPARTMENIT SUBJECT: SPECIFIC PLAN (SP97-030), SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (SDP97-612), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP97-344) - THE PAIRINGS OF LA QUINTA DEAR MR. HERMAN, HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL: I STRONGLY SUPPORT THE PROPOSED NIGHT LIT PRACTICE CLUB FACILITY ON THE CORNER OF AVENUE 48 AND ADAMS STREET IN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA. LIVING IN A TOURIST/SERVICE ORIENTATED COMMUNITY, MANY OF US MAINTAIN WORKING AND LIFESTYLE SCHEDULES OF VARYING HOURS. THIS PRACTICE CLUB OFFERS EACH OF US THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK ON OUR GOLF GAME AT OUR CONVENIENCE - DAYS, EVENINGS THE YEAR ROUND. IT PROVIDES A SAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR OUR CHILDREN TO LEARN THE FUNDAMENTALS OF GOLF. THIS PROJECT AND ALL ITS AMENITIES CAN BE ENJOYED BY VALLEY RESIDENTS OF ALL AGES. A RECREATION FACILITY OF THIS SCALE IS LONG OVERDUE FOR THE AREA AND A WELCOME ADDITION TO THE CITY OF LA QUINTA. I STRONGLY URGE YOU TO APPROVE THIS PROJECT AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON NOVEMBER 12, 1997, AND THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING, DECEMBER 16, 1997. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, (r MR. JERRY HERMAN Nov l 0 1997-){ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR CITY OF LA(UINTA, CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING COMMISSION PLANN}NG DEp�^RTIyE�,T CITY OF LA QUINTA CITY COUNCIL 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO LA QUINTA, CA. 92253 SUBJECT: SPECIFIC PLAN (SP97-030), SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (SDP97-612), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP97-344) - THE PAIRINGS OF LA QUINTA DEAR MR. HERMAN, HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL: I STRONGLY SUPPORT THE PROPOSED NIGHT LIT PRACTICE CLUB FACILITY ON THE CORNER OF AVENUE 48 AND ADAMS STREET IN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA. LIVING IN A TOURIST/SERVICE ORIENTATED COMMUNITY, MANY OF US MAINTAIN WORKING AND LIFESTYLE SCHEDULES OF VARYING HOURS. THIS PRACTICE CLUB OFFERS EACH OF US THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK ON OUR GOLF GAME AT OUR CONVENIENCE - DAYS, EVENINGS THE YEAR ROUND. IT PROVIDES A SAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR OUR CHILDREN TO LEARN THE FUNDAMENTALS OF GOLF. THIS PROJECT AND ALL ITS AMENITIES CAN BE ENJOYED BY VALLEY RESIDENTS OF ALL AGES. A RECREATION FACILITY OF THIS SCALE IS LONG OVERDUE FOR THE AREA AND A WELCOME ADDITION TO THE CITY OF LA QUINTA. I STRONGLY URGE YOU TO APPROVE COMMISSION MEETING ON NOVEMBER MEETING, DECEMBER 16, 1997. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Z THIS PROJECT AT THE PLANNING 12, 1997, AND THE CITY COUNCIL MR. JERRY HERMAN - II COITTYiOFTLADQUINTAMENT PLANNINGCTOR '9g7 COMMISSION ' NOV � CITY OF LA QUINTA CITY COUNCIL P4 IT OF I AOUINTA 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO ---L__I G DEPARTMENT LA QUINTA, CA. 92253 - SUBJECT: SPECIFIC PLAN (SP97-030), SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (SDP97-612), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP97-344) - THE PAIRINGS OF LA QUINTA DEAR MR. HERMAN, HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL: I STRONGLY SUPPORT THE PROPOSED NIGHT LIT PRACTICE CLUB FACILITY ON THE CORNER OF AVENUE 48 AND ADAMS STREET IN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA. LIVING IN A TOURIST/SERVICE ORIENTATED COMMUNITY, MANY OF US MAINTAIN WORKING AND LIFESTYLE SCHEDULES OF VARYING HOURS. THIS PRACTICE CLUB OFFERS EACH OF US THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK ON OUR GOLF GAME AT OUR CONVENIENCE - DAYS, EVENINGS THE YEAR ROUND. IT PROVIDES A SAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR OUR CHILDREN TO LEARN THE FUNDAMENTALS OF GOLF. THIS PROJECT AND ALL ITS AMENITIES CAN BE ENJOYED BY VALLEY RESIDENTS OF ALL AGES. A RECREATION FACILITY OF THIS SCALE IS LONG OVERDUE FOR THE AREA AND A WELCOME ADDITION TO THE CITY OF LA QUINTA. I STRONGLY URGE YOU TO APPROVE THIS PROJECT AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON NOVEMBER 12, 1997, AND THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING, DECEMBER 16, 1997. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, j 2D� �1�Z L� alm r i; r` •. D ,•.. � i. �Y'" Y .!i� �i ! ����`d�S� d '� �,,la , * h ia" 1 . .s. . s ' �i S;; t >`' x .l. •s, '� sue"+ Y e q, � ,�"CC' ,�,£tl fb'�n *ta, etA�``�',-mow �' i�s3Je� ,,.Syyp� 3'{r.� io, yusi�tw�r�'��•: �"�"+tt'.t, f �'+to rs; � � 'T +'� r r`l;.�f 'i+•" .•�Iyyp''aln1 1..U�.� ,y{gA* �.�ti..��"�E'I,� i Z d�.w��� ' � x�,� S 1. 'x '� � '"% .� . " '�`� r � -1a`+. y% + r« s -r.•y x1C�1Y+ > �'.6 f„�nN � 4� F ,.�'' S'F�1y M�faS, >•' ',�' L T• e. 'G'.°.fM'r+ �v `1i +r '"',y +�y •Sri �.s 'I,Y ;�.� '7 " - x';; a s a�x ts: ?iA �,,3 r r � `"vr �i'$4"�F'k, i**yyyy��,,.,rr:..'S�`jr•�«'f6"'T.tv,)[T`KMytr..Y^'tG � xTLS�.t'��'��.�y�r ,�� _g; .� 5�7?ar3 • p'�, �, ..�f'" L i ,y, x ° `" •� } t� `Y j v.: _' yy,,,, w•. v�i i„ff ^k ,f:� `p S. M,l' +• 't.r t. S ° �"}, r "' r s..:'<f.`� r, r � �, :K •�{.�:{,s A "e. S Yr'd +�''" �t"�f}� C "1 � °'',.iy�� ��� M � 'F .. ,*� � �ry # � 1�— +s � d1✓ <-s `R,ysr,��aa;.,I ram._ y �i t � r ♦ r y _ .,STD' � g'�p "r .r n .,i,� �t ,�`1.. .. - S,"i , �ya { ' r'{'+•', � b �? .i L "'.y"'+'''•J'�'h 5"a �h'1'y Af4 r�` Y Sgj"' ip ry _,:,'�yk Na "j� 1 y:�Q"�ri ;, ,} �r q�'. �` � � �y '�e` a� x .,/ .•! i nrrr u ^4 W � '`� ��"Yt�'sf d : , �xY� "" F a i P ; d • l . � 'i{�!`f?[ 4�*;�'� a, � }� � r:.ki�S;�r� t�yG. � �M�t�t� . ��'' �,�7'At C• ,x�,,y� � `? { I'i I . �� V•��.. FF � '8 Y �yL � -`�.r�i Lt � iA��'� ��'J' j" R � Y ��� '� r.ia� r ,fi.°'rk^, y�'"-�tJ ixt�'�'r(s �.. T"�: r���f�5.�✓�s£���,r��'{r"�'r 9 :�t'i�r{•%'.'vy `� � � ti.'�j^rc i sk M, � A A'�� k` t�' 't.t as `?�i ✓1 i..c I s t� 'n"' F� e. •r,i �l`�iF`' ��` F+rllf,�xa ,..,'' �.,,i �� � / �• ,.� r� m`+ � ,K ` '���'�, ,+•*.a,�� -' a# S'i�'; r° � E.� t: .,�.n5i; , '...6'�+fi§�� �'.s ii x?�i zi ',,+,` rx�# y .. k � � ,�S � � ° � a �'RrM•F.s"' � � i'�",1,. - i � y, �`: .k a� + � 'ya �,y'a'�.,� 4Z 4af f+'�! ��° ��S t c9 � E � Ik• i"1IsR`k'�f'ti 't � � . 4r�''" �t tr,:�'�At ,,,,ii s 'r� ';r �` ; / rle � yS�, a' ,� a-r\��,]rr •T . +!. , .Y =�k�.•a..''",� ! .a�' C� ..�� ' ` Yr ,'�l �'Y SY *c" i}' 1 , aT �' ' 1•�. i' � - �Ff 1 S"t'�'."1 k�r;�C� Y i sK 5" (' ! if 1,„. fap� f A '£ t �, � �'�,rt;, "'�,.* {� ,yr�� v r q �' at '�' -�ti. x • � Y +n, yr Y '� �� r '� e y .+.'C y'� 1 -. a•�. i<•C� fk. r ` f �` t � � "'al'� i �.X +, '4'L•kn� R" '? fl. ''�,{�`I " y: f C . a `'�'+F^� -�.Yi` , 7i,�tki�.x'F .u• * Y�� � 3� S !�'Y .�,� qaa �"�� *� vr• ? { �u xY � i.. �S r.. y!"'i.� r { •i 4 �,. µto •C :- •" °G 4 2^'.: '- 4F � �i �? . 1v (• `a,� g xi•. .+ f rb y �t � f y,; iy,.�x� � t .r �.J`r'' �•I't ti ,,,", a '" a a�YjYip r; "�' a Fj�'".;'�!,'�"` h,.. r�+p r �, i. ,+M^'}'y �„ �. �Si R,�-*s�yy. � '•�� ,� �,�+ ti �,yj �t �ra,�J �r��t k "pi"•a h Mr -. ". '" � '' , i 1'P�srd a : ! � r,. j C� :� •I r+ x m' d �t J� # ";27�y l� rPti /Y3 r` 4v +:SIgtF 5 ^` •. t , s r+a+' , :. ° Y" , � {'� « i `. SL'��"�, ' . � • ,� q,, Yxr afi � �a.."S • � d 1 t' °+��" �` y„ � Q' 3 ty � i r � i �" { a•;pl MA "Y'� �_�aie� rrjr� i . � S�• �� Al U " li J ,00-12-1997 1=5: 01 ==7^1 !h! T "IaDISK7y ' 7 S137777155 D-al James D. Madison & Ann T. Madison 78735 Dulce Del Mar La Quinta, Ca. 92235 Tele. (760) 771.9016 FAX (760) 771-9705 November 12, 1997 VIA FAX 777-7155 Piaunino Commissioners of and for the City of La Quinta Re: The fairings - Proposed Golf Drivinf, Range Gentlemen; 119V 12 1997 I r,F L-\;:J1iJTA My husband and I live at Lake La Quinta and we are strongly apposed to the proposed golf driving range to be presented by Pairings at the Planning Commission hearing set for this cvrning as Item "A" on your agenda for the Mowing reasons: 1. This is not the proper location for such an active and noisy facility; i The development will produce excessive trafTic an Adams and 48th street which wffi impact our area greatly and make it difficult for the residents to get in and out of our main gate at Adams; I Not only will ti-ae traffic increase noise, but so will tlwe sound of batting golf balls and the resultant'°yahoos"; 4. The sight of netting stretched across an area the height of an 11 story building is not what we anticipated when we moved to this beautiful city. It can be nothing but ugly, ugly, ugly! 8. moat of all, we are appalled that the City of La Quinta would even con- sider the type of lighting that is proposed for the project. We bought on the lake so that welcould enjoy a boat ride on a moonlit lake, but all we a ill see if the project is approved are those lights, bright or dim, radiating toward us, kitting an a pole ten stories iroigh, instead of the moon and the stars. What ever happened to the "dark city" ordinance that made this city so great in the past.' A21 1-12-1337 15: a2 =:KPIrN T %VIDI3DN TD 5137777153 Zit Page d 2- Planning Commissioners City of La Quints November 12,1997 6. We were never notified of the proposed project asud we cannot understand why ?the city did not do so when the proposed development will have such a negative impact on the residents of Lake La Quint&. 7. The City of La Quinta has a conflict of interest if iQ votes for anything that win degatively impact the residents of La Quints in favor of a commercial developer who doesn't have to live adjacent to the proposed development; and the City has a conflet of interest in voting for this development in order to Snake a profit on land sold to them for housing. S. we urge you to vote down this proposed project which would be better situated away from two beatfltiful residential areas. There is a lot of desert land out there along Highway 111 that is already Boned commercial and is in the City of La Quiutta, that should be considered first as an alternate site. Please don't let the citizens of La Quinta down. Vote against this project no Mattler how well designed and beautiful it is because the proposed location is not an Appropriate one for the proposed use. Respectfully submitteed, James & Ann Madison 'rDTq,- 0. 32 CHARLES & NANCY GILBERT 48-165 Paso Tiempo La Quinta CA 92253 760-564-4441 November 9, 1997 The La Quinta Planning Board 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 Re: Proposed Driving Range Adams & 48th Street j� NOV �. IS97 LµI..� idTA IPLANN'�gLPLR1M ENT--_NT In connection with the request for approval of a driving range at the corner of Adams and 48th Street, I would like to present my objection to the project. When we purchased our home in Rancho La Quinta we were told that the City of La Quinta owned the land and the it was to be for senior citizen and low income housing which did not bother us in our decision to buy. Then a few weeks ago we learned that the City was going to sell the property to someone for a golf driving range. To me, this would be one of the worst possible uses of the land We were told at the first meeting of the Planning Commission that the master plan for La Quinta was developed back in about 1980 and that property was to be zoned for high commercial use. Since 1980 the whole complexion of La Quinta has changed from a small quiet town to one with many up scale residential developments such as Rancho La Quinta and Lake LaQuinta. I would feel that the Citv should have taken these type of developments into consideration and revised the master'plan to protect these types of developments. To me a use of land adjacent to such developments not only lowers their value, but would put future developers in La Quinta on guard the the City did not care about protecting such properties. I would particularIly object to a driving range with a bar and operations for 16 or 17 hours a day for the following reasons. 1. The sight of 100 foot poles with lights that would without question be visible to both residents in Rancho La Quinta and Lake LaQuinta until 11:00PM would not be acceptable 2. The use of netting again up to 100 feet would be a real eye sore. 3. The sound of golf balls being hit by metal woods is almost as bad as a gun shot, which will go on until 1 I :00 PM and start at 6:00 AM with who knows why many golfers. 4. The increase of traffic and the sound involved would be very disturbing as we can on a clear night hear the 111 highway and Washington traffic as if it were in our back yard 5. I am very concerned that if the project were to fail, it would create an eye sore and what would the property would be used for at that time. G. The noise created by machines picking up balls after closing hours and traffic leaving the bar would be very disturbing to residents in both Rancho La Quinta and Lake La Quinta. Overall, 1 do not feel that this is a appropriate use of property adjoining two upscale developments that are doing so much for the City of La Quinta. Just because a master plan was approved in 1980 does not mean that it applies to todays conditions. Yours truly, Charles D. Gilbert Nancy H. Gilbert IIU�—�---y'7. �� Gu f[YilV.,i1lJ Ln u�a//fir////��►►/���� \��I, Nov 12, 1997 TO THE LA QUINTA CITY PLANNING COMMISION: SIRS: As full time Rancho La Quinta residents and home owners we are very disturbed by the City of La Quinta's Planning Commisions proposal to develop a Driving Range, Sports Bar, Restaurant, etc just outside our Adams Street Gate. La Quinta is the fastest growing city in Riverside County and if we are to continue on this ride - each new development must be weighed very carefully. Since our under- standing was that the land in question was zoned residehtia;we certainly would not have invested here if it were otherwise) - we have enough commercial two blocks away on Hiway III - we do not understand the sudden turn around in planning. Both Lake La Quinta and Rancho La Quinta are upscale neighborhoods and supply a very good tax base to the City - both in property tax return and monies spent in the Community We seem to have an ample supply of low cost developments in our City - would it not be wise to encourage and support developments such as the above? Our Club is growing at a rapid rate and will continue to do so - if we are not neighbors to such a degrading development. We adamantly oppose this development. 11-12-97 12:54 JdRN ALLAVIE ROSEMARY C. ALLAVIE 1 4 -030 PASO TIEMPO XA QUINTA, CA 92253 TOTAL P.01 RECEIVED FROM:619 777 7787 P.91 'U) IIl NOV 0 7 1997 J I CITY OF LAQUINTA '. PLANNING DEPARTMENT November 3, 1997 Paul & Linda Hayne 48-210 Paso Tiempo Lane LaQuinta, Ca 92253 City of LaQuinta Planning Commission 78-495 Calle Tampico LaQuinta Ca 92253 Dear Commission Members, For eight years we searched for the ideal place to establish a second home. We finally found what we considered the ideal situation to serve our needs at Rancho LaQuinta Country Club. Our due diligence included talking to a LaQuinta City Planner (via telephone) who assured us that undeveloped adjacent properties would be "light" commercial and that under no circumstances would any development be approved that would negatively impact be environment and value of our new $500,000 home. We understand that development and progress need to take place. However major consideration should be given to the surrounding area as it relates to the type of development undertaken. We strongly urge you not to approve Mr. Bienek's plan. In our opinion, due to the specific nature of the plans, it would have a major negative impact on those residential homeowners who have already made significant commitment and investment in the community. Very iruly yours, t �— , Paul & Linda Hayne City of La Quinta Planning Commission 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA, 92253 Re: The Pairings Driving Range Adams Street & 48t' Ave. Dear Sir: October 25t', 1997 Nov 0 7 1997 !J CITY OF LAQUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT Please accept this rather last minute objection to the above development as we were out of town and just received word of this proposal. We own a residence in La Quinta at 78-888 Via Carmel, which is only a few blocks from the proposed development and are gravely upset such a development is being considered so close to large upscale residential areas. We have been a owner in La Quinta for over 10 years and have just moved to our new residence and have always been impressed by the orderly and careful town planning that has been done in the past and we trust that this image will not be tarnished by a reckless decision on this proposal. Visualize night lighting on stanchions up to 110 feet tall with black netting hung for over 300 yards and the Video Arcade and golf range all open and running with lights fully on until after 11:00 p.m located next to residential areas. It would be hard for anyone not to agree that this is a terrible location for this kind of operation. Please record our strong objection to this proposal. John A Storwick Barbara R Storwick 78-888 Via Carmel La Quinta, CA 92253 11/12/1997 09:4E 7147526764 opt aAG 01— _ Fax: 760-777-7155 November 12, 1997 Attn: City of La Quinta Planning Commission La Quinta, Ca. Subject: Driving Range Complex I would like to voice my strong objection to the proposed site for the driving range complex that the City of La Quinta Planning Commission is presently reviewing. While my home is not located close to the proposed site, I feel that the noise generated on the practice range, and illumination from the large light standards will have a very negative impact for the residents in this section of Rancho La Quinta. Thank you for your consideration and allowing me to voice my concerns. Sincerely, I AAA61 Tom Macedo 79-035 Via Carmel Rancho La Quinta 11/12/1997 10:23 760-771-3726 MORRIS STEPHENS MORRIS & EV'ELYN STEPHENS 45-6 1 3 PASEo TARAzo Lea QUINTA CA 92253-E274 (760) 77 1-1 76 1 November 12, 1997 City of La Quinta Office of the Mayor La Quinta, CA Re: Proposed golf driving range Adams at Avenue 48. Gentlemen, PAS 01 J� The location of the proposed golf driving range is poorly planned. Even more damaging to the ambiance of this primarily residential area than the lighting will be the nets. No worse eyesore could be conceived, and the nets will be visible across much of south La Quinta. Please deny this proposed use of the land. This venture should be on solne more commercial site which is not contiguous to and visible from residential areas. Sincerely, GGG���y Morris B. Stephens 11-12-97 10:21 RECEIVED FROM:760 771 3726 P.01 No". 12 "9'7 11:19 BADBt FAX 7W7715e24 P• 1 November 12, 1997 Community Development Dept. City of LaQuinta We wish to express our opposition to the building of the driving range at 48th & Adams at La Quinta. Its the wrong location for this type of development. The glaring lights and the unsightly netting would be a detriment to our community. It would lower property values in our surrounding area. A more appropriate location for this type of devel- opment should be pursued. Ro�ert A. Hoimer H. Lynne Hoimer 47-355 Via Cordova La Quinta, Ca. 92253 NW.12.1597 12: 22PII IRA :,ter: EE SERVICE NO.744 a. 1 JOSEPH R MANNING NOV 1 2 1997 v� T ej y Q0 f,AJ rlLf,M%!,7 C �"r T 7741-5 IS P� tMP'eEr— r- 7N#r AILRPO tkIE3 te?IE 1T'' tAYP??Lor ? rV Yox,�F • i, � :i�� � � t. C, it .r�. .:s:i!!`'7•i:"f1 `it'M:�'Ja'is7t'r,. 11.1131'1997 P'2-:44 6197799338 TEE z•<TRA 141-E -' GE 01 `1'II1: l;h'1'It�1 MILE t a.t na�t. t pat t l a at u 1 FAX TRA -MI" 'tit9vlp�tl5 Jo' Lindsek Manager lubbi }-eldsicill Ell �ty1� -/1' V 1997 IT Meniliug Adds css 1.1-a7U 1:1 V° is o Palm Dou vita (U1'))'17'l.�)t1}a i'flunc 0N) -FP)-1 1,19 'JUMBE -it 1'AGiiS J- 74 , 7 71- I T 1 1'attu If�'a6'flelil ylltdl • 1lhna"ae? 719.41 i') 111M 1 tu.7t t) • J.'s :•11)--'11'114W From: Edware Dcherty To La Quinta Planning Ccmrriss on Date: 11t12!9' Time: 1 45:28 PM Page 2 of 2 Planning Commission of La Quinta November 12. 1997 Dear Sirs. Edward Doherty 48-245 Via Solana.. La QUinta. CA 92253 i V Z 1997 1 am unable to be present at the meeting tonight to consider the Driving range proposal. would like. however to express my strong disapproval of this proposal. It would certainl., seem to be a poor use of the property especially for the City Since future tax income from ne1N homes would surelv yield better returns than a Driving range. Please add my vote to those who are strongly against this proposal. Thank you for your consideration. Edgard Doherty Josef and Elisabeth Pfeiffer 48-555 Capistrano Way La Quinta, CA 92253 City of La Quinta Planning Commission 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 11-10-97 RE: Thomas Bienek's Application for Driving Range/Restaurant Gentlemen, NOV 12 1997 CITI- 0� UAQUl!, TA PLANNING DEPAR'TIMENT We had planned to attend the meeting on Wednesday, Nov. 12th, 1997 but are unable to do so. We therefore are submitting this letter of protest regarding the proposed application for a driving range and restaurant. We have moved to La Quinta in August of this year from Illinois. After much searching and comparing of properties, we decided to select Rancho La Quinta as our new home. The reasons were many, but most important was the tranquil setting of this Development and the quiet small town atmosphere of the surrounding area of La Quinta. It stood out to us among all the other towns. We looked in Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert, etc. but La Quinta offered everything that was import to us, such as close by shopping, banking, postoffice and professional services and St. Francis of Assisi for our religious needs. La Quinta offers all the necessary amenities and still portrays that quiet, small town ambiance. A place that is inviting for people of all ages, and a place that has room for growth... a wonderful place to raise a family, etc. Now we hear that you are considering granting permission to build the above named facility right in the midst of this residental area. Not only would it destroy the tranquil lifestyle of many residents in Rancho La Quinta, Lake La Quinta and surrounding areas, it would also be a problem for the City of La Quinta Services due to the nature of the business, and the late evening operating hours. Video Arcades are notoriously a problem, not to mention crime and traffic congestion and the late operating hours. Such businesses should not be located in a residental area and we believe there is much land available in La Quinta with a more appropriate location. We hope the Planning Commission will take these letters of protest into consideration when making a decision regarding this project. Sincerely, NO V �I L; z 2 1997 ;L 1 ::IT`, OF L PLAN("^��, DC, ARTMENT ovember 1997 To: City of LaQu_nta "14N From: Charles & Judy Fleisch n 48-010 Via Vallarta La Quinta, CA 92253 (760) 771-2382 Re: Proposed driving range @ 48th & Adams As homeowners at Rancho LaQuinta we feel that it is not in our best interest for our development; or the surrounding residential areas to have this driving range built on the proposed site. When we purchased our home, we were told by the sales staff (they were told by the City of LaQuinta) that this property in question was to be used for lower income housing. That, at least, would blend better than this commercial business. It is not that we are against the development of this driving range, as after being at the last council meeting it appears that it would be an assest to the ci---y of LaQuinta, and the plans indicate that it would be a first class operation. It just seems that it would be more suited in an area that is closer to Hwy 111, in more of a commercial setting. We heard the term "not in our back yard" from one of the council members, and our feeling is that this does not belong in anyones back yard. It is truly a commercial business which will be operating very long hours, year round, and the traffic, noise, and lighting that will be involved does not fit into any neighborhood. As stated in the paragraph above, the lighting required by this development is a huge issue. The developers of Rancho LaQuinta have worked extremely hard to adhere to the dark sky ordinance, which could be viewed by any council member by driving by the development after dark. Even after hearing what the expert lighting engineer had to say regarding the impact of these 100, lights, we can see from veiwing the lighting at the new LaQuinta school administrative offices on 48th & Dune Palm, and the lights at Home Depot, that it will light up the neighborhood. Certainly, there must be land available that better suits this development. We as homeowners, would ask the council to vote against this proposed site. Nov.12 '9? 14:35 BADEN FAX 760'7", 15.324 P. I n 7-,L -4at-&2- c, Lizzio - Santa Ana, CA 7147301106 P. 01 November 11, 1997 �' r �i NOV 1 7997 �IT1 OF L,��,�,JiiJTA 1 La Quinta Planning Commission P�ANNIN;G DEPARTMENT ' FAX: 760-777-7155 RE: Proposed Development at the Northeast comer of Adams and 48th Street As homeowners at Rancho La Quinta, my wife and I want to enter our objection to the proposed development of the northeast corner of Adams and 48th street as a golf driving range and commercial complex. We are not opposed to the development of the property, we are however, opposed to the development of the property as currently proposed. We are in favor of development of the property for residential or other possible non-commecial uses. Rancho La Quinta is currently under development. Approximately, 200 homes have been built and hundreds more are planned. In addition, the developer of Rancho La Quinta has recently announced plans to build a multi -million dollar club house. The expansion of the Rancho La Quinta property may be placed in jeopardy if the City of La Quinta approves the plans to develop the Adams and 48th Street property as proposed. A night -lighted golf driving range and bar, If approved for the property, will decrease the value of the adjacent residential properties, and ultimately, the tax basis of those properties for the City of La Quinta. We urge you to deny this request to develop the property. \���Rand Ann Liazio 78-975 Descanso Lane La Quinta, CA Telephone: 714-730-1116 PH #B STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: NOVEMBER 12, 1997 CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25953 REQUESTS: APPROVAL OF (1) A REVISION AND THIRD ONE YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR AN APPROVED TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP OF 38.4-ACRES INTO 132 SINGLE FAMILY AND OTHER COMMON LOTS, (2) PROTOTYPE HOUSES WHICH RANGE IN SIZE FROM APPROXIMATELY 1,724 TO OVER 2,200 SQUARE FEET, AND (3) CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 97-346). LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF MILES AVENUE AND DUNE PALMS ROAD APPLICANT: OLIPHANT AND WILLIAMS ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED PROPERTY OWNER: MR. MICHAEL HIRSCH, TRUSTEE (HIRSCH FAMILY TRUST) ENGINEERS: ROBERT BEIN, WILLIAM FROST AND ASSOCIATES ARCHITECT: STOFFREGEN FULLER AND ASSOCIATES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: RONALD GREGORY ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (EA 97-346) HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT BASED ON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES PREPARED BY THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT PREPARED STUDIES ARE ON FILE WITH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IS ATTACHED AND ADDRESSED LATER IN THIS REPORT. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) STPCSONRISARev-20, RESOSONRISA-20, CONDSONRISA-20 Page :_ of 7 ZONING DESIGNATION: RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) SURROUNDING LAND USES: NORTH: LA QUINTA PALMS (GATED) DEVELOPMENT SOUTH: TOPAZ DEVELOPMENT EAST: ACROSS DUNE PALMS ROAD, VACANT AND CACTUS FLOWER DEVELOPMENT WEST: QUINTERRA DEVELOPMENT BACKGROUND: Site Information The vacant site is located at the northwest corner of Miles Avenue and Dune Palms Road (Attachment 1). The adjacent roadways are paved but have not been widened nor have curbs been installed. There are existing residential developments directly north, west, and east of the site. The site is fairly level overall but the ground surface is somewhat uneven with irregular dunes and low areas providing topographic relief in excess of 10 feet. A majority of the site is higher in elevation than the adjacent roadways. Protect History In 1990, the City Council approved the original subdivision of approximately 38-acres into 139 single family plus other common lots under Resolution 90-63 (Attachment 2' - Map Exhibit). The Map had public streets with access to Dune Palms Road and into the Quinterra subdivision via an extension of Nuevo Drive from the west. The City Council approved time extension requests for the Map in 1992 and 1995, with additional time extensions granted by the State of California extending the life of the Map to July 31, 1997. Project Request Oliphant and Williams has submitted a revised subdivision map that reduces the number of residential lots from 139 to 132, and proposes minor changes to the design of the project such as eliminating the lots that back up to Miles Avenue (Attachment 3). The new Map proposes lots ranging in size from 7,200 square feet to over 15,000 square feet on public streets. STPCSONRISARev-20, RESOSONRISA-20, CONDSONRISA-20 Page 2 of 7 Access remains the same with one point of access proposed for the Tract to Dune Palms Road via Street Lot "C". Street Lot "C", a street that bisects the project, also extends to the west connecting to Nuevo Drive, a public street in the Quinterra subdivision. Three retention basin lots are proposed ("H", "J", and "M"). These lots will be landscaped and used for common open space for the development. A Coachella Valley Water District well site (0.27 acres) is planned for the northwest corner of Street Lots "C" and "E" (i.e., Lot "1"). In addition to revising the subdivision map, the applicant submitted plans proposing three Mediterranean style prototype houses. The three floor plans range in size from 1,724 square feet to 2,292 square feet, and not exceeding 17-feet in overall height. They have three and four bedrooms and two to three baths, plus office/study options. A summary of each housing unit type is noted in the following table: Plan 1 - 1,724 sq. ft. Plan 2 - 2,220 sq. ft. Plan 3 - 2,292 sq. ft. 3 bedroom 4 bedroom 3 bedroom + study 2 car garage + workshop space 3 car garage 3 car garage Exteriors combine two-tone concrete -tile roofing and overhanging eaves with flat roofs, a multi -tone color scheme, stucco cement plaster surfaces, covered entries, and metal roll - up sectional garage doors. A material and color sample board will be available at the meeting. The landscaping plan submitted uses lawn as the unifying theme for the houses with trees, shrubs and annual color. Each home site will have a minimum of two 15 gallon shade trees in the front yard. A six-foot high perimeter wall is planned for the project on Miles Avenue and Dune Palms Road. The slumpstone block wall is designed with weeping mortar joints and includes offsets and wrought iron openings abutting the pilasters. The walls are located approximately 32-feet and 23-feet from Miles Avenue and Dune Palms Road, respectively. Landscaping is planted in front of the wall facing Miles Avenue and Dune Palms Road to soften its appearance in conjunction with a meandering sidewalk. These landscaped areas have 2:1 and 3:1 slopes. Landscaping is also provided on the inside of the Miles Avenue wall. Additionally, a project identification sign is proposed at the intersection of both streets. Temporary vehicular access to Miles Avenue is requested for the model complex from Street Lot "D", adjacent to Miles Avenue. Temporary access to the model complex was permitted when the original map was approved in 1990. STPCSONRISARev-20, RESOSONRISA-20, CONDSONRISA-20 Page 3 of 7 Public Notice This map application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on October 18, 1997. All property owners within 500-feet were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required by Title 13 (Subdivision Ordinance) of the La Quinta Municipal Code and Charter. Environmental Assessment A Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (EA 90-162) was certified by the City Council on July 31, 1990, with mitigation measures to mitigate the impacts associated with development of the property for the initial Map. A new environmental assessment (EA 97- 346) was prepared for the revised Map including archeological, soils, hydrology, and noise studies. The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration per the attached material. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES: Based on the provisions of the General Plan, Zoning Code, and the Subdivision Ordinance (Title 13) the following overview of the project is provided: Issue 1 - General Plan/Zoning Code Consistency The City's General Plan designates the site as Low Density Residential (2-4 dwellings per acre) which allows detached single family housing. The project density is approximately 3.4 dwelling units per acre which is within the required density range. All houses are greater than 1,400 square feet and placed on lots that are 7,200 square feet or larger. Three car garages are provided for Plans 2 and 3 because four bedroom houses are proposed. Issue 2 - Tract Design/Improvements Miles Avenue, a designated Primary Arterial, is planned to be 110' wide (four to six lanes) and carry over more than 18,000 vehicles per day, whereas Dune Palms Road, a designated Secondary Arterial, is planned to be 88' wide (four lanes) and carry more than 16,000 vehicles per day. Miles Avenue is also designated as an Image Corridor which requires raised, landscaped medians and parkway improvements such as landscaping, traffic lights, bus shelters and other amenities. The design of the perimeter streets and landscaping is consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan. The interior streets range in size from 50-feet to 60-feet in width which is consistent with the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance. Access to the Tract is possible by using Dune Palms Road or Nuevo Drive. Each single family lot has direct access to one of four public streets. Street Lots "G" and "F" are cul-de-sacs. The recommended conditions will ensure that aH on -site work is consistent with City standards. STPCSONRISARev-20, RESOSONRISA-20, CONDSONRISA-20 Page 4 of 7 Issue 3 - Environmental Consideration Staff has prepared Environmental Assessment 97-346 (Attachment 4). Conclusions of the Archaeological Resources Assessment prepared by L & L Environmental are that "... no archaeological sites have been recorded within the boundaries of the subject property." Since the project archaeologist only examined ground surfaces, it was also recommended that a professional archaeologist monitor grading of the property. The hydrology study prepared by the project engineer has concluded that the retention basins will provide stormwater protection for the future residents. Based on these conclusions and other site studies, staff concludes that no significant environmental impacts will occur by development of the property provided there is compliance with the Mitigation Monitoring Program. Issue 4 - Housing Units Under the RL Zoning District provisions, this development is required to have houses that are 1,400 square feet or larger. The units proposed (1,724 square feet to 2,292 square feet) by the applicant comply with this provision and other, such as number of garages, etc. Although not required, the applicant's architectural plans are compatible with the existing houses in the surrounding area for the following reasons: 1. Exterior materials are cement plaster with earth (Desert) tone colors. A color scheme of six different combinations is proposed with fascia trim being darker in color than the building walls. Two tone, concrete roof tiles are used to accent the building colors. 2. The facade windows for the houses are primarily rectangular (i.e., dual -pane with internal metal grids) with cement plaster surrounds. Arch shaped transom top accent windows are proposed above the entry doors. Two elevations are provided for each of the three housing units. These design treatments are consistent with existing houses in the surrounding developments. Issue 5 - Health and Safety Concerns On -site and off -site infrastructure improvements will be constructed as required. Improvements to be installed include water, sewer, and streets. All of the drainage from the project is proposed to be surface drained to a centrally located on -site retention basin. The basin is designed to contain a 100-year storm. The two remaining perimeter retention basins are proposed to handle off -site drainage from adjacent areas and low points in Miles Avenue and Dune Palms Road. The Public Works Department has reviewed the preliminary Hydrology Report prepared for the project, and determined that the plans comply with City standards provided conditions are met. STPCSONRISARev-20, RESOSONRISA-20, CONDSONRISA-20 Page .5 of 7 Issue 6 - Public Agency Comments All agency comments received have been made a part of the Conditions of Approval for this case. The letters are on file with the Community Development Department. Issue 7 - Neighborhood Letters of Concern A letter from Mr. James T. Humbred, an adjacent property owner in La Quinta Palms to the north, was received by staff on September 15, 1997, identifying various view concerns he has with development of the Sonrisa project (Attachment 5). Mr. Humbred's letter was submitted before the architectural plans for the project showing only one story residences were submitted. Issue 8 - Parkland Dedication The applicant has requested Parkland Dedication credit for the proposed retention basin in that it also serves as passive recreational area. However, as noted in the General Plan, all neighborhood parks have already been designated (Attachment 6). These parks are integral to the Park and Recreation Master Plan. Therefore, no credit is recommended because this retention area is not designated as an existing or proposed park within the General Plan and in lieu fees should be paid. CONCLUSION: The applicants' request conforms to the provisions of the General Plan, Zoning Code and Subdivision Ordinance. Findings as noted in the attached Resolutions for a recommendation of approval can be made. The Map, as Conditioned, is consistent with the existing tracts in the immediate area. Condition #3 requires that the Map be recorded by July 31, 1998, because this is the third, and last, one year time extension permitted by the Subdivision Ordinance. RECOMMENDATIONS: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97-_, recommending to City Council certification of Environmental Assessment 97-346, subject to the attached findings; and, 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97 =, recommending to the City Council conditional approval of Tentative Tract Map 25953, Revised (3`d Extension of Time), subject to the attached findings. STPCSONRISARev-20, RESOSONRISA-20, CONDSONRISA-20 Page 6 of 7 Attachments: 1. Locaticn Map 2. Original TTM 25953 Exhibit (Reduced) 3. TTM 25953, Revised (Reduced) 4. EA 97-346 (Environmental Assessment) 5. Letter from Adjacent Property Owner 6. Park and Recreation Map 7. Larpcla Exhibits (Planning Commission Only) Prepared by: Greg Triisdell, Associate Planner Submitted by: (jyi•" t i #j Christine di lorio, Planning Manager STPCSONRISARev-20, RESOSONRISA-20, CONDSONRISA-20 Page 7 of 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 97-346 PREPARED FOR REVISED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25953 (TIME EXTENSION #3) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 97-346 OLIPHANT & WILLIAMS, INC. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 12th day of November, 1997, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 97-346 and revisions to Tentative Tract Map 25953 (Third Time Extension); and, WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 97-346) which updates the initial environmental analysis (EA 90-162) for the project previously certified by the City Council in 1990; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that said applications will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be certified; and WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to recommend certification of said Environmental Assessment: The proposed revision and third one year time extension will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly or directly, in that no significant impacts have been identified, and less than significant or potentially significant impacts can be addressed by the incorporated mitigation measures and standard City development requirements. 2. The proposed revision and third one year time extension will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, as the project in question will not be developed in any manner inconsistent with the General Plan and other current City standards, will not significantly impact any wildlife characteristics of the area, and will not eliminate any significant cultural resources. Project impact mitigation has EAResoPC346-20(Sonrisa) Planning Commission Resolution 97-_ been added to the proposal which will address the potential impacts as identified and discussed in the Initial Study. 3. The proposed tentative trace: map does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, with implementation of the monitoring program, as the proposed project will not exceed the density allowed within the General Plan. Impact mitigation is required for any site grading in conjunction with payment of mitigation fees for the loss of habitat for the Fringe -Toed Lizard. 4. The proposed tentative tract map will not have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, in that the proposed project, whether approved or not, is a consistent representation of the project type to be proposed for the site as long as the current General Plan land use and zoning designations are applicable, and to the extent that the impacts as identified in the Initial Study will remain similar. 5. The proposed tentative tract map will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, as the project contemplates uses similar to those already assessed under ultimate development of the La Quinta General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California as follows: 1. That the recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment. 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of Environmental Assessment 97-346 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendum, attached hereto, and on file in the Community Development Department. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 12"' day of November, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: EAResoPC346-20(Sonrisa) Page 2 of 3 Planning Commission Resolution 97- RICHARD SUTLER, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California Page 3 of 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF REVISED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25953 (THIRD TIME EXTENSION) TO ALLOW A 132- LOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION AND MISCELLANEOUS LETTERED LOTS ON APPROXIMATELY 38.4-ACRES CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25953 APPLICANT: OLIPHANT AND WILLIAMS, INC. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 12t' day of November, 1997, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for a 38.4-acre site with 132 single family lots, generally on the northwest corner of Miles Avenue and Dune Palms Road, more particularly described as: Portion of the NW% of Section 20, T5S, R7E, SBBM (APN: 604-071-008 and -011) WHEREAS, said Tentative Map has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63). The Community Development Department has prepared Environmental Assessment 97-346 for this project which updates EA 90-162 and concludes that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment based on conditions; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings of approval to justify a recommendation for approval of said Tentative Tract Map revision: A. The proposed map is consistent with the City of La Quinta General Plan and any applicable specific plans. The ,property is designated Low Density Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) per the provisions of the General Plan and not in an area regulated by a specific plan. The project density is 3.4 dwellings per acre which is under the maximum allowed for the LDR District. Tentative Tract 25953 is consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan Land Use Element (Chapter 2) provided conditions are met. RESOPCSomisa2-20 Planning Commission Resolution 97- The site is zoned RL (Low Density Residential District) which permits single family development on lots at least 7,200 sq. ft. The proposed lots are 7,200 sq. ft. or larger, and will be developed with houses that are greater than 1,400 square feet which is consistent with City requirements. Prototype houses are one story ensuring views of the mountains will not be blocked when the houses are built. B. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan and any applicable specific plans. All streets and improvements in the project, as conditioned, will conform to City standards as outlined in the General Plan and Subdivision Ordinance. All on -site streets will be public (50' to 60' wide rights -of -way) which is consistent with the Circulation Element (Chapter 3.0). Access to the Tract will be from Street Lot "C" to Dune Palms Road and Nuevo Drive to the west. The density and design standards for the tract will comply with the Land Use Element (Chapter 2.0) of the General Plan and the Zoning Code. C. The design of the subdivision, or the proposed improvements, are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. Mitigation fees will be paid and environmental studies (i.e., cultural resources, noise, drainage, geotechnical, etc.) were completed for this application. The studies state that development will not adversely affect local wildlife habitats because this is an isolated area surrounded by urban development. This project will not cause substantial environmental damage or injury to fish or wildlife, or their habitat because mitigation measures were completed at the time the site was disturbed or will be mitigated based on the proposed Conditions of Approval. D. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. They will install urban improvements based on City, County, State, and Federal requirements. On -site retention basins will contain runoff ensuring protection to the single family houses, and provide outdoor areas for passive outdoor play. E. The design of the subdivision, or type of improvements, will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The proposed streets are planned to provide direct access to each single family lot. All required public easements will provide access to the site or support necessary infrastructure improvements. RESOPCSonriw2-20 Planning Commission Resolution 97- WHEREAS, in the review of this Tentative Tract Map, the Planning Commission has considered, the effect of the contemplated action on housing needs of the region for purposes of balancing those needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City of La Quinta and its environs with available fiscal and environmental resources; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of Tentative Tract Map 25953 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission, held on the 121 day of November, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICHARD BUTLER, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director Coty of La Quinta, California RESOPCSonrisa2-20 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25953, REVISED (EXTENSION #3) OLIPHANT AND WILLIAMS, INC. NOVEMBER 12, 1997 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL Upon City Council approval, the City Clerk is authorized to file these Conditions of Approval with the Riverside County Recorder for recordation against the properties to which they apply (APN: 604-071-008 and -011). 2. Tentative Tract Map No. 25953 (Revised) shall comply with the requirements and standards of §§ 66410-66499.58 of the California Government Code (the Subdivision Map Act) and Title 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC) unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. 3. This map approval shall expire and become null and void on July 31, 1998, unless recorded. 4. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: - Fire Marshal - Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) - Community Development Department - Building and Safety Department (Building Permit) Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department Desert Sands Unified School District Coachella Valley Water District Imperial Irrigation District California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval) of the plans. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit. For subdivisions requiring project -specific NPDES construction permits, the applicant shall include a copy of the application for the CONDPCSonrisa2-20/RESOPCSonrisa2-20 Page 1 of 16 Notice of Intent with grading plans submitted for plan checking. Prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit, the applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan for review by the Public Works Department. PROPERTY RIGHTS 5. All easements, rights of way and other property rights required of the tentative map or otherwise necessary to facilitate the ultimate use of the development and functioning of improvements shall be dedicated, granted or otherwise conferred, or the process of said dedication, granting, or conferral shall be ensured, prior to approval of a final map or parcel map or a waiver of parcel map. The conferral shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant easements to the City for access to and maintenance, construction, and reconstruction of all essential improvements which are located on privately -held lots or parcels. 6. Prior to approval of a final map, parcel map or grading plan and prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall furnish proof of temporary or permanent easements or written permission, as appropriate, from owners of any abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments are to occur. 7. 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 owners of the properties. B. The applicant shall dedicate public and private street right of way and utility easements in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and as required by the City Engineer. 9. Dedications required of this development include: A. Miles Avenue - Remainder of applicant's 55-foot half of I I0-foot right of way. B. Dune Palms Road - Remainder of applicant's 44-foot half of 88-foot right of way. C. Interior Streets - Sixty -foot rights of way (fifty feet for the portion of Lot D adjacent to Miles Avenue) plus suitable right of way for knuckle turns and offset cuts de sac (Riverside County Standard No. 800 (A)). CONDPCSonrisa2-20/RESOPCSonrisa2-20 Page 2 of 16 D. Common Areas - General right of access to perimeter setback lots and retention basin for inspection, maintenance, construction, and reconstruction of City maintained facilities (e.g., drainage lines and sidewalks). Dedications shall include corner cutbacks at intersections and additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features of the approved construction plans. If the City Engineer determines that public access rights to proposed street rights of way shown on the tentative map are necessary prior to approval of final maps dedicating the rights of way, the applicant shall grant temporary public access easements to those areas within 60 days of written request by the City. 10. The applicant shall dedicate five-foot public utility easements contiguous with and along both sides of all streets having 50-foot rights -of -way widths. 11. The applicant shall create perimeter setback lots, of minimum width as noted, adjacent to the following street rights of way: A. Miles Avenue - 20 feet B. Dune Palm Road - 10 feet Minimum widths may be used as average widths if meandering wall designs are approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. Where public sidewalks are placed on setback lots, the applicant shall dedicate blanket sidewalk easements over the setback lots. 12. The applicant shall vacate abutter's rights of access to Miles Avenue and Dune Palms Road from lots abutting the streets. Direct access to these streets shall be restricted to the main project entry drive on Dune Palms Road except 'for the temporary model home access allowed herein. 13. The applicant shall dedicate any easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, and common areas. 14. The applicant shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any portion of this property between the date of approval by the City Council and the date of recording of any final map(s) covering the same portion of the property unless such easements are approved by the City Engineer. CONDPCSonrisa2-20/RESOPCSonrisa2-20 Page 3 of 16 FINAL MAP(S) AND PARCEL MAP(S) 15. As part of the filing package for final map approval, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete map, as approved by the City's map checker, on storage media and in a program format acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu choices so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. If the map was not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the map. IMPROVEMENT PLANS 16. Improvement plans submitted to the City for plan checking shall be submitted on 24" x 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading," "Precise Grading," "Streets & Drainage," and "Landscaping." All plans except precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer. Precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for Community Development Director and the Building Official. Plans are not approved for construction until they are signed. "Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths, gates and entryways, and parking lots. If water and sewer plans are included on the street and drainage plans, the plans shall have an additional signature block for the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The combined plans shall be signed by CVWD prior to their submittal for the City Engineer's signature. "Landscaping" plans shall normally include landscape improvements, irrigation, lighting, and perimeter walls. Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City Engineer. 17. The City may maintain standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements of construction. For a fee established by City resolution, the applicant may acquire standard plan and/or detail sheets from the City. 18. When final plans are approved by the City, and prior to approval of the final map, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete, approved plans on storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu choices so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. At the completion of construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall update the files to reflect as -constructed conditions including approved revisions to the plans. CONDPCSonrisa2-20/RESOPCSonrisa2-20 Page 4 of 16 If the plans were not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the plans. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT 19. 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 agendization of a final map or parcel map or issuance of a certificate of compliance for a waived parcel map. For secured agreements, security provided, and the release thereof, shall conform with Chapter 13, LQMC. Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing structures or obstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements, 20. If improvements are secured, the applicant shall provide approved estimates of improvement costs. Estimates shall comply with the schedule of unit costs adopted by City resolution or ordinance. For items not listed in the City's schedule, estimates shall meet the approval of the City Engineer. Estimates for utilities and other improvements under the jurisdiction of outside agencies shall be approved by those agencies. Security is not required for telephone, gas, or T.V. cable improvements. However, tract improvements shall not be agendized for final acceptance until the City receives confirmation from the telephone authority that the applicant has met all requirements for telephone service to lots within the development. 21. If improvements are phased with multiple final maps or other administrative approvals (plot plans, conditional use permits, etc.), off -site improvements and development - wide improvements (e.g., retention basins, perimeter walls & landscaping, gates) shall be constructed or secured prior to approval of the first phase unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Improvements and obligations required of each phase shall be completed and satisfied prior to completion of homes or occupancy of permanent buildings within the phase unless a construction phasing plan is approved by the City Engineer. 22. The applicant shall pay cash or provide security in guarantee of cash payment for applicant's required share of improvements which have been or will be constructed by others (participatory improvements). Participatory improvements for this development include: A. Traffic signal at Miles Avenue and Dune Palms Road - $31,740 (23.73% of the City's $133,758 cost to design and construct). The applicant shall satisfy this CONDPCSonrisa2-20/RESOPCSonrisa2-20 Page 5 of 16 obligation prior to issuance of the first building permit for this development (including model homes). B. Miles Avenue - One half the cost of an 18-foot raised landscape median and turn pockets contiguous with this development. This obligation shall be secured prior to approval of any final map. C. Dune Palms Road - The City's cost of design and construct existing permanent improvements west of centerline contiguous with this development. The applicant shall satisfy this obligation prior to the opening of the main project entry to public or local residential traffic. The applicant's obligations for all or a portion of the participatory improvements may, at the City's option, be satisfied by participation in a major thoroughfare improvement program if this development becomes subject to such a program. GRADING 23. Graded, undeveloped land shall be maintained to prevent dust and blowsand nuisances. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other wind and water erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. Construction vehicles shall use Dune Palms Road. 24. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the Applicant shall submit and receive approval of a fugitive dust control plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. In accordance with said Chapter, the Applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the city, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit. 25. The applicant shall comply with the City's Flood Protection Ordinance. 26. The applicant shall furnish a thorough preliminary geological and soils engineering report (the "soils report") with the grading plan. 27. A grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and must meet the approval of the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report and shall be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or an engineering geologist. A statement shall appear on the final map(s), if any are required of this development, that a soils report has been prepared pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health and Safety Code. 28. The applicant shall endeavor to minimize differences in elevation at the interface of this development with abutting properties and of separate tracts and lots within this development. Building pad elevations on contiguous lots shall not differ by more CONDPCSonrisa2-20/RESOPCSonrisa2-20 Page 6 of 16 than three feet except for lots within a tract, but not sharing common street frontage, where the differential shall not exceed five feet. If compliance with this requirement is impractical, the City will consider and may approve alternatives which minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties and neighboring owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential. 29. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide a separate document, bearing the seal and signature of a California registered civil engineer or surveyor, that lists actual building pad elevations. The document shall list the pad elevation approved on the grading plan, the as -built elevation, and the difference between the two, if any. The data shall be organized by lot number and shall be listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. DRAINAGE The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03 and the following: 30. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. 31. 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. 32. 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 21/ acres in size or larger or where the use of common retention is determined by the City Engineer to be impracticable. If individual -lot retention is approved, the applicant shall meet all individual -lot retention provisions of Chapter 13.24, LQMC. 33. Storm flow in excess of retention capacity shall be routed through a designated overflow outlet and into the historic drainage relief route. 34. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. 35. In design of retention facilities, the maximum percolation rate shall be two inches per hour. The percolation rate will be considered to be zero unless the applicant provides site -specific data indicating otherwise. CONDPCSonrisa2-20/RESOPCSonrisa2-20 Page 7 of 16 36. Retention basin slopes shall not exceed 3:1. If retention is on individual lots, the retention depth shall not exceed two feet. If retention is in one or more common retention basins, the retention depth shall not exceed six feet. 37. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. A trickling sand filter and leachfield of a design approved by the City Engineer shall be installed to percolate nuisance water. The sand filter and leach field shall be sized to percolate 22 gallons per day per 1,000 square feet of drainage area. 38. In developments for which security will be provided by public safety entities, e.g., the La Quinta Safety Department or the Riverside County Sheriff's Department, all areas of common retention basins shall be visible from the adjacent street(s). No fence or wall shall be constructed around retention basins except as approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. UTILITIES 39. All existing and proposed utilities within or adjacent to the proposed development shall be installed underground. High -voltage power lines which the power authority will not accept underground are exempt from this requirement. 40. In areas where hardscape improvements are planned, underground utilities shall be installed prior to construction of surface improvements. The applicant shall provide certified reports of utility trench compaction tests for approval of the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 41. The City is contemplating adoption of a major thoroughfare improvement program. If the program is in effect 60 days prior to recordation of any final map or issuance of a certificate of compliance for any waived final map, the development or portions thereof may be subject to the provisions of the ordinance. If this development is not subject to a major thoroughfare improvement program, the applicant shall be responsible for all street and traffic improvements required herein. 42. The following minimum street improvements shall be constructed to conform with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses: A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1) Miles Avenue (Primary Arterial) - Construct applicant's half of an 86-foot travel section (curb face to curb face) with striped median. Construct six- foot sidewalk and secure the cost of half of an 18-foot raised landscape median. The street and sidewalk, including the curb return at Dune Palms CONDPCSonrisa2-20/RESOPCSonrisa2-20 Page 8 of 16 Road, shall be completed prior to the opening of the temporary model home entrance. 2) Dune Palms Road (Secondary Arterial) - Construct applicant's half of a 64 foot travel section plus an eight foot sidewalk. Construct modifications to the traffic signal as necessary to accommodate the widened street section. These improvements shall be completed prior to the opening of the main project entry to public or residential traffic. B. ON -SITE PUBLIC STREETS 1) Lot "C" - 40-foot width. Other double -loaded streets, 36-foot section. Single - loaded portion of Lot "D" - 32-foot section. Construct five-foot wide sidewalks on both sides of double -loaded streets, one side of single -loaded. 2) Offset cuts de sac per Riverside County Standard 600(A). Additional street widths are required for turn knuckles, comer cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes, and other features contained in the approved construction plans. 43. Access points and turning movements of traffic shall be restricted to the following: A. Main project entry on Dune Palms Road centered approximately 770 feet north of the centerline of Miles Avenue - all -way access allowed. B. Direct connection of the west end of Lot "C" to Nuevo Drive. C. Temporary model home entrance on Miles Avenue - right-in/right-out movements allowed. A left -in movement may be approved if the applicant installs approved traffic control markings and devices (if the median is not yet constructed). The temporary entrance shall be located no closer than 250 feet (curb return to curb return) from Dune Palms Road or Los Manos Drive and as approved by the City Engineer to least conflict with the safe passage of traffic.. The temporary entrance shall serve an enclosed parking and/or street area within or adjacent to the model complex and shall have approved barriers blocking access to or from the remainder of the interior street system. The applicant shall secure the cost of removal of the entrance which shall occur at the time of conversion of the model homes or as directed by the City. 43. Improvements shall include all appurtenances such as traffic signs, channelization markings and devices, raised medians if required, street name signs, sidewalks, and CONDPCSonrisa2-20/RESOPCSonrisa2-20 Page 9 of 16 mailbox clusters approved in design and location by the U.S. Post Office and the City Engineer. Mid -block street lighting is not required. 44. The City Engineer may require improvements extending beyond development boundaries such as, but not limited to, pavement elevation transitions, street width transitions, or other incidental work which will ensure that newly constructed improvements are safely integrated with existing improvements and conform with the City's standards and practices. 45. Improvement plans for all on- and off -site streets and access gates shall be prepared by registered professional engineer(s) authorized to practice in the State of California. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC, adopted Standard and Supplemental Drawings and Specifications, and as approved by the City Engineer. 46. Street right of way geometry for cuts de sac, knuckle turns and corner cutbacks shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #800, #801, and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 47. All streets proposed to serve residential or other access driveways shall be designed and constructed with vertical curbs and gutters or shall have other approved methods to convey nuisance water without ponding and to facilitate street sweeping. 48. Street pavement sections shall be based on a Caltrans design for a 20-year life and shall consider soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including site and building construction traffic). The minimum pavement sections shall be as follows: Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" a.b. Collector 4.0"/5.00" Secondary Arterial 4.076.00" Primary Arterial 4.5/6.00" Major Arterial 5.5/6.50" The listed structural sections are minimums, not defaults. Street pavement sections shall be designed using Caltrans design procedures with site -specific data for soil strength and traffic volumes. The applicant shall submit current (no more than two years old) mix designs for base materials, Portland cement concrete and asphalt concrete, including complete mix design lab results, for review and approval by the City. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (no more than six months old at the time proposed for construction) aggregate gradation test results to confirm that the mix design gradations can be reproduced in production of the base or paving CONDPCSonrisa2-20/RESOPCSonrisa2-20 Page 10 of 16 material. Construction operations shall not be scheduled until mix designs are approved. 49. Prior to occupancy of homes or other permanent buildings within the development, the applicant shall install all street and sidewalk improvements, traffic control devices and street name signs along access routes to those buildings. If on -site streets are initially constructed with only a portion of the full thickness of pavement, the applicant shall complete the pavement when directed by the City but in any case prior to final inspections of any of the final ten percent of homes within the Tract. LANDSCAPING AND WALLS 50. Perimeter walls and required landscaping for the entire perimeter to be enclosed shall be constructed prior to final inspection and occupancy of any homes within the Tract unless a phasing plan or construction schedule is approved by the City Engineer. The perimeter Tract walls shall be constructed using decorative masonry slumpstone blocks with brick cap and meander (or include staggers) and include open sections of wrought iron and pilasters. The height of perimeter wall shall be six -feet as required by the acoustic study for the project. 51. The applicant shall provide landscape improvements in the perimeter setback areas or lots along Miles Avenue and Dune Palms Road and on the retention basin lots. 52. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscape setback areas, retention basin lots and production houses shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and be prepared based on the water conservation measures addressed in Chapter B.13 of the Municipal Code. Landscape and irrigation plans for production houses shall be approved by the Community Development Department. Landscape and irrigation construction plans for parkways, landscape setbacks, and retention basins shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval by the City Engineer. The landscaping plans are not approved for construction until they have been approved and signed by the City Engineer, Community Development Department, the Coachella Valley Water District, and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner. 53. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 in landscape areas outside the right of way. Landscape berms of 30" high shall be used throughout the parkway landscaping. 54. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or spray irrigation within 5-feet of curbs along public streets. CONDPCSonrisa2-20/RESOPCSonrisa2-20 Page 11 of 16 55. Unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer, common basins and open space areas shall be designed with grades and a turf grass surface which can be mowed with standard tractor -mounted equipment. 56. The applicant shall ensure that landscaping plans and utility plans are coordinated to provide visual screening of above -ground utility structures. 57. Masonry fencing for individual houses is required. Decorative walls shall be installed for fencing that can be seen from the abutting street frontage (e.g., tan slumpstone, etc.) with precision block (or better) walls required for interior and rear yard areas. 58. Mature landscaping shall be installed in the perimeter landscaping parkways. Palm trees shall a minimum brown trunk height of 10-feet, and shall be skinned (25% or greater) and include accent uplighting mounted on the trunk at 8' above the finished grade level. No less than 80 percent of the trees along Miles Avenue and Dune Palms Road shall be 24"- or 36"-box specimen trees (e.g., minimum 1.75" to 3" diameter trunk width per tree type) with remaining trees 15 gallon in size with 1" diameter trunk. Vandal proof ground mounted lighting shall be used periodically to accent the parkway trees in conjunction with the lighting for the palm trees. Shrubs spacing shall be 3to 4' on center unless plant types are clustered to form distinctive design themes. 59. Front yard landscaping for production houses shall consist of a minimum of two shade trees (i.e., one tree @ 15 gallon with 1" diameter trunk and one tree @24" box with 1.75" diameter trunk) and 10 five -gallon shrubs. Three additional 15 gallon trees shall be required for corner lot houses. All trees shall be double staked to prevent wind damage. Trees and shrubs shall be watered with emitters or bubblers. 60. Landscape and irrigation improvements shall be installed prior to occupancy of the house. The developer and subsequent property owner shall continuously maintain all required landscaping in a healthy and viable condition. PUBLIC SERVICES 61. The applicant shall provide public transit amenities as required by Sunline Transit and/or the City Engineer. QUALITY ASSURANCE 62. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. CONDPCSonrisa2-20/RESOPCSonrisa2-20 Page 12 of 16 63. The subdivider shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing not included in the City's permit inspection program but which are required by the City to provide evidence that materials and their placement comply with plans and specifications. Testing shall include a retention basin sand filter percolation test, as approved by the City Engineer, after required tract improvements are complete and soils have been permanently stabilized. 64. The applicant shall employ or retain California registered civil engineers, geotechnical engineers, or surveyors, as appropriate, who will provide, or have their agents provide, sufficient supervision and verification of the construction to be able to furnish and sign accurate record drawings. 65. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all plans which were signed by the City Engineer. Each sheet of the drawings shall have the wards "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" clearly marked on each sheet and be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the plan computer files previously submitted to the City to reflect the as -constructed condition. MAINTENANCE 66. The applicant shall make provisions for perpetual maintenance of landscaping, infiltration devices and related improvements in landscaped setbacks, retention basins and other public or common areas. The applicant shall maintain all other improvements until expressly released from such responsibility following final acceptance of improvements by the City Council. FEES AND DEPOSITS 67. The applicant shall pay all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposit and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. All fees paid for development permits shall be paid as required by City Council Resolution in effect at time of application. 68. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the property owner shall pay a fee of $600.00 per acre for disturbing the habitat area of the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed 'Lizard. 69. Within 24 hours after review by the City Council, the property owner/developer shall submit to the Community Development Department two checks made out to the County of Riverside in the amount of $78.00 and $1,250.00 to permit the filing and posting of the Notice of Determination for EA 97-346. CONDPCSonrisa2-20/RESOPCSonrisa2-20 Page 13 of 16 70. Prior to building permit issuance, the developer shall pay school mitigation fees to the appropriate school district based on the State imposed fee in effect at that time. The school facilities fee shall be established by Resolution (i.e., State of California School Facilities Financing Act). 71. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 72. Prior to final map approval by the City Council, the property owner/developer shall meet the Parkland Dedication requirements by payment of in -lieu fees as set forth in Section 13.48 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. (FIRE DEPARTMENT 73. Schedule A fire protection approved Super fire hydrants (6" X 4" X 2.5" X 2.5") will be located at each street intersection spaced not more than 330-feet apart in any direction with any portion of any frontage more than 165-feet from a fire hydrant. Minimum fire flow will be 1,000 G.P.M. for a two-hour duration at 20 PSI. 74. Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant/developer will furnish one blueline copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review and approval. Plans will conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system will meet the fire flow requirements. Plans will be signed and approved by the registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." 75. The required water system including fire hydrants will be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot. A temporary water supply for fire protection may be allowed for the construction of model units only. Plans for a temporary water system must be submitted to the Fire Department for review prior to issuance of building permits. 76. Phased improvements shall be approved by the Fire Department. 77. Prior to the issuance of the 36"' building permit for residences, improved secondary access shall be provided. CONDPCSonrisa2-20/RESOPCSonrisa2-20 Page 14 of 16 ENVIRONMENTAL 78. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, the property owner/developer shall prepare and submit a written report to the Community Development Department demonstrating compliance with those Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures of TTM 25953 and EA 97-346. Mitigation monitoring of the project site during grading is required. 79. The developer shall comply with the recommendations of the City's Historic Preservation Commission as required on October 16, 1997, and those identified in the Archaeological Resources Assessment report prepared by L & L Environmental for this project. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall have retained a qualified cultural resources management firm. The management firm shall monitor the grading and trenching activity as required by the plan and testing results, for both on -site and off -site improvements. A list of the qualified archaeclogical monitor(s), cultural resources management firm employees, and any assistant(s)/representative(s) retained for this project, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. The list shall provide the current address and phone number for each monitor. The designated monitors may be changed from time to time, but no such change shall be effective unless served by registered or certified mail on the Community Development Department (c/o Ms. Leslie Mouriquand, Associate Planner). The designated monitors or their authorized representatives shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of resources. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains, there shall be no further grading, excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until appropriate mitigation measures are completed, according to State law. Upon completion of the monitoring, the developer (or property owner) shall submit three copies of the final report prior to issuance of the first house Certificate of Occupancy. MISCELLANEOUS 80. The RL Zoning District requirements shall be met prior to the issuance of building permits. Front yard building setbacks shall be varied to enhance the streetscape appearance according to Section 9.30.030 of the Zoning Ordinance (e.g., 20' to 25' setback from the property line). CONDPCSonrisa2-20/RESOPCSonrisa2-20 Page 15 of 16 81. All agency letters received for this case are made part of the case file documents for plan checking purposes. 82. All houses constructed shall comply with the Uniform Building Code in effect, when the plans are submitted for plan check by the Building and Safety Department. 83. Developer (or property owner) agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of this project. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel in its sole discretion. 84. A Minor Use Permit is required to establish a model sales complex or real estate sales office with advertising according to Section 9.60.250 of the Zoning Ordinance. 85. Permanent or temporary signs shall be approved by the Community Development Department prior to installation. 86. Minor architectural changes to the prototype housing units may be permitted by the Community Development Director. Major architectural changes or new house plans shall be approved as a Non -Hearing Action by the Planning Commission. 87. Two story building elements are not permitted to be constructed along the west and north Tract boundaries. CONDPCSonrisa2-20/RESOPCSonrisa2-20 Page 16 of 16 ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT I Vaca URFS AVENUE CASE MAP CASE No. VICINITY MAP TTM 25953 (TIME EXT. #3) Vacant Vacant SCALE : SMS G-r- ATTACHMENT 2 A 5 u - rT,T,; lip pro-d suulud 3 unci - • ....►,'...., _ - ' :vim -. _.-_ _ . � ---s- - �J 0 c 00 va J 0' O N C L� :D U N f.. G c I ATTACHMENT 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Environmental Assessment No. 97-346 Case No.:TTM 25953 Date:10/13/97 I. Name of Proponent: Oliphant and Williams Assoc. Address: 43-725 Monterey Avenue, Suite C. Palm Desert Phone: 760-836-0155 Agency Requiring Checklist: City of La Quinta Project Name (if applicable): Sonrisa CITY OF LA QUINTA Community Development Department 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 IIALESLIETC97-346. Wi'I) II. 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" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning Population and Housing Earth Resources Water Air Quality Transportation/Circulation X Bio ogical Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Risk of Upset and I lwnan Health Noise Mwidatory Findings of Significance III. DETERMINATION. On the basis of this initial evaluation: Public Services i Jtilitics Aesthetics Cultural Resources Recreation I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least, 1) one effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards; and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potential significant unless mitigated". AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. Signature Date 10/13/97 Printed Name and Title Leslie Mouriquand; Associate Planner For: City of La Quinta.Community Development Department P:U,ESLIE\EC97-346. WPI) -11- X Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant IIn] ess Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 3.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING. World the prn jest: a)Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): X b)Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? X c)Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to soils or farmlands. or impacts from incompatible land uses)? X d)Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? X 3.2 POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a)Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b)Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension or major infrastructure)? X c)Displace existing housing, especially affordable X housing? 3.3 EARTH AND GEOLOGY. Would the prgject result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a)Fauit rupture? -� b)Seismic ground shaking X c)Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? X d)Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? X e)Landslides or mudflows? X f)Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill? :K g)Subsidence of the land? X h)Expansive soils? K i)Unique geologic or physical features? X PALESLIETC97-346AWD -iii- 3.4 3.5 3.6 Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact Water. Would the project result in: a)Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? X b)Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? X c)Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X d)changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? X e)changes in currents or the course or direction of water movements? X f)change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? X g)Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? X h)Impacts to groundwater quality? X AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a)Violate any air quality standard to contribute to an existing or projected air quality violations? :X b)Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? :K c)Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? X d)Create objectionable odors? :K TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the project result in: a)Increased vehicle trips or �,raffic congestion? X b)Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? X 11ALESLIETC97-346. WI'I -lv- 3.7 3.8 Potentially Potentially Significant I ess Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact c)Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? X d)Insufffcient parking capacity on site or offsite? X e)Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? X f)conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? X g)Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? X BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project result in impacts to: a)Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? X b)Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? X c)Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? X d)Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e)Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a)Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b)Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? 3.9 RISK OF UPSET/HUMAN HEALTH. Would the proposal involve: a)A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b)Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c)The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? I'ALESLIETC 97-346. WI'I ) -v- X X 91 X X X 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 d)Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards'? e)Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a)Increases in existing noise levels? b)Exposure of people to severe noise levels? PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a raced for new or altered government services in anyof f the following areas: a)Fire protection? b)Police protection? c)Schools? d)Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? e)other governmental services? UTILITIES. Would the proposal result in a need for new Systems, or s-uhstantial alterations to the following utilities: a)Power or natural gas? b)Communications systems? c)Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? d)Sewer or septic tanks? e)Storm water drainage f)Solid waste disposal? AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a)Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b)Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c)Create light or glare? CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: PALESLIETC97-346. I' ) -vi- Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact XI X iK X .K X X F11 a)Disturb paleontological resources? b)Disturb archaeological resources? c)Affect historical resources? d)Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e)Restrict existing religious of sacred uses within the potential impact area? 3.15 RECREATION. Would the proposal: Potentially Potentially Significant less Than Significant finless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact ;K X X X a)Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? %K b)Affect existing recreational opportunities? 3.16 MANDATOR' FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a)Does the project have the Potential to degrade the quality of the environmental, 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? %K b)Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? ;K 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 vvith the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable further projects). d)Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? PALE5LIETC97-346MI'D -vil- X EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used. where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the; following on attached sheets: a)Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b)Impacts adequately address. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed by the earlier document. c)Mitigation measures. For effects that are "potentially significant" or "potentially significant unless mitigated," 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. PALE SLIETC97-346.WPD -Vill- INITIAL STUDY - ADDENDUM FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 97-346 Tentative Tract Map 25953, Amendment #1 Sonrisa Applicant: Oliphant & Williams 43-725 Monterey Ave., Suite C Palm Desert, CA 92260 Prepared by: City of La Quinta Community Development Department 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Leslie ouriquan ,' Associate Planner October 13, 1997 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1 INTRODUCTION................................................... 3 0? 3 4 E 1.1 Project Overview ................................................... 3 1.2 Purpose of Initial Study .............................................. 3 1.3 Background of Environmental. Review ................................... 4 1.4 Summary of Preliminary Environmental Review ........................... 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................ 4 2.1 Project Location and Environmental Setting ............................... 4 2.2 Physical Characteristics .............................................. 4 2.3 Operational Characteristics ........................................... 4 2.4 Objectives...................................................... 4 2.5 Discretionary Actions ............................................... 5 2.6 Related Projects ................................................... 5 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT .................................... 5 3.1 Land Use and Planning 3.2 Population and Housing ............................................. 3.3 Earth Resources .................................................. 3.4 Water......................................................... 3.5 Air Quality ..................................................... 3.6 Transportation/Circulation.......................................... 3.7 Biological Resources .............................................. 3.8 Energy and Mineral Resources ....................................... 3.9 Risk of Upset/Human Health ........................................ 3.10 Noise.......................................................... 3.11 Public Services .................................................. 3.12 Utilities........................................................ 3.13 Aesthetics...................................................... 3.14 Cultural Resources ............................................... 3.15 Recreation...................................................... 5 6 7 11 14 15 17 19 19 21 22 24 25 26 27 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ......................... 28 EARLIER ANALYSES .............................................. 29 Page 2 SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW The purpose of this Initial Study is to identify the potential environmental impacts of the proposed 132 single family residential lot development. The total project site is a 38.4 acre parcel located at the northwest corner of Miles Avenue and Dune Palms Road, in the City of La Quinta, California. The project will be called "Sonrisa". The City of La Quinta is the Lead Agency for the project review, as defined by Section 21067 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Lead Agency is the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment. The City of La Quinta, as the Lead Agency, has the authority to oversee the environmental review and to approve the land use designations. 1.2 PURPOSE OF INITIAL STUDY As part of the environmental review for the Tentative Tract Map, the City of La Quinta Community Development Department staff has prepared this Initial Study. This document provides a basis for determining the nature and scope of the subsequent environmental review for the proposed tentative tract map. The purposes of the Initial Study, as stated in Section 15063 of the State CEQA Guidelines, include the following: To provide the Agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for the project; To enable the applicant, or the City of La Quinta, to modify the project, mitigating adverse acts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; To assist the preparation of an EIR, should one be required, by focusing the analysis on those issues that will be adversely impacted by the proposed project; To facilitate environmental review early in the design of the project; To provide documentation for the findings in a Negative Declaration that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment; To eliminate unnecessary EIR's; and, To determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project. Page 3 1.3 BACKGROUND OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed project application was deemed subject to the environmental review requirements of CEQA. This Initial Study Checklist and Addendum were prepared for review by the La Quinta Planning Commission and certification by the City Council. 1.4 SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This Initial Study indicates that there is little potential for significant adverse environmental impacts for the majority of issue areas contained in the Environmental Checklist. Mitigation measures have been recommended for the proposed tentative tract map which will reduce any identified potential impacts to less than significant levels. As a result, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact will be recommended for this project. An EIR will not be necessary. SECTION 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The City of La Quinta is a 31.18 square mile municipality located in the southeastern portion of the Coachella Valley, in Riverside County, California. The City is bounded on the west by the City of Indian Wells, on the east by the City of Indio and Riverside County, on the north by Riverside County, and County, federal, and state lands to the south. The City of La Quinta was incorporated in 1982. The general project location is the northwest corner of the intersection of Miles Avenue and Dune Palms Road, north of the Topaz development, south of La Quinta Palms development, east of Quinterra development, and west of the Cactus blower development and vacant land. 2.2 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS The project site is a 38.4 acre parcel of vacant desert land. The land does not appear to have ever been developed. 2.3 OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS The proposed subdivision would operate as a single family housing development with individual ownership of each lot/house. The retention basins will be common ownership with each owner to be assessed a maintenance fee. 2.4 OBJECTIVES The objective of the proposed project is to develop a single family residential tract for profit opportunities. Page 4 2.5 DISCRETIONARV ACTIONS A discretionary action is an action taken by a government agency that calls for the exercise of judgment in deciding whether to approve a project. For this project, the government agency is the City of La Quinta. The proposed tentative tract map will require discretionary approvals by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2.6 RELATED PROJECTS There are no other related projects to the proposed single family tract project. SECTION 3: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This section analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the land use, and project design, and operational considerations of the proposed tentative tract map. The CEQA Checklist tissue areas are evaluated in this addendum. For each checklist item, the environmental setting is discussed, including a description of the existing conditions within the City and the areas affected by the proposed project. Thresholds of significance are defined either by standards adopted by responsible or trustee agencies, or by referring to criteria in CEQA (Appendix G). 3.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta is located in the Coachella Valley, in the eastern portion of Riverside County. The valley is abundant with both desert plant and animal life. The topographical relief ranges from -237 feet below mean sea level (msl) to about 2,000 feet above msl. The valley is a part of the Colorado Desert region. Surrounding the valley are the San Jacinto Mountains, the Santa Rosa Mountains, the Orocopia Mountains, and the San Bernardino Mountains. The San Andreas fault transects the northeastern edge of the valley. Local Environmental Setting The proposed project is located at the northwestern corner of Miles Avenue and Dune Palms Road. The land is vacant desert property. The property is dry and sparsely vegetated with some natural d.-sert vegetation. A. Would the project conflict with the general plan designation or zoning? No Impact. The location of the proposed subdivision is within the RL Zoning District and Low Density Residential General Plan Land Use designation. Adjacent land uses consist of developed single family residential in all directions. The adjacent land use designations and zoning districts consist of RL (Single Family Residential) in all directions. B. Would the project conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? Page 5 No Impact. The City of La Quinta has jurisdiction over this project. The primary environmental plans and policies pertinent to this project are identified in La Quinta's General Plan, the General Plan EIR, the La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment, and the City's CEQA Guidelines. The proposed tentative tract map has been transmitted to various agencies for review and comment regarding; any potential conflicts with environmental plans or policies. There are no City policies that the proposed subdivision conflicts with. C. Would the project affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? No Impact. The La Quinta General Plan does not contain an agricultural land use designation although there are a few locations with agricultural land uses extant in the south and southeastern portions of the City. Historically, there has been farming activity in several sections of the City, however, that has largely been replaced by resort, commercial, and residential development over the past 15 years. There is no evidence that the project site was ever farmed (Source: Site Survey). D. Would the project disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income minority community)? No Impact. The project site will be developed with a 132 lot single family subdivision with adjacent roadways to the east and south. The project site is adjacent to other RL zoned parcels. New internal public roadways are proposed with this project to access each proposed lot. There are existing and future residential land uses on four sides of the project. There is no identified aspect of this project that would disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community. 3.2 POPULATION AND HOUSING Regional Environmental Setting Between 1980 and 1990, the population of La Quinta expanded 125%, as reported by the U.S. Census, making the City the second fastest growing city in the Coachella Valley. During that time period, the number of residents in La Quinta blossomed from 4,992 to 11,215. From 1990 to January of 1996, the population grew from 13,070 to 18,050. These figures are based upon information provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, State Department of Finance, and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG). La Quinta's population ranks sixth largest of the nine cities in the Coachella Valley. Annual average growth rate has been approximately 10% in recent years. The projected population of La Quinta by the year 2000 is anticipated to be 23,000 (Source: Community Development Department). The average age of a City resident is 32 years. Persons over the age of 45 make up 27% of the City's population (Source: 1990 Census). In addition to permanent residents, La Quinta has approximately 9,300 seasonal residents who spend three to six months in the City. It is estimated that 30% of all housing units in the City are used by seasonal residents (Source: Community Development Department). The total housing stock as of 1996, is listed at 9,352 units. Single family units make up 68 percent of the available housing stock. The housing unit breakdown is as follows: 8,624 detached single family, Page 6 481 multi -family units, and 247 mobile homes. The average number of persons per household is 3.15 (Source: Department of Finance 1996). Median home prices in La Quinta are approximately $112,000 which is lower than the average for Riverside County ($120,950), but less than other Southern California counties (Source: La Quinta Economic Overview 1996 Edition). Ethnicity information from the 1990 Census revealed that the composition of La Quinta's population is 70% Caucasian, 26% Hispanic, 2% Afro-American, 1.5% Asian, and 1.0% Native American The 1990 Census indicates that 81 % of the La Quinta residents are high school graduates and 21 ° o are college graduates (Source: Census/Estimates). Local Environmental Setting The project site is located on a 38.4 acre parcel of vacant desert land dimpled with sand dunes. A. Would the project cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? Less Than Significant Impact. Tlie proposed project does include residential units with future population of approximately 376 people. Temporary construction -related jobs will be created as the project is under construction. No jobs will be lost as a result of the project, in that the project site is vacant land. New jobs will benefit the community, and result in a positive impact. B. Would the project induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed tentative tract map will make a cumulative impact in the surrounding area as major infrastructure could be altered or required to be extended to service the project site (Source: Site Survey). This impact is not anticipated to be significant, as there is existing development in all directions of the project site with infrastructure already in place. C. Would the project displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? No Impact. There are no existing houses on the proposed project site. Thus, there is no identifiable adverse impact to this issue. 3.3 EARTH RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta has a relatively flat, but gently sloping topography, except for the hillside area on the southern and western portions of the City. Elevations in the southeastern portion of the City reach 1,400 feet above msl. Slopes on the valley floor area of the City are gentle, except in the rolling sand dune areas. The alluvial soils that make up most of the City are underlain by igneous -metamorphic rock, as seen in outcrops in the Santa Rosa Mountains and the Coral Reef Mountains. Soils on the valley floor are made up of very fine grain unconsolidated silty sands. The Coachella Valley is underlain by hundreds of feet to several thousand feet of Quaternary fluvial, lacustrine, and aeolian soil deposits (Southland Gcotechnical 1996:6). Page 7 Local Environmental Setting The area where the parcel is located is in the open desert part of the City. The elevation of the property is approximately 80 feet above mean sea level (Source: USGS La Quinta Quad Map). There is an inferred earthquake fault line located approximately one mile west and 2 miles south of the project site. There has been no recorded activity along these fault lines, thus there is a low probability for such activity to occur. The City of La Quinta lies in a seismically active region of Southern California. Faults in the region include the San Andreas and Mission Creek faults located several miles to the north and west. The project lies within Groundshaking Zone IV with Zone XII being the most hazardous. The project site is within the Blowsand Hazard Zone (Sources: Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan; La Quinta General Plan; La Quinta MEA). According to the Soil Survey of Riverside County, California, Coachella Valley Area, prepared by the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service in 1979, there is one type of soil present on the project site ( MaD -Myoma fine sand 5 to 15% slope). This soil type has distinctive features and characteristics. A detailed discussion of this soil type is found in the USDA Soil Conservation Survey of Riverside County, California - Coachella Valley Area. A preliminary soils report was prepared for this project by Sladden Engineering. A. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity: fault rupture? Less Than Significant Impact. There is an inferred fault line located west and south of the project site. This fault is considered potentially active, although no activity has been recorded for the last 10,000 years. A major earthquake along the fault would be capable of generating seismic hazards and strong groundshakmg effects in the area. None of the inferred faults in La Quinta have been placed in an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. All structures developed on the project site would be required to be constructed to current Uniform Building Code (UBC) seismic standards in order to mitigate risk of collapse to the extent feasible (Sources: Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan; City of La Quinta General Plan; La Quinta MEA; UBC). While accurate earthquake predictions are not possible, significant geologic information and statistical analysis have been complied, analyzed, and published intensely by various agencies over the past 25 years. It has been reported that a 22% conditional probability occurrence for the 30-year period from 1994 to 2024 that a magnitude 7.5 event or greater would occur along the Coachella Valley segment of the San Andreas Fault. The primary risk to the project is the San Andreas Fault. The Coachella Valley Segment of the fault comprises the southern 115 km of the fault zone. This segment has the longest elapsed time of any portion of the San Andreas Fault, last experiencing an event about 1690 AD based on USGS dating of trench surveys near Indio. The San Andreas Fault zone is considered to have characteristic earthquakes that ruptures each fault segment. The San Andreas Fault may rupture in multiple segments producing a higher magnitude earthquake (Source: Southland Geotechnical 1996). Fault rupture is not anticipated to occur at the project site since the well -delineated fault lines through this region as shown on United States Geological Survey and California Division of Mines and Geology maps are not near the project site location. However, because the site is located in an area of high Page 8 tectonic activity, the potential for surface rupture on undiscovered or new faults that may underlie the site can not be discounted (Source: Southland Geotechnical 1996:8). B. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact. The future houses will be subject to groundshaking hazards from regional and local events. The proposed project will bring people to the site who could be subject to these hazards. The Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan indicates that the project site is within Groundshaking Zone IV. A Zone IV is an area with moderate shaking qualities but less severe than a Zone XII which is the highest level. Any habitable structures constructed will be required to meet current seismic standards of construction for Seismic Zone IV minimum to reduce, or mitigate to the extent feasible, the risk of structural collapse. The land is generally suitable for the proposed project (Sources: La Quinta MEA; La Quinta General Plan). The primary seismic hazard at the project site is strong groundshaking from earthquakes along the San Andreas and San Jacinto faults (Source: La Quinta MEA; Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan). Strong ground motion resulting from earthquake activity along the nearby San Andreas or San Jacinto fault systems is likely to impact the site during the anticipated lifetime of the structures (Source: Sladden Engineering, 1997). C. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity, ground failure or liquefaction? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project is not in an area that is anticipated to be subject to ground failure hazards from earthquake or other events due to the distance from regional fault lines. The La Quinta General Plan indicates that the project site is not within a recognized liquefaction hazard area. The majority of the City has a very low liquefaction susceptibility due to the fact that ground water levels are generally at least 100 feet below the ground surface (Source: La Quinta PAEA; Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan; Sladden Engineering, 1997). D. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity: seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard? No Impact. The City is located in an inland valley separated from the Pacific Ocean by mountain ranges, and would not be subjected to a tsunami. Lake Cahuilla, a man-made reservoir located in the southeast portion of the City, might experience some moderate wave activity as a result of an earthquake and groundshaking. However, the lake is not anticipated to affect this project in the event of a levee failure or seiche because the lake is on the other side of the Coral Reef Mountains (Source: La Quinta MEA; La Quinta USGS 7.5' Quad Map). E. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving landslides or mudflows? No Impact. The terrain within and sw-rounding the project site is desert valley floor near the distal end of the gently sloping cove alluvial fan. The parcel is located approximately 3.5 miles north of the Coral Reef Mountain. Thus, there is no potential danger from landslides and rockfall. No mudflows are Page 9 anticipated for this project, as the adjacent hills and mountains are formed of rocky granitic material, and are not conducive to mudflows. The general area is protected from flood waters by earthen dikes and retention basins that are located throughout the City. (Source: La Quinta MEA; La Quinta USGS 7.5' Quad Map). F. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? Less Than significant Impact. The soils on the project site are underlain by alluvial deposits of fine grained windblown sands of Pleistocene age. Myoma soils are generally used for crops and homesites, and are excessively drained and include rapidly permeable soil (Source: U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Soil Survey of Riverside County, California - Coachella Valley Area). The surface soils are non - expansive and fall within the "very low" expansion category in accordance with the Uniform Building Code Classification System (Source: Sladden Engineering, 1997). Grading anticipates exporting soil from the project site. Compliance with a approved grading plan will be a condition of approval for the project. Monitoring of compliance will be provided by the City's Public Works Department staff. All grading shall be performed under the testing and inspection of the Soils Engineer or his representative. Prior to placement of concrete, foot excavations shall be inspected in order to verify that they extend into compacted soil and are free of loose and disturbed materials. The soils report contains recommendations that shall be made Conditions of Approval for the project (Source: TTM 25953; Sladden Engineering, 1997). G. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving subsidence of the land? Less Than Significant Impact. Dynamic settlement results in geologically seismic areas where poorly consolidated soils mix with perched groundwater causing dramatic decreases in the elevation of the ground. The project site is not located in an area designated with subsidence hazards. (Source: La Quinta MEA). H. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving expansive soils? Less Than Significant Impact. The underlying soils on the parcels have a low potential for expansion, thus future construction is not expected to be subject to problems from soil expansion. The City requires compliance with the Uniform Building Code and the recommendations of a soils investigation report prior to issuance of building and grading permits (Sources: U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey of Riverside County, California - Coachella Valley Area; Sladden Engineering, 1997). I. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving unique geologic or physical features? No Impact. The Coral Reef Mountains represent a unique geologic feature in the La Quinta area This unique feature is located outside of the project site boundaries. There is no identifiable direct significant adverse impact on this issue. Page 10 3.4 WATER Regional Environmental Setting Groundwater resources in the La Quinta area consist of a system of large aquifers (porous layers of rock material containing water) and groundwater basins separated by bedrock or layers of soil that trap or retain groundwater. La Quinta is located above the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin which is the major water supply for the potable water needs of the City as well as a significant supply for the City's nonpotable irrigation needs. Water is pumped from the underground aquifer via domestic water wells in the City operated and administered by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). La Quinta is located primarily in the lower Thermal Subarea of the groundwater basin. The Thermal Subarea is separated into the upper and lower valley sub -basins near Point Happy, located southwest of the intersection of Washington Street and State Highway 111. CVWD estimates that approximately 19.4 million acre feet of water is stored within the Thermal Subarea which is available for use. Water pumped from the aquifer is treated and distributed to users through the existing (potable) water distribution system. Water is also pumped for irrigation purposes to water golf courses and the remaining agricultural uses in the City. Water supplies are augmented with surface water from the Colorado River transported via the Coachella Canal. The quality of water in the La Quinta area is highly suitable for domestic purposes. However, cherr icals associated with agricultural production in nearby areas and the use of septic tanks in the Cove area affect groundwater quality. Groundwater is of marginal to poor quality at depths of less than 200 feet. Below 200 feet, water quality is generally good and water depths of 400 to 600 feet are considered excellent. Percolation from the tributaries of the Whitewater River flowing into La Quinta from the Santa Rosa Mountains provide a natural source of groundwater replenishment. Artificial recharging of groundwater will be necessary in the near future. Surface water in La Quinta is comprised of Colorado River water supplied via the Coachella Canal and stored in the Lake Cahuilla reservoir; lakes in private developments which are comprised of canal water and/or untreated groundwater; and the Whitewater River and its tributaries. The watersheds in La Quinta are subject to intense storms of short duration which result in substantial runoff. The steep gradient of the Santa Rosa Mountains accelerates the runoff flowing in the intermittent streams that drain the mountain watersheds. La Quinta is protected from this runoff by the existing flood control facilities located throughout the City. One of the primary sources of surface water pollution is erosion and sedimentation from development construction and operation activities. Without controls, total dissolved solids (TDS) can increase significantly from the development activities. The Clean Water Act requires all communities to conform to standards regulating the quality of water discharged into streams, including stormwater runoff The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) has been implemented as a two-part permitting process, for which the City of La Quinta participates. La Quinta is protected from storm water runoff by a stormwater system designed by Bechtel for the Coachella Valley Water District to protect currently developed and potentially developable areas of the Page 11 City from damage during a major rainflood event. The system project was based on a flood control plan for the general area developed by Bechtel for the District in 1970. Construction was completed in November 1986 (Source: Bechtel Civil, Inc. 1989:1). Local Environmental Setting The project site does not have any natural standing water. Lake Cahuilla, a man-made reservoir is located approximately 6 miles to the southeast, on the east side of the Coral Reef Mountains. The Whitewater River channel is located slightly over 3/4 mile to the south of the project site, but is dry except during seasonal storms. The La Quinta Stormwater Channel is located approximately 1.75 miles to the south and is a part of the community -wide network of flood control facilities. The City currently has only limited areas which are still subject to storm water flow or flooding. ]Flood prone areas are designated with a specific zoning district (Watercourse, Watershed and Conservation Areas: W-1). The intent of this zoning district is to allow development in flood prone areas based upon the submittal of a drainage and stormwater control plan. The City also implements flood hazard regulations for development within flood prone areas. A Preliminary Hydrology/Hydraulic Report was prepared for the project site, in September 1997, by RBF & Associates. Runoff from the project is proposed to be conveyed to retention areas. The hydrology study modeled the 100-year, 24 hour, and 100 year, 6 hour storm events to determine the volume of water that must be contained on site. The area containing this property slopes gently to the southeast. Historically, runoff from upstream properties might have flowed across the site, however, there are no offsite drainage courses --ntering the project site now. A. Would the project result in changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Less Than Significant Impact. An approved drainage plan will be required prior to issuance of a grading permit, based upon the recommendations and results of the Drainage study prepared by RBF. There will be changes in absorption rates, but not drainage patterns or surface runoff as a result of the proposed protect. The absorption rate will be altered by the paving of streets, construction of buildings, and landscaping. B. Would the project result in exposure of people or property to water -related hazards such as flooding? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is partially within the X designated flood hazard area. The X designation is the FIRM zone in which the hazard factors have been determined to be outside 500-year flood plain. The project lies in the northern portion of La Quinta and is considered safe from stormwater flows except in rare instances (Source: CVWD, May 29, 1990). C. Would the project result in discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? Page 12 Less Than Significant Impact. Stone and nuisance runoff will be required to be directed into the 'three retention areas within the proposed project. There are no existing bodies of surface water on or adjacent to the project site (Source: Site Survey; Coachella Valley Water District). There is no proposed discharge into any surface waters. D. Would the project result in changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? No Impact. There are no bodies of surface water on or adjacent to the subject parcel. Runoff water is designed to be contained in the retention basins within the project. E. Would the project result in changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? No Impact. The City of La Quinta does not have any natural bodies of water or rivers. There are many small man-made lakes and ponds on golf courses within the City. A few agricultural reservoirs are still in use. The La Quinta Evacuation Channel is a man-made stormwater channel that is usually dry except for runoff from seasonal storms. The future development of the project site with the proposed land use designations will not affect, to a significant degree, any existing drainage corridor (Source: Site Survey; La Quinta MEA). F. Would the project result in changes in quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawl, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or by excavations? Less Than Significant Impact. Water supply in the City is derived from groundwater and supplementary water brought in from the Colorado River. Potable water to service this development will most likely come from existing groundwater wells in the near vicinity and a new well to be located in the northwest corner of the project site. The Coachella Valley Water District has stated that it will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to the project, but will need additional facilities to provide for expansion of its domestic water system for the proposed well site (Sources: La Quinta MEA; Application Materials; Coachella Valley Water District). G. Would the project result in altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed tentative tract will not have a significant effect on groundwater wells by itself. As with any project using substantial amounts of water, there will be cumulative impacts to quantity of groundwater resources. It is not anticipated that there will b-. any significant alteration to the direction of flow of the groundwater supply, however, the rate of flow may be impacted due to high demand for water. No deep cuts are proposed with this project that would reach the depth of the groundwater except for the proposed well site along the western boundary of the project. These -sites are to be shown on the tract map as lots to be deeded to the district for such purpose. H. Would the project result in impacts to groundwater quality? Less Than Significant Impact. Future development of the project site will include concrete and asphalt pavement of portions of the site. This pavement will reduce the absorption ability of the ground. Storm water runoff will be discharged into the three retention areas. Following a heavy rain, contarr mates Page 13 could be transported into the retention areas or into the City's storm drain system that could contribute to groundwater and/or surface water pollution. However, this potential impact is anticipated to be less than significant. 3.5 AIR QUALITY Regional Environmental Setting The Coachella Valley is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). and in particular, the Southeast Desert Air Basin (SEDAB) division. SEDAB has a distinctly different air pollution problem than the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). A discussion of the jurisdictional organization of SCAQMD and requirements is found in the La Quinta MEA. The air quality in Southern California region has historically been poor due to the topography, climatological influences, and urbanization. State and federal clean air standards established by the California Air Resources Board and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are often exceeded. The SCAQMD is a regional agency charged with the regulation of pollutant emissions and the maintenance of local air quality standards. Currently, the SEDAB does not meet federal standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter (PM-10). In the Coachella Valley, the standard for PM-10 is frequently exceeded. PM-10 is a particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter that becomes suspended in the air due pruicipally to winds, grading activity, and by vehicles traveling on paved and unpaved roads. Local Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta is located in the Coachella Valley, which has an and climate, characterized by hot summers, mild winters, infrequent and low annual rainfall, and low humidity. Variations in rainfall, temperatures, and localized winds occur throughout the valley due to the presence of the surrounding mountains. Air quality conditions are closely tied to the prevailing winds of the region. The City of La Quinta is subject to the SCAQMD AQMD, a plan which describes measures to 'bring the SCAB into compliance with federal and state air quality standards and to meet California Clean Air Act requirements. The General Plan for the City contains an Air Quality Element outlining mitigation measures as required by the Regional AQMP. The City is located within Source Receptor Area (SRA) 30, which includes two air quality monitoring stations, one located in the City of Palm Springs, and the other in the City of Indio. The Indio station monitors conditions which are most representative of the La Quinta area. The Palm Springs station monitors carbon monoxide in addition to ozone and particulate. A. Would the project violate any air standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact. The South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Ouali Handbook indicates that the threshold for significance for single family housing is 170 units. The proposed project will have 132 units, well below the threshold of significance. Page 14 B. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? Less Than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors include schools, day care centers, parks and recreation centers, medical facilities, rest homes, and other land uses that include concentration of individuals recognized as exhibiting particular sensitivity to air pollution. The proposed tentative: tract map is considered a sensitive receptor. The adjacent land uses consist of residential in all directions,. The closest school to the proposed project is the La Quinta High School located north of Hwy. 111 on Westward Ho Drive, east of Dune Palm Road. The Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) are designed to protect that segment of the public most susceptible to respiratory distress or infection, referred to as "sensitive receptors." (Sources: La Quinta General Plan; Site Survey). C. Would the project alter air movements, moisture, temperature, or cause any change in climate? No Impact. The proposed tentative tract map is not anticipated to result in any significant impact upon this topic area. There are no significant climatic changes anticipated with the future development of the project. There are no known significance thresholds for this topic area. D. Would the project create objectionable odors? Less Than Significant Impact. Vehicles traveling on nearby and internal project streets generate gaseous and particular emissions that may be noticeable on the project site. However, these would be short-term odors that should dissipat.- quickly (Source: Site Survey). 3.6 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Regional Environmental Setting La Quinta is a desert community of over 18,600 permanent residents. The City is 31.18 square miles in size, with substantial room for development. The existing circulation system is a combination of early roadwork constructed in the 1930's by Riverside County and new roadways since incorporation of the City in 1982. Key roadways include State Highway 111, Washington Street, Jefferson Street. Fred Waring Drive, and Eisenhower Drive. Traffic volumes in La Quinta experience considerable seasonal variation, with the late -winter, early - spring months representing the peak tourist season and highest traffic volumes. Existing transit service in La Quinta is limited to three regional fixed -route bus routes operated by Sunline Transit Agency. One bus route along Washington Street connects the Cove and Village areas with the community of Palm Desert to the west. Two lines operate along Highway 111 serving; trips between La Quinta and other communities in the desert. There are only a few existing pedestrian, bicycle and equestrian facilities in La Quinta, however, these systems will be expanded as the City grows. These facilities, both existing and future, are designated in the La Quinta General Plan. Page 15 Local Environmental Setting The subject project site is located northwest of the intersection of Miles Avenue and Dune Palms Road. Dune Palms Road is classified as a secondary arterial requiring an 88 foot right-of-way. The intersection of Miles Avenue and Dune Palms Road is currently controlled by stop signs. Miles Avenue is classified as a primary arterial requiring a 100 to I I0-foot right-of-way. Miles Avenue is designated as bikeway corridor and a Secondary Image Corridor. The La Quinta General Plan gives design standards for the various street classifications. According to the standards for secondary and primary arterials, the projected buildout traffic volume for Miles Avenue, south of the subject property will exceed the volume range. It is projected that Miles Avenue will experience a daily traffic volume of 18,400 east of Washington Street, at buildout, providing a Level Of Service A (LOS-A). Dune Palms Road will have a daily traffic volume of 16,800 for a LOS of AB. A more detailed explanation of buildout traffic conditions and levels of service is found in the La Quinta General Plan. A. Would the project result in increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project traffic was addressed by the La Quinta General Plan Buildout scenario, and therefore will not be significant as project -related traffic will not exceed buildout projections for Miles Avenue or Dune Palms Road. A temporary access on Miles Avenue for the proposed model complex will result in increased traffic maneuvering and congestion. B. Would the project result in hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? Less Than Significant Impact. The tentative tract map will not result in safety hazards as the circulation system has been designed according to City standards. C. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access to nearby uses? No Impact. The tentative tract map wi11 not be permitted to obstruct emergency access to surrounding land uses. The proposed project does not prevent access to any of the surrounding properties. Permanent access to and from the tentative tract is from Dune Palms Road or an extension of Nuevo Drive. D. Would the project result in insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? No Impact. The proposed TTM includes parking in accordance with the requirements of the City for this type of land use. Each residential lot will be required to have at least a 2-car garage, tandem driveway parking, and curbside parking. E. Would the project result in hazards or barriers for pedestrian or bicyclists? No Impact. Miles Avenue is a designated bikeway corridor. It is anticipated that hazards to bicyclists and pedestrians will not be increased significantly as a result of the proposed development (Source: La Quinta General Plan). The bicycle and pedestrian corridors will be outside of the project perimeter wall within the public roadway. Page 16 F. Would the project result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Impact. The closest bus stop to the project area is located along Washington Street over 3/4 mile west of the project site. The project is not along a designated bus route, and there will not be a bus turnout included with the project. There are no adopted policies requiring alternative transportation for a residential development (Source: La Quinta MEA). G. Would the project result in rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? No Impact. There is no rail service in the City of La Quinta. The closest rail line is approximately five miles to the north of the project site. There are no navigable rivers or waterways, or air travel lanes or airports within the City. Thus, there will be no impacts upon these issues. The closest airports are the Bermuda Dunes Airport, a small private facility located just south of Interstate 10, approximately three miles north of the project site and the Thermal Airport, located approximately eight miles southeast of the project, on Airport Boulevard in the Thermal area (Sources: La Quinta MEA; USGS La Quinta 7.5' Quad Map; Site Survey). 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta lies within the Colorado Desert regional environment. Two ecosystems are found within the City, the Sonoran Desert Scrub and the Desert Transition. The disturbed environments within the City are classified as either urban or agricultural. A detailed discussion of these ecosystems is found in the La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment (1992). Local Environmental Setting The project site is located in the Sonoran Desert Scrub ecosystem. Typically, undeveloped land within this ecosystem is rich in biological resources and habitat. The Sonoran Desert Scrub is the most typical environment found in the Coachella Valley. It is generally categorized as containing plants which have the ability to economize water uses. go dormant during periods of drought, or both. Cacti are; very common in these areas due to their ability to store water. Other plants root deeply and draw upon water from considerable depths. The variations of desert vegetation result from differences in the availability of water. The most dense and lush vegetation in the desert is found where groundwater is most plentiful. The Sonoran Scrub areas are considered habitat for a number of small mammals. These animals escape the summer heat through their nocturnal and /or burrowing tendencies. Squirrels, mice and rats are all common rodent species in this environment. The black -tailed ham is a typical mammal. Predator species include kit fox, coyote, and mountain lion in the higher elevations. The largest mammal species found in this area is the Peninsular Bighorn sheep which is found at the higher elevations of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountain ranges. Birds and amphibians/reptiles can also be found in the Sonoran Scrub area. Page 17 The Desert Transition areas are found in the alluvial fan areas and slopes of the surrounding mountains. The transition is gradual and involves an intermingling of vegetation types typically found in the Desert Scrub ecosystem and the Pinon-Juniper Woodland near the top of the Santa Rosa Mountains. The plant species in the desert transition zone benefit from slightly higher rainfall. Where creosote bush and bur - sage dominated in the desert scrub areas, cacti become more abundant and ocotillo dominate on the upper portions of alluvial fans, bajadas, and rocky mountain slopes. The La Quinta General Plan identifies the property as being within the habitat of the Fringe -toed Lizard. (Sources: Site Survey; La Quinta MEA). Payment of the Fringe Toed Lizard fee is mitigation for this species. A. Would the project result in impacts to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? Potential Impact Unless Mitigated. The La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment identifies the project site as within the habitat of the Coachella Valley Fringe Toed Lizard, and the mitigation fee area for the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan. Development in the Habitat Conservation Plan area is considered a significant impact unless mitigated. Mitigation has been determined by the Plan to be $600 per disturbed acre. Payment of this fee serves as mitigation for the loss of habitat for this species. The project will be required to pay this fee prior to issuance of a grading permit. B. Would the project result in impacts to locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? No Impact. There are no locally designated biological resources within the City of La Quinta as there is no ordinance with which to designate local species. All significant biological resources are designated at the state and/or federal level by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Source: La Quinta MEA). C. Would the project result in impacts to locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? No Impact. There are no locally designated natural communities found in or near the project site. Most of the surrounding parcels are developed with homes or roadways. There are no intact significant natural biological communities remaining in the area of the project site. D. Would the project result in impacts to wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? No Impact. There are no natural wetlands, marshes, riparian communities, or vernal pools en the project site or nearby. The project site is a dry desert parcel with windblown sand shadows. E. Would the project result in impacts to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is surrounded by developed parcels on three sides and partially developed on one side which have effectively cut off migration corridors through the project site except to and from the Coral Reef Mountains. Wildlife corridors are still open in the Coral Reef Page 18 Mountains which provide access to the higher mountains to the south. (Source: La Quinta MEA: Site Survey). 3.8 ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta contains both areas of insignificant and significant Mineral Aggregate Resource Areas (SMARA), as designated by the State Department of Conservation. There are no known oil resources in the City. Major energy resources used in La Quinta come from the Imperial Irrigation District (IID), Southern California Gas Company, and various gasoline companies. Local Environmental Setting There are no oil wells or other fuel or energy producing facilities or resources on or near the project site. While the project site is undeveloped, there is no significant resource to be mined, such as rock or gravel. The project site is located within MRZ-1. The MRZ-1 designation is applied to those areas where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present or where: it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence (Source: La Quinta MEA; Site Survey). A. Would the project conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? No Impact. The City of La Quinta does not have an adopted energy plan, however, the City's General Plan Housmg Element contains requirements for efficiency in housing construction and materials with the goal of reducing energy consumption. Future development will be required to meet Title 24 energy requirements (Sources: La Quinta General Plan; UBC). B. Would the project use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? Less Than Significant Impact. Natural resources that may be used by this proposed project include air, mineral, water, sand and gravel, timber, energy, and other resources needed for construction. Title 24 requirements shall be complied with for energy conservation. Any landscaping will also be required to comply with the City's landscape water conservation ordinance as well as the requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District (Source: La Quinta MEA; Water Conservation Ordinance; Coachella Valley Water District). 3.9 RISK OF UPSET/HUMAN HEALTH Regional Environmental Setting Recent growth has increased the City's exposure to hazardous materials. Such exposure to toxic materials can occur through the air, in drinking water, in food, in drugs and cosmetics, and in the work place. Although large scale, hazardous waste generating employment is not present in the City of La Quinta, the existence of chemicals utilized in dry cleaning operations, agricultural operations, restaurant kitchen cleaning, landscape irrigation and exposure to large scale electrical facilities may pose significant threats to various sectors of the population. Currently, there are no hazardous disposal waste sites located in Riverside County. Page 19 Local Environmental Setting In order to comply with AB 2948-Hazardous Waste Management Plans and Facility Siting Procedures, the City of La Quinta adopted Ordinance 184 consisting of a Hazardous Waste Management Plan The project site has not been used for any type of manufacturing or industry, and there has not been any known dumping of hazardous substances.on the property (Sources: Site Survey; Aerial Photos). A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared for the project site by RBF in September 1997. There was no visible evidence of an environmental condition within the project boundaries. No regulatory sites were found for the project in the public record. A. Would the project involve a risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including not limited to oil, pesticides, chemical, or radiation)? Less Than Significant Impact. There is a minimal risk of exposure from chemicals and pesticides that may be used within the project. No other risks are anticipated by the project. Use of any chemicals during the construction phase shall be by trained personnel only according to local Health Department, OSHA, and EPA requirements. B. Would the project involve possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impact. Construction activities will be confined to the project site, except for minimal off -site work as permitted for project roadways, curbs, and gutters. These activities will not be permitted to interfere with emergency responses to the site or surrounding areas nor will it obstruct emergency evacuation of the area. Needed measures to divert and control traffic shall be implem;,nted whenever required. C. Would the project involve the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? No Impact. There are no anticipated health hazards associated with the proposed project beyond those normally associated with a residential construction project. D. Would the project involve exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? No Impact. There are no identifiable health hazards on the project site. The potential development of the tentative tract map is not expected to create any health hazards. Future development will be required to conform to zoning standards and all applicable health and safety codes. E. Would the proposal involve increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project site is on vacant desert land with sparse natural vegetation. Thus, there is a very low fire potential from brush, grass, or trees. The construction of single family houses will increase fire hazards for which the Fire Marshal requires conditions of approval for type of construction and materials. Page 20 3.10 NOISE Regional Environmental Setting Noise levels in the City are created by a variety of sources within and outside the City boundaries. The major sources of noise include vehicles on City streets and Highway 111, and temporary construction noise. The ambient noise levels are dominated by vehicular noise along the highway and major arterial roadways. Local Environmental Setting The ambient noise level at the project site is dominated by vehicle traffic noise from Miles Avenue and Dune Palms Road. Residential areas are considered noise -sensitive land uses, especially during the nighttime hours. Residential uses are located on all sides of the project site. The State Building Code requires that interior noise level in buildings do not exceed CNEL 45. The General Plan of the City of La Quinta requires that exterior noise levels do not exceed CNEL 60 (Sources: Site Survey; La Quinta MEA). RBF prepared a noise study in September 1997, for the project. A. Would the project result in increases in existing noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is not anticipated to have significant adverse impacts from noise levels. Proposed mitigation consists of a 6-foot high masonry perimeter wall. The proposed landscape setbacks along Miles Avenue, and proposed walls will adequately mitigate the potential noise impacts to the proposed land uses for roadway noise (Source: RBF, September 23, 1997). B. Would the project result in exposure of people to severe noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. The La Quinta General Plan regulates excessive noise and vibration in the City by establishing allowable noise levels for various land uses. Residential land uses should have a maximum exterior noise level of up to 65 CNEL. If the ambient noise level is higher than this standard, then it will serve as the standard. The City's interior noise standard is 45 CNEL. The proposed development will result in short-term impacts associated with construction acti�,7ties. During construction, heavy machinery will be capable of generating periodic peak noise levels ranging from 70 to 95 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the source. These high noise levels are short in duration and temporary with the construction phases of the project. Such high noise levels are not anticipated nor permitted after construction (Source: La Quinta General Plan). 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES Regional Environmental Setting Law enforcement services are provided to the City through a contract with the Riverside County Sheriffs Department. The Sheriff's Department extends service to the City from existing facilities located in the City of Indio. There is a small substation located within the La Quinta City Hall. The Department utilizes a planning standard of 1.5 deputies per 1,000 population to forecast additional Page 21 public safety personnel requirements in La Quinta at buildout. Based on this standard, the City should have a police force of 25.5 officers, but is currently underserved. Currently, there are three officers per shift with three staggered shifts per day to serve La Quinta. In addition to patrol, there is also a target team, Community Services Officer, and School Resources Officer assigned to the City (Source: 101- 301 Police Services Supporting Information). Fire protection service is provided to the City by Riverside County Fire Department through a contractual arrangement. The Fire Department administers two stations in the City; Station #32 on Frances Hack Lane, west of Washington Street, and Station #70, at the intersection of Madison Street and Avenue 54. The Fire Department is also responsible for building and business inspections, plan review, and construction inspections. Based upon a planning standard of one paid firefighter per 1,000 population, the City is currently underserved (Source: La Quinta MEA). Currently, there are two paid firefighters per shift at each of the two fire stations in La Quinta. Volunteers supplement the paid staff (Source: La Quinta Building & Safety Department). Structural fires and fires from other man-made features are the most significant fire threats to the City. Hillside and brush fires are minimal as the hillside areas are virtually barren and the scattered brush on the valley floor is too sparse to pose a serious fire threat. Both the Desert Sands Unified School District and the Coachella Valley Unified School District serve the City. The project site is served by the Desert Sands Unified School District. There are two elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school within the City. The City is also within the College of the Desert Community College District. Library services are provided by the Riverside County Library System with a branch library located in the Village area of the City. The existing facility opened in 1988 and county planning standards of 0.5 square feet per capita and 1.2 volumes per capita are used to forecast future facility requirements to serve the City. Utilizing this 1992 standard, the City was underserved in space but overserv-.d in terms of volumes (Source: La Quinta MEA; La Quinta Library staff). Health care services are provided in the City through JFK Memorial Hospital in Indio, and the Eisenhower Immediate Care Facility in La Quinta on Hwy. 111. The Eisenhower Medical Center is located in Rancho Mirage. The Riverside County Health Department administers a variety of health programs for area residents and is located in Indio. Paramedic service is provided to the City by Springs Ambulance Service. Local Environmental Setting The project site is roughly midway between two fire stations, one in Bermuda Dunes on Ave. 42, and one located on Ave. 52. Governmental services in La Quinta are provided by City staff at the Civic Center, and by other County, state, and federal agency offices located in the desert area or region. The project site will be serviced by the local schools. A. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in the need for new or altered governmental services in relation to fire protection? Page 22 Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will increase the need for fire protection due to the construction of structures. Development of the project shall comply with the fire flow and fire safety building standards of the Riverside County Fire Code to prevent fire hazard on -site and to minimize the need for fire protection services. Unobstructed fire access will be required through the design of the project streets and setbacks between structures (Source: Fire Department, June 1, 1990 and Sept. 28, 1997). B. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in the need for new or altered government services in relation to police protection? Less Than Significant Impact. Traffic collisions, patrol requests, and calls for service will impact the Sheriffs Department. This will generate a need for additional staff in the future. C. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in relation to school services? Less Than Significant Impact. School overcrowding is a District -wide concern for Desert Sands Unified School District. The District's ability to meet the educational needs of the public with new schools has been seriously impaired in recent years by local, state, and federal budget cuts thathave had an impact on the financing of new schools. The school mitigation fee that is currently collected on all new development at the time building permits are issued will be required of this project as mitigation (Source: DSUSD, July 30, 1997; October 16, 1997). D. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in relation to the maintenance of public facilities, including roads? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is served by existing, but limited infrastructure connected with the new facilities installed in connection with recent development to the west and south. E. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in relation to other governmental services? Less Than Significant Impact. Building, engineering, inspection, and planning review needed for the proposed project will be partially offset by application, permit and inspection fees charged to the applicant and contractors. 3.12 UTILITIES Regional Environmental Services The City of La Quinta is served by the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) for electrical power supply and The Gas Company (TGC) for natural gas service. Existing power and gas lines and substations are found throughout the City. IID has four substations in La Quinta, with electricity generated by a steam plant in El Centro and hydroelectric power generated by the All American Canal. General Telephone Exchange (GTE) provides telephone services for the City. Media One serves the area for cable Page 23 television service. There are several wireless communication companies that provide services in the La Quinta area. The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) provides water and sewer service to the City. CVWD obtains its water from underground aquifers and from the Colorado River. CVWD operates a water system with potable water pumped from domestic water wells in the City. The wells range in depth from 500 to 900 feet. Potable water is stored in five reservoirs located in the City. The City's stormwater drainage system is administered by the CVWD, which maintains and operates a comprehensive system to collect and transport flows through the City. The City is served by Waste Management of the Desert for solid waste disposal. Nonhazardous, mixed municipal solid waste is taken to the only open landfill (Edom Hill) within the Coachella Valley. Local Environmental Setting The project is adjacent to developed residential areas in all directions. A. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to power and gas service? Less Than Significant Impact. Power, water, sewer, and natural gas lines have been brought in to the community and arc available to the project site. It is not anticipated that the project will require a significant level of electricity or natural gas to result in the need for new systems or alterations to existing systems. The project developer will have to coordinate with IID, CVWD, cable company, and TGC for the timely provision of utilities. Gas service to the project could be provided from a 3 inch main in Miles Avenue without any significant impact on the environment (Source: Southern California Gas Company, May 17, 1990). B. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to communication systems? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed development will require service from General Telephone Exchange (GTE) for telephone communication. The developer will be required to coordinate the installation of telephone service infrastructure with GTE. It is not anticipated that there will be a significant impact on the existing telephone service. C. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? Less Than Significant Impact. It is not anticipated that the project will result in a significant adverse impact upon the water resources of the area, with the construction of a new well on the project site. A response letter from CVWD has been received that states that the district will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to the project. The project will be required to be annexed into Improvement District No. 55 to obtain sanitation service (Source: CVWD, May 29, 1990). D. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to sewer services or septic tanks? Page 24 Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will generate sewage which will have to be transported and treated by CVWD. The developer will be responsible for the cost of connection and installation of an on -site sewer system. A response from CVWD has been received. See discussion above in subsection 3.12 (C) (Source: CVWD, May 29, 1990). E. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to storm water drainage? Less Than Significant Impact. The project will result in substantial construction of buildings, pavement and landscaping. Additional on -site retention facilities will be required for the development of the project. The Whitewater River Storm channel is located approximately 3/4 mile south of the project site. There are no anticipated adverse impacts to the channel (Source: Site Survey; La Quinta General Plan). The La Quinta Evacuation Channel is located 1 3/4 miles to the south and provides drainage protection for the area. F. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to solid waste disposal? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will require solid waste disposal services from the current franchisee when the subdivision is developed. Solid waste is transported to the one existing landfill in the Coachella Valley. This landfill is reaching capacity and may be closed in the near future. Development must comply with the City's Source Reduction and Recycling policies. 3.13 AESTHETICS Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta is partially located within a desert valley cove and partially on the desert floor. There are hillsides to the west and south of the City. Views of the desert and surrounding mountains are visible on clear days throughout most of the City. Local Environmental Setting The project site is located in a predominately residential zoned area in the northern portion of the City. The proposed project site is in the RL Zone District that allows development up to 28 feet in height. Views from the project site consists of the Santa Rosa and Coral Reef Mountains to the south and southeast, the alluvial fan area to the southwest, and the open valley floor to the north and northeast (Source: Site Survey; La Quinta MEA; Zoning Code). A. Would the project affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not located within a designated viewshed. The vistas from the project site include the Coral Reef Mountains to the south, the Santa Rosa Mountains to the south and west, and the valley floor to the north and east. B. Would the project have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? Page 25 Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will be required to comply at the time of development with architectural and landscaping policies and ordinances of the City in effect at the time of development. There is no identifiable negative aesthetic effect with the proposed tentative tract :map. C. Would the project create light or glare? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will include exterior security and landscaping lighting for each residential unit, which will cumulatively contribute to the existing light and glare in the City. All exterior fixtures must comply with the Dark Sky Ordinance. 3.14 CULTURAL RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting A portion of the prehistory of the La Quinta area is known through the archaeological record gained from various archaeological investigations over the past twenty years and from extensive ethnographic information. A discussion of the prehistory and history of La Quinta is provided in the Draft Historic Context Statement of the City of La Quinta. Other discussions are found in the La Quinta General Plan and the Master Environmental Assessment. Local Environmental Setting The project site is located in the northern portion of the City. There are recorded archaeological sites within a one mile radius of the project sate. The project site was previously surveyed for archaeological and historical resources, with archaeological isolates recorded on the property. In 1984, the first archaeological investigation took place on the project site in conjunction with Tract 20016, a residential subdivision. This Phase I investigation was conducted by Jean Salpas, Archaeological Consultant:. No cultural resources were found during this survey. In 1990, another survey was conducted by Karen K. Swope, Archaeological Research Unit. This time four isolated ceramic sherds were found and recorded as an isolate with the California Archaeological Inventory. In September, 1997, a third survey was conducted by Robert S. White, of L & L Environmental. No cultural resources were observed during this investigation. A. Would the project disturb paleontological resources? No Impact. It is known that marine -associated paleontological resources are found at elevations below 42 feet above mean sea level. The proposed project site is located at elevations approximately 80 feet above MSL. Thus, it was determined that the project site was outside of the area designated b:y the Lakebed Paleontological Determination Study and that there would be no impact to known or potential paleontological resources (Source: Lakebed Paleontological Determination Study; La Quinta USGS Quad). B. Would the project affect archaeological resources? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. There are numerous archaeological sites within a two mile radius of the proposed project. The archaeological surveys conducted in 1984, 1990, and 1997 did not collectively find more than four pottery sherds. However, the potential remains high for subsurface Page 26 cultural deposits in the vicinity of the project. Because of this sensitivity and the fact that four isolates have been found on the project site, no clearing, grubbing, or grading for on -site and off -site work shall be conducted without a permit and monitoring by a qualified archaeological monitor(s). A report of the monitoring activities shall be submitted to the City's Historic Preservation Commission. C. Would the project affect historical resources? Less Than Significant Impact. There are no historical archaeological sites located and documented on the project site as indicated by the three cultural resource investigations conducted on the project site since 1984. A requirement for archaeological monitoring shall be a condition of project approval. During the course of monitoring, if subsurface resources of historic date are discovered, the project archaeological monitor shall have authority to divert or halt work until an assessment and appropriate mitigation can be completed. D. Would the project have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic values? No Impact. There is no identifiable unique ethnic values associated with the proposed project site. E. Would the project restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? No Impact. There are no known current religious uses or sacred uses on or adjacent to the proposed project site. 3.15 RECREATION Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta has an adopted Parks and Recreation Element and Master Plan that assesses the existing resources and facilities and the future needs of the City. The City has approximately 28.7 acres of developed parkland for Quimby Act purposes. The 845 acre regional Lake Cahuilla Park is not included in this count. There are also unimproved bike and equestrian corridors within the City and designated pedestrian hiking trails. Local Environmental Setting The project site is vacant desert land. A. Would the project increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or anther recreational facilities? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will cumulatively, but not significantly, impact the existing park and recreation facilities in the City of La Quinta. The addition of another 132 residential units to the City will generate additional park users. Page 27 The General Plan has identified the location of all the neighborhood parks (Exhibit PR-1) in accordance with Chapter 13.48. Payment of in -lieu fees for the development of new, or rehabilitation or enhancement of existing parks will be required. B. Would the project affect existing recreational opportunities? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed tentative tract map will not affect existing parks and recreation facilities except by adding additional park users, as a cumulative, but not significant, impact. SECTION 4: MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The proposed project will not have unmitigable significant adverse impacts on the environmental issues addressed in the checklist and addendum. The following findings can be made regarding the mandatory findings of significance set forth in Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines and based on the results of this environmental assessment: • The proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, with the implementation of mitigation measures. • The proposed project will not have the potential to achieve short term goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals, with the successful implementation of mitigation. • The proposed project will not have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable when considering planned development in the immediate vicinity. • The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect human, either directly or indirectly, with the implementation of mitigation. SECTION 5: EARLIER ANALYSES A. Earlier Analyses Used. Also utilized in the current analysis was the La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment (MEA), prepared in 1991, in conjunction with the 1992 General Plan Update and related EIR. The special studies prepared for, or used for, the environmental assessment of the proposed project consist of: Preliminary Hydrology Report- Tentative Tract 25953, Sonrisa. RBF & Associates, September 23, 1997. 2. An Archaeological Assessment of TT 25953, a 40+ Acre Parcel Adjacent to Miles Avenue at Dune Palms Road, La Quinta, Riverside County. Robert S. White, L & L Environmental, October 10, 1997. USDA Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey of Coachella Valley. Page 28 1979. 4. An Archeological Assessment of Tract 20016. Jean Salpas, Archaeological Consultant. February 1984. An Archaeological Assessment of a Portion of Tentative Tract 25953, Located Near Bermuda Dunes, in Riverside County, California. Karen K. Swope, Archae&ogical Research Unit, UCR. June 1990. 6. Noise Assessment for TT 25953. RBF & Associates, September 23, 1997. 7. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, APN 604-070-007 & -008 (Approximately 38 acres) La Quinta, Riverside County, California. Sladden Engineering. September 15, 1997. La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment - 1992. 9. La Quinta General Plan - 1992. 10. La Quinta Zoning Ordinance - Sept. 1996. 11. Uniform Building Code. 12. Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan 13. Southland Geotechnical 1996. B. Impacts Adequately Addressed. All potential impact/issue areas are considered to be adequately addressed with this environmental assessment. Certification of this EA by the City Council will confirm the adequacy of the environmental assessment. C. Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures are discussed in this addendum as they relate to the proposed project. A Mitigation Monitoring Plan containing these measures will be included as part of the Environmental Assessment and project conditions of approval. Page 29 w v Z a a 0 U aCI ~ LU Z U d0 a LL LL, a O �- C7 F-- O tJ cc a z R 0 z CO G O O O O 4 O O r c- 0 O 0 O z J LJJ U a N LU y w a 0) N CD 0 z N _E f1. N c O U c co a� c a� Q N N 4- 0 U— aD c 0 0 cn aD i cu O 0 z cc W w F— v� . U cn W LU 'I O O O n�. a M LO 0) LO N ti E co C co C co .r- a Al O a z Lu H z a 0 w a. G W H Q w z z O F— Q U U) f" U L11 F— F— z LU W ui a` C. LL! OC C� z_ O J J O LL uj g F— w Q w � Z m Q � J w a Y w 0 = vv Q w N U C7 z r O O U. w Z m O o Z 0 a. W z ,�o 1 O O F— z_ 0 Cp uj z ZQ U ci a� N GJ U >- Q 06 cc w Q uj pp N Q N O z ca F— w cc cr Cl) QCL w (1) CO n Q m c c. m z 0 za W Q W >- U w Qw a c,) E W OU U Q cr W H cc U 0 z F- cc U. uj 0 -j cc co 0 M cn W a m C z Q d O z ;j C.) Q N J W Q O P CC = °?! c: c N U N cr w O U a� a 2.uD � }; C U OWC o tA a O co m s a H- U a N E Q ai °; z o z w .Q O bm �S / � 0I oU C co / ul ® Q E -0 a o 0) Q 0 m @ m k \ OL g «�� y 2 § ƒ / ƒ a) CO ] CL 0) § % \ � & O 2 co\ / a)U.2 Q _ � 2 .g cow & § I - w A 3 a D/ 3 V5 E m O < % 00 � ¥ /& k % k E = g E co +, 2 E a 3 a 0 CL C) U) CL m / .2 k EE \ R co/ _§ a ' � w e E o � ® m E b 0 o m+ CL Eocu D q : 7 / % ƒ 6 \ ± E £ � � • 0 n 'E w cn CO m a o 'S o= o > / Co S e c 3 o m O O Uj < $ u \ CL @ � O / e 2 a ƒ $ ci / § ? :6 ®� Ua C U k ' 0 k\ j / Q\ »/ 3 k W Q W >. m Z Q 0 J Y a U �w O= U U O U_ C 7 (d �p co LL co 0 w H z3 > > O O U .Q p o n n. C -o n• 0.) n.co >(L), QFL 2OCrn C o m 73 (1) O C C7 4 +J Z_ co m Q. O F U O � t C +; C •O a. O a c6 4-+ a ° a C ci Z N W O �- F5 F- O � 0 IL U y W U m � O � � C Q O Z � D O V OcoO to co _ co Q, CL CL ca C a E c ul 7 O O ++ N a) a) CC10 c cmcm O (>�0 CT C G cQ Q U C U ` a) a)> .- O (ccL � Lll to ti0 i0+ co � d co Q c Ol 0 to W N to co J +' > w FW- C = U > Uca U U It co O Cl)N� co 0) ` O•a N � N n UU lL W Q O M O JUZ to O cl O O O F— F- F- W 0 0 UU 4� m W Q 0 W >. U Oct Z Q Lu .� X a v W O= U U Q cc w H x U O Z_ H O au, Z J Ov mO v) F- Z O O a h W Ov z co J O +' U 0 ~ Q. ? W U H Dco C L W F.. C Q J Q v 0 di > W 5 Cl) O a U C6 Q to N w Op w (D 1 p M ri p �Q z ol zd W Q W } U m Z Q w .J Y a. v W oz U U co c m Q w d i CO c (t3 a, o a) J V @ 1 c0 N , _ CO c CL UC7d❑ U vi � o Z m L C Q. _ ~ O U C O O C O Q U o C C E E O L a W Z co O °) m O O p Y C h c E co E a U11) ❑ U O to Q 'D Z •� ~ CL � U O c C7 Cl) Z E C7 ca - C o o -a ` CO) QZ 0w co C �.� n. cc W cc Q� dQ rn U L (n co (D co o cc nQU o H V � QN UE U CL w a co w Q o M J Z 0+ I W Q 0 W �- U 00 2 Q w J Y IL c EW O = U U > co 41 N N Q: W U > D Co h co _co O QI O U a) -C cm a fn U C) +' V.I ++ C co C -0 C. co o C) c C7 U "O .0 V N ._ O O CM O CO E ` N a. C a c � OLLU � U Cate Z m 0 N F^ p ca Z Z a O >C w a) E E co 0 U m U co N CL N W U) LL D O W � }' N U U o CL U CO CO Q CL C O O CDO Hcn ++ r . � C co + U @ CO + to Q --� U U L;= r- .Q O CO c0 'D pC cWc c V c c U Q L coo (7 U) Q (n m W cCO m D U -� m co p CD aU +J O y O CD ;' m tom- n U - c N m m 0 ,� � V) N •� Q a ar n M 0 CD O n- -i Z Cp O W _ W F- Q 0 W i- U co Z Q LLJ J Y av W O= U U m +J Q C � d h- a7 _l U O >. U tm U D a� Z_ -C co C Q) .0 U U C Q. CO N c � a) 0 C7 Z Q W J _O + j a) D C1 p N ( a7 C) U) O Z �" C �C C ys C a) co a) E cn E W � :3 +' C cu E co CL n. O a) O a) U 0 m m a> cl m Z co cn a' O U co > -0 C: >' C CO F N CL E C C Q) C C7 Q � `- Q) W C co +� U C N a; vi U o � W o� W C �- Q to L j �C o +1 +1 0 +' c co > co ai a)W 3 0 aa) ch w Z W co F - U > ° > cn >- U >� CD -a a � 0 ai W a`) w CD E E pp M -j m O aa) .c a` E m CY ID U U Z F- w � O bm 4S ab �w oI U� £ f 3 ° » u LL 0 ® o co 2 ( 2 g ƒ coA 2 g \ o ® e ) y a- U O \ f k / ?c \/ 2 q m o a�> ¢ Fw ® O o 00 D u� �fEf /\%\ v 3 co a) O 2 a)3 CD « 0 CL � w k �3 kCL LCC f :ca m m y o LU § \ co ® N � � a .e C G E coc W £ C u » c � di§ 2 \ R 0 c \ » aco a)U � & Q > § k \ / 2 .\ E' U % CD 0 o o/ w Cra) 3 3 w / 0 . / k \ \ 2 P / W Q W �- ZRn � d W n• c� � w O2: In V d Cr ` o m Rr U to `_ d m N Cl .J C O O ,,F N Z O U C O U i Z � o F- U O N C O _C O U O co C c CL CL O OL C: a O m E U.OL w z > ° J Ri Rn ® O O v- co O O z �' C N � l0 C N E � O C E a O O O 0o U 0 m >ft-- Q ccu `c •D o ° C o C 0 m N v° U ay CL > v°i m o E nm J-- E c CD vQ . rn O O ` Lo O O +' C N C O— C L LCU N C OU L +>>' ° Cp > G W y U) C Lli > E O C W N > U V a) `�' `� °EE�°'C0 y z v coo Q m c U ° U °a c o T - N m co -o w M .J O N M W Q 0 U co Z Q uj J bL n. U E W O = U U co co Q Z3 � vi (> ~ U co U CL) co U) p U U) A a)� }, N i.i p U .� E E (n a.. � Z c co cm 0) co c c c Cl O ~ �a ? o m (U m a) co a� c m c '- m coc CU o .- :3 U CL o CD to l n. OLU CD Z_ p J m O n zZ m E a O N N 06 m y LU cm N _� CD> LL oo U pp � is L Z Q � cp m O +' a m F- a n CD += Cal W w CL s —0 y> +� m O CDF- +' L N a i'ccy= U N a)C �O O ci W Q W N C m Q c N �' cn m E C U Un w E O O Cl°' (D E m } cmi E Q �' ai m o c=i� a L w v ) v °' V— toW p O U Q LLJ Q °� r M N .j U m 0 O N t- N W I E h Q U p c W Q W >- w Z Q W J X n. U gw O = U U co J co +1 Q o 0 w N � ~ U co J N U C Cl O (n �. U t UO W �U d C7 Uw c: a) C C C co co y co co N co a) V) co c0 C7 �L O)L p)L O)L Z C C C a C a C C• v c o c c c co 0 co o (a 0 co 0 a U O) U 0) U m U O C O C O C O C N O C N O C O C O C IL OU O a- U " 0 a. U c O CL U co i-� C � OU. O d W Z co -1 FE -J m O �+— N f' O Z Z � N CDU c c uj U co co CL U Q Q m co com Q co 0 C C O '- C C D -0 O c U U c ° U a r- c co O �a� U ONoco (n U +N +1 3 0� U 00 N U Q N E C o U C CD co fl U U a N O N p v- R) N V co U a) N O (CS L +1 C co � +- C U N a) +1 N c C U co 0 ca -= � +�+ C � � C as N cn >.. Q 4- N c N .O c CO 0 co 0' o U cr n °' ++ +� W co co +' O• U v- L E cf°i 0 aa) Q 5 w rn a n. c E° _0 ca a a •� a a) o> U t-� a a O N Cl a CCJ 3, cc J CG tii a) a) '0 ) co — o ) U N W m a a) 0 -Cl : N co11 V U CL) U C -0 O a) c o - U a 06 co a) -C f- O N N N pLU o " °3 CL Q p e^ M N CD U m O O N O co � O U F- `cu W w Q fl w � U m Z Q uj J Y a. U w O = O U Q OC w U 0 to ccoo .Y .o co 0 0 � o � W co +J (� Z L CO cl c +' C) U C o co a N � C p U O C U U a c C: m N co O OL U. Z J�aoi c: _p m O >' E � H ) 00 c a CD E 0 m E o E a U 0 U) m U Q e O cu cocoL — Q to E L 0 � 0 w } Q C) r. U pUJ vX—L +' Q w ate- w .� c > c� w 0)Q� __ E a N Q co H U U p >- = Q° O M � w �� a e— M N .j U OCi 0 p p F- cr W Q W Q W >- m Z Q W ;J Y U W O Z U U N X c C D co Q @ N �p p coco C C C1 U U Cp Cy) r- ul OCD .0�0y ~ a O o CDa c o U ` .� o o o co U L(nEOCJu-cOCaO n 0 O Q = a. U U ]G cv Q E Q (n (n vi o C :c= co > O Z m 0 co F- C: o m c° > c _ m U 0 CD C � N OLL C7 a Z W -aFE LC O _O O y H O C) Z Z OO +, C >CL � � o � w CC E E a O CD U M Z O Cl) co + m o E-- U "P a cn t o _0Ow' O � vi D aL a M-0 oc M W - Cco o i ' +O v= cCD V . W Q C V ca O Q c Q ca O (n uj C� G J C— U M N uj U q� W O m N + C (n U s '� a ~ �„ U -0o 0 O (n c o .0 o c`o o E w -� a) o 1-0 W ` � m m M +; N o O J 0.. m Z m O O �-- � m W Q W >- U m Z aW J be a. U 5; w O = U U Q W U F— Q U .n E d a C7 co t= c U- o > O o � - a n` Q c m a) E LL Z o ro E +J a) �1 m O co > ro CL d CD z z ;- 0 00 > c C EO co E `- a) co E a U U0ry, m co a)U co.L Q Q n >+ O Z O U_ >� -0 a) a E F. co a :3 a — a d O toro L Q) F c C p CD N z CO O ro a) +-, �W Q� - Q c 9 +;'- c co acn a aca W O Cl. ro m .io a, c g U c ro > E e� p w cu L a) - Vi DC s f- U i U) m ca W e� th a) ca 0 CD Cc:co ro Q a 40-. ATTACHMENT 5 - James T. & Emmy Humberd S E P 1. 51997 JI 79-409 Horizon Palms Circle La Quinta, CA 92253 CITY o= LAQUINTA 760-360-1 496 PLANNAC; DEPARTMEgT Fri, Sep 12, 1997 Mr. Jerry Herman Director, Community Development Department City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Ref: Track 25953, NW corner Miles and Dune Palms Dear Mr. Herman: I notice in an article in the Desert Sun that someone is talking about building houses at the NV corner of Miles and Dune Palms. I live in La Quinta Palms, just across the wall, north of th subject property. Several years ago when someone was proposing to build there, I attended som meetings in city hall where this was being discussed. I asked for, and as far as I know it wa granted, that no two story homes would be build right next to, just south of our wall, as tha would block the view of the mountains to the south. I want to make sure that the same restriction will be placed on this applicant. I don't know previous restrictions would pass to the new people or not, and just in case I am out of tow: when a meeting might be held, I want this to be of record. I look out my window to the east and all I can see is houses build high above Dune Palms, an high above our grading level, and I can see nothing of interest. It takes all night for the moon t rise above those places, and we sure don't want that to the south of us. As I mentioned at the meeting I attended, mentioned above, "The Berlin Wall has come dowt but the La Quinta walls still stand, and will block our view forever." Thank you. F'ncerely, T. Hu- merr 13 r OAIBY ROAD _i Lem AW" �— �Q 11 A3 SWEwlwrrlll� MilesAvenug, Park � 1 4 acres 02 Proposed, Unnamed Historical Park 2.25 acres Al GEM OF THE D Palm Royale Park ESERT 2.19 acres A2 - . ATTACHMENT 6 La Quinta 'Palms Park ,V Gi 4.0 aces Westward Ho - Community Park to fih gt�ea — LVIES� H° Map 'VI I - 1 wc,� e&# 4t& 24ea a B1 La Quinta ions Complex 18.33 acres C1 Village Park 6.5 acres C3 _ Fritz Burns _ Park 9.61 acres '••`2� n x..luuuuuuuu 54 ear Creek Cow - hway Park' U l HEMini Park 5.9 acres M I PH T ). -- )aces — --- — YUC6C5 YucatanPathway Park 13.7 acres Cove vunity Park .5 acres �! t Parks and Recreation Master Plan November, 1992 PARKS AND RECREATIO DIAGRAM Parks designated by Planning Area and Number • " 0" 5001000 20M 8000 4000 3000 8000 01 Proposed, Unnamed Commununny Park C 15.0 acres OM I/{ I/2 3/4 1 D2 s22 s 20 {0AC Proposed, Unnamed Community Park / 17.0 acres ---- 133 proposed, Unnamed 1 &0 acres 11/03/97 10:55 FIRST PRIORITY MORTGAGE 4 760 777 7101 NO.213 901 . - , ) - 1997 City of La Quinta TOM SUITT Planning Department (760) 778-1600 Attu: Jerry Herman RE: Auto Lot- Hwy. 111 Dear Ferry, I have evicted the tenant from the .location on highway 111, and I am requesting that I be allowed to use the lot for the next :Few months in order to dispose of the existing cars. My situation is that I have financed the flooring of 38 cars, and need the additional time to bring this issue to conclusion. My decision to evict the tenant, among other reasons, is because he did not comply with the Conditional Use Permit. I am is the process of removing the unauthorized lights, parking autos only on the paved area of the lot, and any other items needed to comply with the City of La Quinta. I would appreciate your patience while I am liquidating the existing inventory and ending this properties use as a car lot. Sin=ely, Tom Suitt Nov. 12, 1997 ]Fellow Commissioners: I regret 'that I am unable to attend tonight's meeting due to minor surgery on my foot. However, I would like to submit my comments regarding the Bienek project named "The Pairings." As I said at the last discussion, which was confirmed further in my mind, with the material presented with the Nov. 12 packet, I would still NOT support this development. My first concern is the impact on the aesthetics in the area. My concern here (as stated in the environmental checklist) is "the impact on a scenic vista" ­ "a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect" and "create a light or glare". The buildings speak. for themselves.!' Also, as a CUP has to be approved prior to construction to reduce adverse impacts. This, in itself, indicates concern and requires mitigation. However, the :Mitigation presented, especially wit',11 the lighting, does not erase my concerns. Regarding the disruption of physical arrangement of established communities, the neighbors have already, spoken to this issue and have done so vehemently! There would also be a "sound level" problem, as well as an increase in traffic. wholeheartedly support the concerns brought forth by the homeowners nearby and do :,Iot support the project! Why, if the City, is part owner of this property would they consider putting it at this location? The project is well planned and well --designed. It would be a "first" in the area --- but Let's consider putting it in a different area, where the tranquility/ambian,ce is not disturbed! B. J. Seaton Planning Commissioner P. S. i wish you all a Happy Thanksgiving as I will be in Pennsylvania for the holiday and will not be able to attend the next meeting. Again, my apologies!