1996 02 27 PC0 L101
Z
OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California
February 27, 1996
7:00 P.M.
**NOTE**
ALL AGENDA ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. MAY BE CONTINUED
TO THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING
Beginning Resolution 96-006
Beginning Minute Motion 96-006
CALL TO ORDER - FLAG SALUTE - ROLL CALL
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.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Item .............. CONTINUED - TENTATIVE TRACT 24890 - THIRD
EXTENSION OF TIME
Applicant ....... KSL Recreation Corporation, Inc.
Location ........ Northwest of the intersection at 52nd Avenue and Jefferson Street in
the Oak Tree West Specific Plan
Request ......... Approval of a third one year time extension for Phase 9 to create 37
lots consisting of three single family, 34 duplex, and five lettered lots
on ten acres within Specific Plan 85-006
Action ........... Resolution 96-
PC/AGENDA
2. Item .............. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 27224 (EXTENSION #1)
Applicant ....... Elliot/Poliak Families
Location ........ On the east side of Madison Street, 1/4 mile south of 54th Avenue
Request ......... Approval of a one year time extension for the subdivision of 40 acres
into 98 single family and amenity lots
Action ........... Resolution 96-
3. Item .............. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 95-051 ANE
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-312
Applicant ....... Mr. Dwight Stuart, Mr. Wally Friend, and the City of La Quinta
Location ........ South side of 52nd Avenue, east of Jefferson Street and north of 54tt
Avenue
Request ......... 1) Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental'
impact.
2) Approval of the General Plan Amendment removing the Rural
Residential Overlay (RRO) designation from all properties designates
as Low Density Residential on the Land Use Policy Diagram
Action ........... Resolution 96- , Resolution 96-
BUSINESS ITEMS
Item .............. BIKE ROUTE PLAN
Applicant ........ City of La Quinta
Location ......... City-wide
Request .......... Approval of the Bike Route Plan to implement General Plan Policy
and obtain funding for a grant application
Action ............ Resolution 96-
CONSENT CALENDAR
Approval of the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of February 13, 1996.
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
1. Commissioner report of the City Council meeting of February 20, 1996
2. Department update
ADJOURNMENT
STUDY SESSION
Session Room
4:00 P.M.
1. All agenda items
PC/AGENDA
PH *1
MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: FEBRUARY 27, 1996
SUBJECT: TT 24890 - TBUM TIME EXTENSION
Discussions between the applicant, their legal representative, the City Attorney, and the Engineering
Department took place on February 14, 1996.
The applicant wants to revise the project development agreement as it pertains to the scheduling of
the perimeter improvements. The January 23, 1996, Planning Commission report is attached for
project details.
memo1m.003
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMNIISSION MEETING
DATE: JANUARY 23, 1996
REQUEST: TT 24890 - APPROVAL OF A THIRD ONE YEAR TIME EXTENSION
FOR PHASE 9 OF TENTATIVE TRACT 24890 TO CREATE 37 LOTS
CONSISTING OF 3 SINGLE FAMILY, 34 DUPLEX., AND 5 LETTERED
LOTS ON 10 ACRES WITHIN SPECIFIC PLAN 85-006
LOCATION: NORTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF 52ND AVENUE AND
JEFFERSON STREET IN OAK TREE WEST PROJECT.
APPLICANT: KSL RECREATION CORPORATION, INC.
OWNER: KSL LAND COMPANY, INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS: THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HAS DETERMINED
THAT THIS TENTATIVE TRACT MAP HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN
ASSESSED FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS DURING
CONSIDERATION OF SPECIFIC PLAN 85-006 OF WHICH THIS
TRACT IS A PART. THEREFORE, NO FURTHER REVIEW IS DEEMED
NECESSARY. THIS PROJECT IS REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH ALL
APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES ESTABLISHED AT THE
TIME OF SPECIFIC PLAN 85-006 APPROVAL AND SUBSEQUENT
REVISIONS.
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (3 TO 5 DWELLINGS PER ACRE)
ZONING/SPECIFIC
PLAN: R-2 (MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS)
This request was originally advertised and scheduled for the December 12, 1995, Planning
Commission meeting, however, no public hearings were held due to the lack of a quorum. The
request was readvertised for the January 9, 1996, meeting. At the January 9, 1996 meeting, the
applicant requested a continuance to work with the Public Works Department in resolving their
concern regarding Condition #51. The applicant has not contacted the Public Works Department,
therefore, the condition is not modified.
PCSTLM001
The applicant is requesting a third time extension for the last phase, Phase 9, of Tract Map 24890.
Phase 9 is located along the northern perimeter of the tract (Attachment 1). The City Council, at their
meeting of October 17, 1989, approved Tentative Tract 24890 to construct 377 detached custom
single family dwellings and 188 duplex units. This tract is in the northern part of the Oak Tree West
Specific Plan, as Specific Plan 85-006. The Citrus Golf Course runs through the tract. The unit types
consist of 3 custom single family lots, 34 production units (duplex) lots and 5 lettered lots.
This will be the third one-year extension for this project. Up to three one-year time extensions are
allowed according to the Subdivision Ordinance. The first one-year extension of time was granted
by the City Council at their meeting of October 21, 1991. No progress in recordation of the final map
for the last phase had occurred at that time. A request for a second time extension was approved
by the City Council on October 20, 1992, for the same reason.
Senate Bill 428 provided for an automatic two-year time extension -due to depressed State-wide
economic considerations. Thus, a third one-year time extension did not need to be applied for until
October 13, 1995. if a third and final time extension is granted for this map, the applicant would have
until October 17, 1996 to record the balance of the tract. If this portion of the tract is not recorded
by that date, the applicant will then have to reapply for approval of that portion of the tentative map.
Oak Tree West Specific Plan consists of 404 acres divided into 564 residential lots and 93
miscellaneous lots. Also included to the south is a golf course, golf clubhouse, recreation, offices,
private streets, landscaping, and a golf maintenance building.
The Public Works Department requests the addition of two new conditions, No. 51 and 52.
Condition # 51 formalizes an agreement between the City and the applicant concerning the timing and
sequence of development of the perimeter wall and landscaping improvements. Condition #52
requires that illegally placed concrete flatwork and a golf cart gate be officially approved by the City
or removed. In order to ensure compliance, the condition states that no building permits or
Certificates of Occupancy will be issued within the development until this issue is resolved.
The Coachella Valley Water District is the only responsible agency to submit comments for this time
extension.
Findings for justification of a recommendation for approval of the third one year time extension for
this tentative tract map can be made and are as follows:
1. Tentative Tract 24890, as conditionally approved, is consistent with the goals, policies,
and intent of the La Quinta General Plan for land use density, the development standards of
the Zoning Ordinance and the Oak Tree West Specific Plan, and the La Quinta Municipal
Code, in that the housing types are characterized by one story single family detached and
attached units.
PCSTLM.001
2. That the design of the Tentative Tract 24890 will not cause substantial environmental damage
or injury to the wildlife habitat as there is no natural habitat areas remaining on the project
site.
3. That the proposed subdivision, as conditionally approved, will be developed with adequate
sewer, water, drainage, and other utility systems, and therefore, it is not likely to cause
serious public health problems.
4. That the proposed Tentative Tract 24890, as conditioned, will provide for adequate
maintenance of all common areas and facilities, including the internal private street system,
stormwater retention areas, and common landscaped areas.
5. That the design of Tentative Tract 24890 will not conflict with easements acquired by the
public at large for access through the project, since alternate easements for access and for
use will be previously acquired by the public.
6. That general impacts from the proposed tract were considered with the Master Environmental
Assessment prepared and adopted in conjunction with the La Quinta General Plan, and were
further considered during preparation of Environmental Assessment for Specific Plan 85-006.
7. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements are not likely to cause serious
public health problems as the project is designed to meet current health and safety codes
and requirements concerning circulation, fire protection, and domestic water and sewer
infrastructure.
By adoption of attached Planning Commission Resolution 96 recommend to the City Council
approval of the third one year time extension for Phase 9 of Tentative Tract 24890, subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval.
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Letter of request
3. Agency Comments
4. Tentative Tract 24890 (large plans - Commissioners only)
5. Draft Planning Commission Resolution 96-_
PCSTLM.001
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
DATE: JANUARY 23, 1996
REQUEST: TT 24890 - APPROVAL OF A 'NERD ONE YEAR TIME EXTENSION
FOR PHASE 9 OF TENTATIVE TRACT 24890 TO CREATE 37 LOTS
CONSISTING OF 3 SINGLE FAMILY, 34 DUPLEX, AND 5 LETTERED
LOTS ON 10 ACRES WITHIN SPECIFIC PLAN 85-006
LOCATION: NORTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF 52ND AVENUE AND
JEFFERSON STREET IN OAK TREE WEST PROJECT.
APPLICANT: KSL RECREATION CORPORATION, INC.
OWNER: KSL LAND COMPANY, INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSMEIRATIONS: THE CO> CYLINITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HAS DETERMINED
THAT THIS TENTATIVE TRACT MAP HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN
ASSESSED FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS DURING
CONSIDERATION OF SPECIFIC PLAN 85-006 OF WHICH THIS
TRACT IS A PART. TBEREFORE, NO FURTHER REVIEW IS DEEMED
NECESSARY. THIS PROJECT IS REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH ALL
APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES ESTABLISHED AT THE
TIME OF SPECIFIC PLAN 85-006 APPROVAL AND SUBSEQUENT
REVISIONS.
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (3 TO 5 DWELLINGS PER ACRE)
ZONING/SPECIFIC
PLAN: R 2 (MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS)
This request was originally advertised and scheduled for the December 12, 1995, Planning
Commission meeting, however, no public hearings were held due to the lack of a quorum. The
request was readvertised for the January 9, 1996, meeting. At the January 9, 1996 meeting, the
applicant requested a continuance to work with the Public Works Department in resolving their
concern regarding Condition #51. The applicant has not contacted the Public Works Department,
therefore, the condition is not modified.
PUTLK001
The applicant is requesting a third time extension for the last phase, Phase 9, of Tract Map 24890.
Phase 9 is located along the northern perimeter of the tract (Attachment 1). The City Council, at their
meeting of October 17, 1989, approved Tentative Tract 24890 to construct 377 detached custom
single family dwellings and 188 duplex units. This tract is in the northern part of the Oak Tree West
Specific Plan, as Specific Plan 85-006. The Citrus Golf Course runs through the tract. The unit types
consist of 3 custom single family lots, 34 production units (duplex) lots and 5 lettered lots.
This will be the third one-year extension for this project. Up to three one-year time extensions are
allowed according to the Subdivision Ordinance. The first one-year extension of time was granted
by the City Council at their meeting of October 21, 1991. No progress in recordation of the final map
for the last phase had occurred at that time. A request for a second time extension was approved
by the City Council on October 20, 1992, for the same reason.
Senate Bill 428 provided for an automatic two-year time extension due to depressed State-wide
economic considerations. Thus, a third one-year time extension did not need to be applied for until
October 13, 1995. If a third and final time extension is granted for this map, the applicant would have
until October 17, 1996 to record the balance of the tract. If this portion of the tract is not recorded
by that date, the applicant will then have to reapply for approval of that portion of the tentative map.
Oak Tree West Specific Plan consists of 404 acres divided into 564 residential lots and 93
miscellaneous lots. Also included to the south is a golf course, golf clubhouse, recreation, offices,
private streets, landscaping, and a golf maintenance building.
The Public Works Department requests the addition of two new conditions, No. 51 and 52.
Condition # 51 formalizes an agreement between the City and the applicant concerning the timing and
sequence of development of the perimeter wall and landscaping improvements. Condition #52
requires that illegally placed concrete flatwork and a golf cart gate be officially approved by the City
or removed. In order to ensure compliance, the condition states that no building permits or
Certificates of Occupancy will be issued within the development until this issue is resolved.
The Coachella Valley Water District is the only responsible agency to submit comments for this time
extension.
Findings for justification of a recommendation for approval of the third one year time extension for
this tentative tract map can be made and are as follows:
Tentative Tract 24890, as conditionally approved, is consistent with the goals, policies,
and intent of the La Quinta General Plan for land use density, the development standards of
the Zoning Ordinance and the Oak Tree West Specific Plan, and the La Quinta Municipal
Code, in that the housing types are characterized by one story single family detached and
attached units.
PCSTLM.001
2. That the design of the Tentative Tract 24890 will not cause substantial environmental damage
or injury to the wildlife habitat as there is no natural habitat areas remaining on the project
site.
3. That the proposed subdivision, as conditionally approved, will be developed with adequate
sewer, water, drainage, and other utility systems, and therefore, it is not likely to cause
serious public health problems.
4. That the proposed Tentative Tract 24890, as conditioned, will provide for adequate
maintenance of all common areas and facilities, including the internal private street system,
stormwater retention areas, and common landscaped areas.
5. That the design of Tentative Tract 24890 will not conflict with easements acquired by the
public at large for access through the project, since alternate easements for access and for
use will be previously acquired by the public.
6. That general impacts from the proposed tract were considered with the Master Environmental
Assessment prepared and adopted in conjunction with the La Quinta General Plan, and were
further considered during preparation of Environmental Assessment for Specific Plan 85-006.
7. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements are not likely to cause serious
public health problems as the project is designed to meet current health and safety codes
and requirements concerning circulation, fire protection, and domestic water and sewer
infrastructure.
By adoption of attached Planning Commission Resolution 96- , recommend to the City Council
approval of the third one year time extension for Phase 9 of Tentative Tract 24890, subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval.
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Letter of request
3. Agency Comments
4. Tentative Tract 24890 (large plans - Commissioners only)
5. Draft Planning Commission Resolution 96-_
PCSTLUOOI
Attachment 1
12
0 a. •vrNvCl C
s••
W • � ` t
It
t
.°i. ®,� •
6 C Ll E TA AA Ito ® C
SITE •
t� • 1
• ci � t
8 2 a d ........�.........•
• {
IN s �y t rr•
• • • 90 !i _,tv[Nv[
,. I ..':
•• r
A6
p1wo
�� �. ;•
, •-' H 0 A T,.N
9
`� • • 4
_ t
f • • t
......g...a-- • t
� � t
CASE MAP
CASE Nm TT Time Extension x3
LOCATION MAP
NORTH
SCALE:
N.T.S.
Attachment 2
]RECREATION CORPORATION
October 12,1995
Mr. Jerry Merman
Director of Planning and Development
CITY OF LA QUMTA
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California 92253
RE: Extension of Time for Tentative Tract 24-890
Dear Mr. Herman:
D
C
3 W05
IA QUINTA
MPMBTMW
Please accept this application package for a one (1) year extension of time for Tentative
Tract 24-890 which is currently scheduled to expire on October 17, 1995. This package
provided includes:
1. Fee Check of $75.00
2. 25 Folded copies of the Tentative Tract Map 24-890
3. Signed Application Form (provided by the Planning Department)
Please note that Mailing Labels for the required 300' noticing radius surrounding the tract
are being prepared by Fidelity Title Company and will be delivered to the Planning
Department as a supplement to this application upon receipt by our office.
Thank you for your attention to the processing of this valued extension of time for
Tentative Tract 24-890. If additional information or assistance can be provided prior to
the delivery of the mailing labels, feel free to call me at (619) 564-1088 for discussion.
Respectfully,
S. CHEVIS HOSEA
Director of Real Estate
SCH/jb
Attachments
56.140 PGA Boulevard • La Quinta, California 92253 • (619) 564.1088 * Fax (619) 564.4880
T4tit 4 4 Q"
MEMORANDUM
TO: Community Development Department
FROM: David M. Cosper
Public Works Director/City Engineer
DATE: November 2, 1995
SUBJECT: Tentative Tract 24890 - Time Extension #3
Attachment
NOV - gA�-;.
., 1thi�
The Public Works Department recommends the following conditions be placed on
the subject time extension:
1. Per J.M. Peters' proposal in the letter dated May 18, 1993 (slightly modified
in December 12, 1994 letter), perimeter wall and landscaping improvements
shall be constructed in the following timing and sequence:
A. When one third of the perimeter .improvements are complete, the first 93
of 546 homes will be permitted for construction.
B. When two thirds of of the perimeter improvements are complete, the
next 107 of 546 (units 94 -200) will be permitted for construction.
C. Perimeter improvements shall be complete and accepted by the City
prior to issuance of more than a total of 200 building permits within the
development.
The sequence of improvements shall be as approved by the City. Perimeter
wall along the north boundary of the development, constructed subsequent
to the June 16, 1993 agreement between J.M. Peters, Co. and the City
Public Works Department, was not an approved increment in scheduling of
perimeter improvements and shall not be included in the total of
improvements completed for the purposes of this condition until approved by
the Public Works Director.
2. Prior to May 1, 1996, the applicant shall obtain City approval for, or shall
remove, the golf cart gate and concrete flatwork illegally constructed along
the Park Avenue perimeter wall. After May 1, 1996, no building permits or
certificates of occupancy will be issued within the development until this
issue has been resolved.
FBlfb
K'ArT"1 •C' .
DATE:�� - J
• T
CF•
INDIO P & c `�
OF tH
FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
X City Manager
Public Works Department
Building & Safety
%C Parks & Recreation
Fire Marshal
Chamber of Commerce
_Imperial Irrigation District
_Southern California Gas
_Desert Sands School District
_CV Unified School District
YCV Water District
OICIT 2 E 1995
Waste Management
PrincipA Planner - Current
US Postal Service
Principal Planner - Advaa
General Telephone
)LAssociate Planner -
Colony Cable
CurrL/Advan._
STransit
Planning Manager
Cunline
ltrans (District ED
ACommunity Development
Agricultural Commission
,,_
CV Archaeological Society
_BIA - Desert Council
City dian Wells
of InaiT Lt
_,CV Mountain Conservancy
_CV Recreation & Parks
Riverside County: Sheriff's Department A Planning Department
LA QUINTA CASE NO(S): %ems! >Ir �i ve c' f �? 7�F
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
/e•��fQ�-,s.� �l )tee+ �37 Stnale 1�e /ir 1 - r�
PROJECT LOCATION: r l f r g S �� NS Gam. — L J f S f 7'G �P ,�',c�C /•s 7/
l/ Id /-) e4
The City of La Quints Development Review Committee is conducting an initial environmental study pursuant to the California Eavironmen
Quality Act (CEQA) for the above referenced project(s). Attached is the information submitted by the project proponent.
Your comments are requested with respect to:
1. Physical impacts the project presents on public resources facilities, and/or services.
2. Recommended conditions: a) that you or your agency believe would mitigate any potential adverse effects; b) or should apply
the project design; c) or improvements to satisfy other regulations and concerns which your agency is responsible; and
3. If you find that the identified impacts will have significant adverse effects on the environment which cannot be avoided throb
conditions, please recommend the scope and focus of additional study(ies) which may be helpful.
Please send ,Your response by 1 - a7 -95'
meeting at La Quints City Ball: You are invited to stand the DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMbtrIT
Dam: Time:
Contact Person: A r c�/e I%%Ded /e/ ey u "m Title: . s;
7 •
Comments made b i o►•.,
DO, /o - � = 5L PhOns: BIZ 3 - �-�� f A- A�eacy/Dlvision: s
W ATEq
ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AG..-Y
NTRIC'
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
POST OFFICE BOX 1058 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (619) M2651
DIRECTORS OFFiCE>� TAWS D R. R18. PRESIDENT THOMASE. LEVY, GENERAL MANAGER•CHIEFENGINEER
JOHNRAYMW. R. RDDEN S, VICE PRESIDENT BERNAROINE SUTTON. SECRETARY
JO R H M M.
NICHN OWEN MCCOOK ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
THRO OR M. NICHOLS REDWINE AND SHERRILL. ATTORNEYS
TFEOOORE J. FISH November 21. 1995
File: 0163.1
Planning Commission
City of La Quinta
Post Office Box 1504
La Quinta, California 92253
Gentlemen: I,;_;, +-
Subject: Tentative Tract No. 24890, Portion of.
the Northwest Quarter of Section 5. .
Township 6 South, Range 7 East,
San Bernardino Meridian
This area is protected from stormwater flows by a system of channels and dikes,
and may be considered safe from stormwater flows except in rare instances.
This area is designated Zone X an Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which are in
effect at this time.
The district will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in
accordance with the current regulations of this district. These regulations
provide for the payment of certain fees and charges by the subdivider and said
fees and charges are subject to change.
Plans for grading, landscaping and irrigation systems shall be submitted to the
district for review. This review is for ensuring efficient water management.
If you have any questions please call Dan Farris, principal stormwater engineer.
extension 264.
Yours very truly,
Tom Levy
General Manager -Chief Engineer
RL:jl/sc2/tt24890
cc: Don Park
Riverside County Department
of Public Health
46-209 Oasis Street
Indio, California 92201 TRUE CONSERVATION
USE WATER WISELY
PLANNING COMIVIISSION RESOLUTION 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, PRESENTING FINDINGS AND
APPROVING A THIRD TIME EXTENSION OF THE
UNRECORDED PORTION OF TENTATIVE TRACT 24890 TO
CREATE 37 LOTS WITHIN SPECIFIC PLAN 85-006
CASE NO. TT 24890 - KSL RECREATION CORPORATION, INC.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 9th and
23rd days of January, 1996, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing continued from the 12th day of
December, 1995, to consider the request of KSL Recreation Corporation, Inc. to grant a third time
extension for the unrecorded portion of Tentative Tract 24890 to create a total of 37 lots, generally
located at the northwest corner of the intersection of 52nd Avenue and Jefferson Street, more
generally described as:
PORTION OF THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH,
RANGE 7 EAST. SBBM.
WHEREAS, said Tentative Map has complied with the requirements of "The Rules
to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (County of Riverside, Resolution
82-213, adopted by reference in City of La Quinta Ordinance 5), in that the Community Development
Director determined that this Tentative Tract Map has previously been assessed during consideration
of Specific Plan 85-006; and,
WHEREAS, mitigation of various physical impacts have been identified and
incorporated into the approval conditions for Tentative Tract 24890 and Specific Plan 85-006,
thereby requiring that monitoring of those mitigation measures be undertaken to assure compliance
with them; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find
the following facts'to justify the approval of a third time extension of said Tentative Tract Map:
That Tentative Tract 24890, as conditionally approved, is consistent with the goals, policies,
and intent of the La Quinta General Plan for land use density, the development standards of
the Zoning Ordinance and the Oak Tree West Specific Plan, and the La Quinta Municipal
Code, in that the housing types are characterized by one story single family detached and
attached units.
2. That the design of the Tentative Tract 24890 will not cause substantial environmental damage
RESo1PC.172
Planning Commission Resolution 96-
or injury to the wildlife habitat as there is no natural habitat areas remaining on the project
site.
3. That the proposed subdivision, as conditionally approved, will be developed with adequate
sewer, water, drainage, and other utility systems, and, therefore, is not likely to cause serious
public health problems.
4. That the proposed Tentative Tract 24890, as conditioned, will provide for adequate
maintenance of all common areas and facilities, including the internal private street system,
stormwater retention areas, and common landscaped areas.
5. That the design of Tentative Tract 24890 will not conflict with easements acquired by the
public at large for access through the project, since alternate easements for access and for use
have been previously acquired by the public.
6. That general impacts from the proposed tract were considered within the Master
Environmental Assessment prepared and adopted in conjunction with the La Quinta General
Plan, and were further considered during preparation of Environmental Assessment for
Specific Plan 85-006.
7. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements are not likely to cause serious
public health problems as the project is designed to meet current health and safety codes and
requirements concerning circulation, fire protection, and domestic water and sewer
infrastructure.
Wl~IEREAS, in the review of this time extension for Tentative Tract 24890, the
Planning Commission has considered the effect of the contemplated action of the housing needs of
the region for purposes of balancing the 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 correct and constitute the findings of the Commission
in this case;
2. That it does hereby approve a third time extension for the subject Tentative Tract Map 24890
for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission, held on this 23rd day of January, 1996, by the following vote, to wit:
RESOPC.172
Planning Commission Resolution 96-
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JACQUES ABETS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY MERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
resopc.172
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMN[ENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 248909 AMENDMENT #1, TIME EXTENSION #3
JANUARY 23, 1996
* Added by City Council on October 17,1999
** Amended by City Council on October 17,1989
*** The 60-foot dimension may be reduced to 55-feet pending the outcome of proposed
General Plan Amendment.
+ Amended by Planning Commission on April 27,1995
++ Added by Planning Commission on January 23,1996
GENERAL
Ai
+1. Tentative Tract Map 24890 shall comply with the requirements and standards of the State
Subdivision Map Act and the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance, unless otherwise
modified by the following conditions.
+2. Design and improvement of Tentative Tract 24890 shall be in substantial conformance with
Exhibit A, except where there are conflicts between these conditions and said exhibit, these
condition(s) shall take precedence.
3. This tentative tract map approval shall expire two years after the original date of approval by
the La Quinta City Council, unless approved for extension pursuant to the City of La Quinta
Land Division Ordinance.
4. All applicable requirements and conditions of Specific Plan 85-006, as amended shall be met
as stipulated in City Council Resolution 89-76 (or current resolution).
Existing power poles shall be undergrounded as required by the La Quinta Municipal Code
Section 13.28.090.
6. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the appropriate Community Development
Department approvals shall be secured prior to establishing any of the following uses:
a. Temporary construction facilities.
b. Sales facilities and/or model homes, including their appurtenant signage. (Model
home unit permits will not be issued until the final map has been recorded.)
C. Access gates and/or guardhouses.
d. On -site advertising/construction signs.
CON"RVL.360
Planning Commission Resolution 96-_
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract 24990, Amendment # 1, Time Extension #3
Januarys 23,1996
++7. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall submit to the Community Development
Department for review and approval a plan (or plans) showing the following:
a Landscaping, including plant types, sizes, spacing, locations, and irrigation system for
all landscape buffer and common areas including gates. Desert or native plant species
and drought -resistant planting materials shall be incorporated into the landscape plan.
b. Location and design detail of any proposed and/or required walls.
C. Exterior lighting plan, in conformance with any future "Dark Sky" Ordinance
emphasizing minimization of light and glare impacts to surrounding properties.
d. A schedule of completion shall be submitted to the Community Development
Department for items a, b and c.
8. Prior to building permit approval(s), the subdivider shall submit criteria to be used for
landscaping of all individual lot front yards. At a minimum, the criteria shall provide for three
15-gallon trees on corner lots, as well as an irrigation system and suitable ground cover.
++9. The subdivider shall make provisions for maintenance of all landscape buffer common areas,
recreation areas, and storm water retention areas via one of the following methods prior to
final map approval:
a. Subdivider shall consent to the formation of a maintenance district under Chapter 26
of the Improvement Act of 1911 (Streets and Highways Code, Section 5820 et seq.)
of the Lighting and Landscaping Act of 1972 (Streets and Highways Code 22600 et
seq.) to implement maintenance of all improved landscape buffer and storm water
retention areas. It is understood and agreed that the developer/applicant shall pay all
costs of maintenance for said improved areas until such time as tax revenues are
received from assessment of the real property.
b. The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department a
Management and Maintenance Agreement, to be entered into with the unit/lot owners
of this land division, in order to insure common areas and facilities will be maintained.
An unqualified right to assess the owners of the individual units for reasonable
maintenance costs. The association shall have the right to lien the property of any
owners who default in the payment of their assessments.
CONAPRVL360 2
Planning Commission kesolution 96-_
Conditions cf /approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract 24890, Amendment # 1, Tune Extension #3
January 23,1996
+10. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit/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:
■ City Fire Marshall
■ City of La Quinta
■ Public Works Department
■ Community Development Department
■ Coachella Valley Water District
■ Desert Sands Unified School District
■ Imperial Irrigation District
Evidence of said permits or clearances from the abovementioned agencies shall be presented
to the Building & Safety Department at the time of the application for any permit for any use
contemplated by this approval.
++11. Prior to the issuance of any grading, building, or other development permit or final inspection,
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 Tentative Tract 24890 which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of any
permits/final inspections. The Community Development Director may require inspection or
other monitoring to assure such compliance. Said inspection or monitoring may be
accomplished by consultant(s) at the discretion of the Community Development Director, and
all costs associated shall be borne by the applicant/developer.
12. Lots that exceed 2'/2 depth times width ratio, shall be provided with 25-foot front yard
setback.
* * 13. Approval of this tentative tract map shall be subject to approval of General Plan Amendment
89-026, Specific Plan 85-006 (Amendment), and Change of Zone 89-045, by the City
Council.
++14. Street name proposals shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community
Development Department prior to recordation of any portion of the final map. Street name
signs shall be furnished and installed by the developer in accordance with standards of the
Public Works Director. Signage type and design shall be subject to review and approval of
the Community Development Department and the Public Works Department.
CONAPRVL.360 3
Planning Commission Resolution 96-_
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract 24990, Amendment # 1, Tune Extension #3
January 23,1996
++15. Minimum landscaped setbacks adjacent to public streets as stipulated in Specific Plan 85-006
(amended), shall be required. Design of the setbacks shall be approved by the Community
Development Department. Setback shall be measured from ultimate right-of-way lines.
a. The minimum setback may be modified to an "average" if a meandering or curvilinear
wall design is used.
b. The parkway setback area(s) shall be established as (a) separate common lot(s) and
be maintained as set forth in Condition #9, unless an alternate method is approved by.
the Community Development Department.
16. Exceptions to La Quinta Subdivision Ordinance Sections 13.12.050, Street Alignment and
13.12.080(c) lots, is hereby approved.
17. Applicant shall comply with the following conditions of the City Fire Marshal:
a. Schedule" A" fire protection approved Super fire hydrants, (6" x 4" x 2'/2" x 2'/2")
shall be located one at each street intersection spaced not more than 330 feet apart in
any direction with no portion of any frontage more than 165 feet from a fire hydrant.
Minimum fire flow shall be 2500 gpm for two hours duration at 20 psi.
b. The water mains shall be capable of providing a potential fire flow of 2500 gpm and
an actual fire flow available from any one hydrant shall be 1500 gpm for two hours
duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure.
C. Prior to recordation of the final map, applicant/developer shall furnish one blueline
copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall
conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the
fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved 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".
d. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by
the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed
on an individual lot.
CONAPRVL360 4
Planning Commission Resolution 96-_
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract 24990, Amendment # 1, Time Extension #3
January 23,1996
e. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the applicant/developer shall provide
alternate accesses as approved by the County Fire Department.
1). Exterior accesses issues.
2). Cul de sac secondary access issue.
f. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers,
guard houses or similar means, provision shall be made to facilitate access by
emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the Fire Department. All controlled
access devices that are power operated shall have a radio -controlled override system
capable of opening the gate when activated by a special transmitter located in
emergency vehicles. Devices shall be equipped with backup power facilities to
operate in the event of power failure. All controlled access devices that are not power
operated shall also be approved by the Fire Department. Minimum opening width
shall be 12-feet, with a minimum vertical clearance of 13-feet 6-inches.
g. Medians and islands may require additional setbacks to allow Fire Department access.
18. All requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District shall be met.
19. Prior to transmittal of the final map to the City Council by the City Public Works
Department, any existing structures which are to be removed from the property shall have
been removed or there shall be an agreement for the removal which shall be secured by a
faithful performance bond in a form satisfactory to the City and granting the City the right to
cause any such structures to be removed.
20. An encroachment permit for work in any abutting local jurisdiction shall be secured prior to
constructing or joining improvements.
21. The applicant shall pay the required processing, plan checking and inspection fees as are
current at the time the work is being accomplished by City personnel or subcontractors for
the Community Development, Building and Safety, or Public Works Departments.
22. The applicant acknowledges that the City is considering a City-wide Landscaping and
Lighting District and by recording a subdivision map agrees to be included in the district. Any
assessments will be done on a benefit basis as required by law.
CONAPRVL360
Planning Commission Resolution 96-_
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract 24890, Amendment # 1, Tune Extension #3
January 23,1996
23. All traffic, circulation, and drainage conditions placed on Specific Plan 85-006 shall apply
except where specifically modified by the conditions for this tentative subdivision map.
24. Applicant shall post security for street improvements in the right-of-way contiguous to the
subdivision as follows:
Jefferson Street
- '/2 width plus 1 land + raised landscaped median
52nd Avenue
- '/z width plus 1 land + raised landscaped median
Calle Rondo
- 'A width
Calle Tampico
- '/z width
Park Avenue
- 'h width
25. The applicant shall have prepared street improvement plans (for public and private streets)
that are prepared by a registered civil engineer. Street improvements, including traffic signs
and markings, and raised median islands (if required by the City General Plan) shall conform
to City standards as determined by the Public Works Director and adopted by the La Quinta
Municipal Code (3-inch AC over 4-inch Class 2 base minimum, for residential streets). Street
design shall take into account the subgrade soil strength, the anticipated traffic loading, and
street design life.
26. A common area lot shall be established for that area between the tract perimeter wall and
street right-of-way for Jefferson Street, 52nd Avenue, Calle Rondo, Calle Tampico, and Park
Avenue streets. Landscaped maintenance responsibility of the total common lot and street
landscape parkway shall be the responsibility of the development.
27. The applicant shall have a grading plan that is prepared by a registered civil engineer, who will
be required to certify that the constructed conditions at the rough grade stage are as per the
approved plans and grading permit. This is required prior to issuance of building permits.
Certification at the final grade stage and verification of pad elevations is also required prior
to final approval of grading construction.
28. The developer of this subdivision shall submit a copy of the proposed grading, landscaping
and irrigation plans to Coachella Valley Water District for review and comment with respect
to CVWD's Water Management Program.
29. A thorough preliminary engineering geological and soils engineering investigation shall be
done and the report submitted for review along with the grading plan. The reports
recommendations shall be incorporated into the grading plan design prior to grading plan
approval. The soils engineer and/or the engineering geologist must certify to the adequacy
CONAPRVL360 6
Planning Commission Resolution 96-_
Conditions of Approval o Recommended
Tentative Tract 24890, Amendment # 1, Time Extension #3
January 23,1996
of the grading plan. Pursuant to Section 11568 of the Business and Professions Code, the
soils report certification shall be indicated on the final subdivision map.
30. The developer of this subdivision of land 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 the final map without the approval of the Public Works Director.
31. Drainage disposal facilities shall be provided as required by the Public Works Director. The
applicant shall comply with the provisions of the City Master Plan of Drainage, including
payment of any drainage fees required therewith.
32. All utilities will be installed and trenches compacted to City standards prior to construction
of any streets. The soils engineer shall provide the necessary compaction test reports for
review by the Public Works Director.
33. The applicant shall post security equivalent to the proportional share designated, and may
obtain some reimbursement from the City in a manner approved by the City Council for
traffics signals, in accordance with the following table.
Initial
Portion Eligible
Posting
for
Requirement
Reimbursement
Jefferson @ 50th Avenue
500/0
37.5%
Jefferson @ Project Entrance
100%
None
Jefferson @ 52nd Avenue ,
50%
25%
52nd Avenue @ Project Entrance
100%
50%
34. Applicant shall dedicate all necessary public street right-of-way and utility easements for the
following streets:
Jefferson 60' half -width
52nd Avenue 120' full -width (see note)
Calle Rondo 30' half -width and suitable conforms
Calle Tampico 30' half -width and suitable conforms
Park Avenue 30' half -width and suitable conforms
NOTE: The 12U figure may be reduce to 100' pending the outcome of the proposed
General Plan Amendment.
35. Applicant shall record permanent public access easement on all lots created in the subdivision
for private streets.
CONAPRVL360 7
Planning Commission Resolution 96-_
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract 24890, Amendment # 1, Time Extension #3
January 23,1996
**36. In order to improve access between Washington Street and this subdivision for traffic with
trip ends in the subdivision, and to provide for orderly development along 52nd Avenue east
of Washington Street to the eastern edge of Tract Map 24889, the applicant shall make every
effort to obtain a 60-foot-wide easement for public street purposes from the adjoining
property owner to the west.
As a minimum, an interim two-lane paved facility shall be concurrently constructed in the
easement that joins Washington Street when the other 52nd Avenue improvements are
installed. The interim facility shall be constructed in a manner that will permit incorporation
into the ultimate street improvement with minimal adaptation.
The applicant may seek reimbursement for the improvements for that section of 52nd Avenue
east of Washington Street to the western edge of Tract 24890 in the following manner.
1. Prior to January 1, 1992, the applicant shall seek direct reimbursement, from the
developer of the property that provides the easement.
2. After January 1, 1992, the applicant may seek reimbursement from the City consistent
with any policy or program in existence at that time.
It shall be understood by all parties involved in providing the easement and subsequent interim
improvement that the City intends to condition the future development of the property
adjoining Tract 24890 to affect reimbursement for costs relevant to same incurred by the
applicant or City whichever is carrying the cost at the time. If the applicant is unable to
obtain the easement, the following condition shall apply:
a The intersection of"new" 52nd Avenue with "old" 52nd Avenue shall be configured
in a manner that the two intersect at 90 degree angles. The curve on "new" 52nd
Avenue that leads into the intersection shall have a minimum radius.
b. In addition to the right-of-way required for the ultimate alignment of 52nd Avenue,
the applicant shall dedicate additional right-of-way as needed, to accommodate the
interim intersection configuration.
C. Traffic signals shall be installed when traffic counts warrant the need, as determined
in accordance with the collective conditions of.approval for this tract. The applicant
shall be 100% responsible for the cost of the signals; the City will administer the
design and installation.
d. Although "new" 52nd Avenue shall be offered for dedication, it will not be accepted
as a public street until the link to Washington Street is completed, and the other link
CONAPRVL360 a
Planning Commission Resolution 96-_
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract 24890, Amendment # 1, Time Extension #3
January 23,1996
which is constructed under these collective Conditions of Approval has been
determined by the Public Works Director to be in a state of good repair.
37. The applicant shall enter into a license agreement with the City to provide for maintenance,
liability insumce coverage, and other relevant concerns that may be identified, and as needed,
for the tunnel that is proposed for placement under the pavement in the Jefferson Street right-
of-way. The agreement, which will be subject to approval of appropriate City officials, will
be prepared by the City at the applicant's expense prior to issuance of permits to construct
tunnel.
38. Applicant shall provide street grades that are 0.35 percent or greater unless demonstrated by
engineering design, and approved by the Public Works Department, that drainage is adequate
and the minimum gradient cannot be satisfactorily obtained.
39. Security posting requirements for the traffic signals may be staged in proportional increments
commensurate with, and based on, the number of dwelling units in each successive
development phase. The applicant shall provide traffic signal improvement plans prepared
by a registered civil engineer, and install the signals when warranted pursuant to an annual
warrant study of the intersections identified in Condition #33. The study shall be conducted
by a qualified traffic engineer at the applicant's expense and submitted for review and
approval by the Director of Public Works.
40. The applicant shall post security for private street improvements in the subdivision in amounts
commensurate with, and as needed, to meet circulation and access requirements for each
proposed phase of the subdivision development. The security shall be posted prior to
recording of the subject phase of the final map. Installation of the secured improvements by
the applicant shall occur prior to issuance of occupancy permits.
41. The applicant shall post security for all public street improvements prior to recording of the
final subdivision map.
42. Installation of the secured public street improvements by the applicant shall occur and may
be staged in a manner commensurate with the development phasing of this subdivision,
adjoining subdivisions and traffic needs, all as determined by the Director of Public Works.
As a minimum, an interim two-lane paved facility shall be constructed concurrently with Phase
I of the development in the 52nd Avenue right-of-way, and the easement required in
Condition # 38 from Jefferson to Washington Streets. The interim improvement shall be
constructed in a manner that will permit incorporation into the ultimate street improvement
with minimal adaption.
CONAPRVL360 9
Planning Commission Resolution 96-_
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract 24890, Amendment # 1, Time Extension #3
January 23,1996
43. The applicant may obtain some reimbursement from the City in a manner approved by City
Council for the segment of 52nd Avenue constructed in the 60-foot wide easement between
Washington Street and the westerly most boundary of Tract 24890.
44. The applicant shall vacate vehicle access rights to all public streets except for selected private
streets that may intersect 52nd Avenue and Jefferson Street at locations, and in a manner
approved by the Director of Public Works.
45. Additional exceptions where vehicle access rights to public streets may be retained are as
follows: 1) the golf course maintenance facility located adjacent to 52nd Avenue and Calle
Rondo may enjoy direct access to 52nd Avenue and Calle Rondo (temporarily only, see
Condition #50, but the 52nd Avenue access shall be right-turn-in/right-turn-out only); 2) the
CVWD well site located adjacent to Calle Rondo and Calle Tampico may enjoy direct access
to either street, but not both; 3) gated emergency access to interior private streets from
Jefferson Street and Park Avenue shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of
the City's Director of Public Works and City Fire Marshal.
46. The applicant shall aesthetically enhance the outward appearance of the CVWD well site
located adjacent to Calle Rondo and Calle Tampico, and the golf course maintenance facility
located adjacent to Calle Rondo and 52nd Avenue. Specific improvements shall include: 1)
continuation of the sound wall and landscaping in the setback area along the Calle Rondo,
Calle Tampico, and 52nd Avenue frontages; 2) a paved driveway at the access point; 3) an
aesthetically attractive sight restricted gate.
47. The applicant shall provide a 20-foot wide and a 10-foot wide landscaped setback lot
respectively, on the 52nd Avenue and Calle Rondo frontages adjacent to the golf course
maintenance facility.
48. Along Jefferson Street where golf course abuts proposed perimeter wall, decorative wrought
iron or steel tube fencing shall be used to allow views into project, if in conformance with
acoustical study (as required by Specific Plan 85-006, as amended).
*49. Custom home lots Numbers 487-505 and 530-554 shall be permitted to be a maximum 28-
feet in height within one story.
*50. Existing maintenance building access to Calle Rondo shall be permanently eliminated at the
time 52 Avenue is realigned, as required by Condition # 11 of Plot Plan 86-285.
CONAPRVL360 10
Planning Commission Resolution 96-_
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract 24990, Amendment # 1, Tune Extension #3
January 23,1996
++51. Per J. M. Peters' proposal in the letter dated May 18, 1993 (slightly modified in December
12,1994 letter), the perimeter wall and landscaping improvements shall be constructed in the
following timing and sequence:
a. When one third of the perimeter improvements are complete, the first 93 of 546
homes will be permitted for construction.
b. When two thirds of the perimeter improvements are complete, the next 107 of 546
(units 94-200) will be permitted for construction.
C. Perimeter improvements shall be complete and accepted by the City prior to issuance
of more than a total of 200 building permits within the development.
The sequence of improvements shall be as approved by the City. Perimeter wall along the
north boundary of the development, constructed subsequent to the June 16, 1993 agreement
between J.M. Peters, Co. and the City Public Works Department, was not an approved
increment in scheduling of perimeter improvements and shall not be included in the total of
improvements completed for the purposes of this condition until approved by the Public
Works Director.
++52. Prior to May 1, 1996, the applicant shall obtain City approval for, or shall remove, the golf
cart gate and concrete flatwork illegally constructed along the Park Avenue perimeter wall.
After May 1, 1996, no building permits or Certificates of Occupancy will be issued within the
development until this issue has been resolved.
CONAPRVL360 11
PH #2
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: FEBRUARY 27, 1996
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 27224
REQUEST: APPROVAL OF A ONE YEAR TIME EXTENSION (EXTENSION # 1)
FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF 40 ACRES INTO 98 SINGLE FAMILY
AND AMENITY LOTS
LOCATION: ON THE EAST SIDE OF MADISON STREET, 1 /4 MILE SOUTH OF
54TH AVENUE (ATTACHMENT 1)
APPLICANT: EL.LIOT/POLIAK FAMILIES
PROPERTY
OWNER: SAME AS APPLICANT
ENGINEER: WARNER ENGINEERING INC. (MR. MICHAEL A. SMITH)
REP: MR. DON CHRISTOPHER (GEORGE BERKEY & ASSOC.)
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: THE CITY COUNCIL, ON JANUARY 21, 1992, ADOPTED A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (E.A.
91-216). THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT
ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT BASED ON
MITIGATION MEASURES IMPOSED. THEREFORE, NO
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS DEEMED
NECESSARY.
GENERAL
PLAN: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH RURAL RESIDENTIAL
OVERLAY (MAX. 3 DU/AC.)
ZONING: R-1 10,000 (ONE FAMILY DWELLING WITH 10,000 SQ. FT. LOT
MIN.) WITH EQUESTRIAN OVERLAY
The proposed tract is on the east side of Madison Street, one -quarter mile south of
54th Avenue. The City annexed this site and adjacent properties (Annexation 5) in
January, 1991.
sTAFFRPT.59
In 1991, Madison Estates, a California Joint Venture, filed the original Tentative
Tract Map request to subdivide approximately 40 acres into 98 single family lots.
Also processed concurrently were a general plan amendment and change of zone to
modify the land use designations from Very Low Density to Low Density Residential
and R-1 20,000 to R-1 10,000 respectively. On January 21, 1992, the Council
approved the applicant's request under Resolution 92-14 allowing the redesignation
of property and subdivision of the parcel into single family lots. A copy of the
original tentative map exhibit is attached (Attachment 2). The Equestrian Overlay
District (Chapter 9.117 of the Zoning Code) was placed on this property by the City
in 1993.
In 1993, the State Legislature passed Senate Bill 428 permitting all active tentative
maps two additional years without any penalties to the provisions outlined in the
City's Subdivision Ordinance and Subdivision Map Act. The map's expiration was
therefore extended to January 21, 1996.
The properties on the east side of Madison Street, abutting the site, are zoned for
residential homes and equestrian uses. The properties in the immediate area are
either developed with existing houses, vacant or used for the growing of sod. To the
south, is an approved development proposal to build 1,060 single family dwellings on
265 acres (Specific Plan 90-015). To the west, across Madison Street, is the master
planined PGA West Resort.
The approved tentative tract map allows single family lots on public streets that range
in size from 10,000 to 13,000 square feet. Access to the project will be from two
public streets along Madison Street (i.e., "A" and "I" Streets). The northern most
street will allow right -in and right -out turn movements, whereas the southern most
street also permits left and right turns in and out of the single family subdivision. The
keeping of horses is not allowed because the lots do not exceed one acre, as required
per Chapter 9.117 of the Municipal Code and the developer is required to disclose to
prospective buyers that the keeping of horses or livestock is allowed on adjoining
properties that meet the equestrian standards (Condition 48).. A well site and
retention basin are located on the southern boundary of the tract next to Madison
Street.
Public Notice
The case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on February 16, 1996. All
property owners within 500-feet of the affected area were mailed a copy of the public
hearing notice as required. No negative comments have been received. All
correspondence received before the meeting will be given to the Commission.
STAFFRPT.59
W
Staff mailed a copy of the applicant's request to all public agencies on December 21,
1995. We received no negative comments. All other comments have been
incorporated into the attached draft Conditions of Approval.
Environmental Assessment 91-216 was prepared for this case during its original
review and approval in 1992. The project engineer in 1992 (Coachella Valley
Engineers) prepared the on -site storm water control plan for the site which showed
that the proposed basin would handle drainage needs for the 98-lot development.
The attached Conditions require the developer to perform other on -site studies prior
to final map or building permit issuance (e.g., noise, archaeological, paleontology,
etc.). Since they propose no map changes, no additional environmental
consideration is warranted for a time extension request pursuant to California
Environmental Quality Act statutes.
Issue 1 - General Plan Consistency
The City updated the General Plan in 1992. As part of the update, the General Plan
designates this site as Low Density Residential (2-4 dwellings per acre) with a Rural
Residential Overlay (RRO) which limits the density to three dwellings per acre and
establishes design guidelines, including enhanced setbacks, rural fencing, rural
streets, etc. Condition 58 was added to assure compliance with Policy 2-1.2.3 (Rural
Residential Overlay) of the ''General Plan unless a General Plan Amendment is
approved allowing modification to the rural design guidelines.
Issue 2 - Tract Design/Improvements
Access to the tract can occur at two streets along Madison Street, a primary arterial
street (100 to 110' r-o-w). All interior streets will be 50 to 60-feet in right-of-way
width and provide access to all single family lots. The Conditions of Approval
require improvements for this project that include streets and other infrastructure
improvements necessary for development. The recommended Conditions will insure
that all on -site work is consistent with City standards.
Issue 3 - Health and Safety
The proposed Conditions of Approval require installation of all necessary
infrastructure improvements. These include water, sewer, streets, and other
necessary improvements. Electric services will be undergrounded and they meet all
requirements of the local service agencies (gas, electric, water, etc. ).
STAFFRPT.59
Issue 4 - Equestrian Trail Corridor
Condition 47 requires the applicant to install an equestrian trail and public sidewalk
on Madison Street in the City's parkway and/or landscape easement. The General
Plan requires an equestrian trail corridor along the east side of Madison Street per the
exhibits contained in the Park and Recreation Element (Chapter 5).
CONCLUSION:
Staff has revised and/or added Conditions to this request to comply with the existing
provisions of the General Plan, Municipal Zoning Code and Subdivision Ordinance in
accordance with current standards and requirements (e.g., Conditions are 2, 3, 4, 7,
10, 16, 30, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, and 58). This subdivision map request is
consistent with all City Codes as Conditioned. No physical constraints prevent the
development of the site as planned. Findings for approval are included in the
attached draft Resolution.
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 96- recommending to the City Council
approval of the first one year time extension for Tentative Tract Map 27224, subject
to the revised Conditions of Approval as attached.
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Exhibit (Reduced)
3. Large Map Exhibit (PC only)
USDELL, Associate Planner
Submitted by:
041, J - / 00 Utz
r VAAA "I
CHRISTINE DI IORIO, Pla ning Manager
STAFFRPT.59 ;' �.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A ONE-YEAR TIME
EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 27224 (1ST
EXTENSION) TO ALLOW A 98-LOT SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL LAND SALES SUBDIVISION ON
APPROXIMATELY 40 ACRES
CASE NO.: TTM 27224 (1ST TIME EXTENSION)
APPLICANT: ELLIOT/POLIAK FAMILIES
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the
27th day of February, 1996, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Elliot/Poliak
Families, for a one year extension of a previously approved 98-lot single family subdivision of 40
acres, generally on the east side of Madison Street, 1/4 mile south of 54th Avenue, more particularly
described as:
BEING A SUBDIVISION OF THE NORTH 'h OF SECTION 15,
TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO
MERIDIAN (APN: 767-320-002)
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), in
that the Community Development Director has determined that the original environmental
assessment (EA 91-216) approved in 1992, is still valid and binding on this development request.
Therefore, no additional environmental review is warranted; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did find
the following Mandatory Findings of approval to justify the recommendation for approval of said
Tentative Tract Map 27224 (1st Time Extension):
A. The proposed map or vesting map is consistent with the City of La Quinta General Plan and
any applicable specific plans.
The project is a Low Density Residential (LDR) District with Rural Residential Overlay per the
provisions of the 1992 General Plan Update; therefore, all provisions of Land Use Element
(Chapter 2) shall be met. Tentative Tract 27244 is consistent with the goals, policies and
intent of the La Quinta General Plan provided conditions contained herein are required to
ensure among other things consistency with the General Plan and mitigation of
environmental consequences pursuant to Environmental Assessment 91-216.
The site is zoned R-1 10,000 (One Family Dwelling) which permits single family
developments, and within the Equestrian Overlay District (Chapter 9.117 of the LQMC). All
plans for future single family homes shall be consistent with the provisions of the Zoning
Code (e.g., specifically Chapter 9.32 et. seq.) in effect at the time building permits are
acquired. The development of the project, as conditioned, will be compatible with the
surrounding area.
c
x�
xasoPc:.l43/conaprv1.363
Resolution 96-
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 conform to City standards of the General Plan
and Subdivision Ordinance as designed. All on -site streets will be public (50-feet wide or
larger) which is consistent with City standards. Access for the single family lots will be
provided from internal public streets that intersect with Madison Street, a primary arterial
street. The density and design standards for the tract will comply with the Rural Residential
Overlay as designated in the Land Use Element of the General Plan (Chapter 2).
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.
The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed land division as approved in 1992.
The original development plan will not cause substantial environmental damage or injury to
fish or wildlife, or their habitat because mitigation measures have been required per
Environmental Assessment 91-216.
Before on -site grading, the applicant shall employ a qualified archaeologist and
paleontologist to conduct on -site research and review for prehistoric and historic remains.
These findings shall be submitted in report form to staff. The consultant's report shall
indicate his or her findings and convey any important information about the site or its
development. Monitoring shall be required during site grading work, if deemed necessary.
D. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public
health problems.
Noise impacts from existing and future road noise on Madison Street shall be analyzed and
mitigation measures shall be employed to reduce exterior noise for those houses along this
major arterial street to levels consistent with Table EH-1 of Chapter 8 of the General Plan
(Environmental Hazards Element). The noise study shall ensure that future roadway noise
is less than 60 dB CNEL in outdoor areas and 45 dB CNEL or less for interior areas to
conform with the City's 1992 General Plan Update. The design of the subdivision, as
conditionally approved, will not cause serious public health problems because they will install
urban improvements based on City, State, and Federal requirements.
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. A traffic signal will be built when warranted at the intersection of Street Lot
"A" with Madison Street. A retention basin and CVWD well site will also be required.
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;
REsopc.143/conaprvl.363 t i i"
Resolution 96-
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 Commission in this
case;
2. That it does hereby reconfirm the conclusions of Environmental Assessment 91-216 as
approved in 1992;
3. That it does now recommend approval of the Tentative Tract Map 27244 (1st Time
Extension) for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission, held on this 27th day of February, 1996, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JACQUES ABELS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
REsoPC. ias/conaprv1.363
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 27224, 1st TIME EXTENSION
FEBRUARY 27, 1996
1. Tentative Tract Map 27224, marked Exhibit "A", shall comply with the requirements and
standards of the State Subdivision Map Act and the City of La Quinta Subdivision Ordinance,
unless otherwise modified by the following conditions.
2. This Tentative Tract Map approval shall expire on January 21, 1997, unless approved for a
2nd extension pursuant to the City of La Quinta Subdivision Ordinance.
Prior to any site disturbance being permitted, including preliminary site work and/or
archaeological investigation, the project developer shall submit and have approved a Fugitive
Dust Control Plan (FDCP), in accordance with Chapter 6.16 of the La Quinta Municipal
Cade. 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.
4. Prior to the issuance of a 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:
♦ City Fire Marshal
♦ City of La Quinta Public Works Department
♦ Community Development Department
♦ Coachella Valley Water District
♦ Coachella Valley Unified School District
♦ Imperial Irrigation District
♦ California Regional Water Quality Board (NPDES Permit)
Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above -mentioned agencies shall be presented
to the Building and Safety Department at the time of the application for a building permit for
the use contemplated herewith.
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.
conaprv1.363
Planning Commission Resolution 96-—
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract 27224
February 27, 1996
5. 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.
6. Community Development Department approval shall be secured prior to establishing any of
the following facilities uses:
A. Temporary construction facilities.
B. Sales facilities, including their appurtenant signage.
C. On -site advertising/construction signs.
7. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall retain a professionally qualified
archaeologist to conduct a field reconnaissance survey and record search of the project site.
A report of the result of the survey shall be submitted to the Community Development
Department (2 copies) complete with recommendations for further mitigation measures. All
testing shall be completed prior to any grading work commencing. The archaeologist shall
prepare a mitigation plan for review and approval by the Community Development
Department prior to implementation.
During grading activities, the project site shall be monitored by a professionally qualified
archaeological monitor. The monitor is authorized to temporarily divert or stop equipment
in order to investigate exposed cultural deposits.
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the project archaeologist shall submit a final
report to the Community Development Department. The final report shall follow the report
format contained in Preservation Planning Bulletin, No. 4(a), December, 1989 (OHP). The
final report shall be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission for completeness and
acceptability. Acceptance of the final report by the Commission signifies completion of the
archaeological mitigation program.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall retain a professionally qualified
paleontologist to provide monitoring of earth -moving activities, including trenching for both
on -site and off -site related work.
Prior to commencing grading activities, the paleontologist shall conduct a preliminary survey
and surface collection of any paleontological resources. The project paleontologist shall
prepare a monitoring and salvage program for review and approval by the Community
Development Department prior to implementation.
conaprvi.363
Planning Commission Resolution 96-—
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative; Tract 27224
February 27,1996
During grading activities, the project site shall be monitored by a professionally qualified
paleontologist who maintains the necessary paleontologic collecting permits and repository
agreements. In areas of known high potential, the project paleontologist may designate a
paleontologic monitor to be present during 100% of the earth -moving activities. If, after 50%
of the grading is completed, it can be demonstrated that the level of monitoring should be
reduced, the project paleontologist may so amend the mitigation program. The paleontologic
monitor(s) is authorized to temporarily divert equipment while removing fossils.
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the project paleontologist shall submit a final
report to the Community Development Department. The final report shall discuss the
methods used, results of the surface survey, identification, cataloging, curation, and storage
of fossil materials collected; and the significance of the paleontological resources. A final
report of the finds and their significance after all operations are complete shall be reviewed
by the ffistoric Preservation Commission for acceptability. Acceptance of the final report for
the project by the Historic Preservation Commission signifies completion of the program of
mitigation.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall have retained a qualified cultural
resources management firm and completed the testing and data recovery as noted in the plan.
The management firm shall monitor the grading activity as required by the plan or testing
results.
A list of the qualified archaeological monitor(s), cultural resources management firm
employees, and any assistant(s)/representative(s), 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.
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 areas reasonably suspected to overlie
adjacent human remains until appropriate mitigation measures are completed.
Upon completion of the data recovery, the Developer shall cause three copies of the final
report containing the data analysis to be prepared and published and submitted to the
Community Development Department.
8. Street name proposals (3 per street) shall be submitted for review and approval by the
Community Development Department prior to recordation of a portion of the final map.
Street name signs shall be furnished and installed by the developer in accordance with
standards of the City Engineer. Sign type and design shall be subject to review and approval
of the Community Development Department and the Public Works Department.
conaprv1.363 " 1 b
Planning Commission Resolution 96-—
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract 27224
February 27,1996
9. Prior to final map approval by the City Council, the applicant shall meet the parkland
dedication requirement as set forth in Section 13.24.030, La Quinta Subdivision Ordinance,
by paying parkland fees in -lieu, as may be determined in accordance with said Section.
10. A noise study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer, to be submitted to the
Community Development Department for review and approval prior to final map approval.
The study shall concentrate on noise impacts on the tract from perimeter arterial streets, and
recommend alternative mitigation techniques. Recommendations of the study shall be
incorporated into the tract design. The study shall consider use of building setbacks,
engineering design, building orientation, noise barriers (terming, walls, and landscaping, etc.),
and other techniques so as to avoid the isolated appearance given by walled developments.
The Rural Residential Overlay provisions of Chapter 2 of the General Plan shall be met during
the preparation of the noise study.
11. If the tract is phased, tract phasing plans, including phasing of public improvements, shall be
submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department and Public
Works Department prior to final map approval.
12. All exterior lighting including that for signs and landscaping shall comply with "Dark Sky"
Ordinance (Chapter 9.210 of the Municipal Zoning Code).
FIRE DEPARTMENT
13. Schedule a fire protection approved super fire hydrants, (6" x 4" x 2-1/2" x 2-1/2") shall be
located at each street intersection spaced not more than 330 feet apart in any direction with
no portion of any frontage more than 165 feet from a fire hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall
be 1000 gpm for two hours duration at 20 psi.
14. Prior to recordation of the final map, applicant/developer shall furnish one blueline copy of
the water system plan to the Fire Department for review/approval. Plans shall conform to the
fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements.
Plans shall be signed/approved 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".
15. The required water system including fire hydrants shall 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.
conaprvl.363 I I
Planning Commission Resolution 96-—
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract 27224
February 27,1996
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
16. Applicant shall dedicate public street right-of-way and utility easements in conformance with
the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable Specific Plans if any, and as required by
the City Engineer, as follows:
A. Right-of-way geometry for cul-de-sacs, knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall
conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #800, #801, and #805
respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
B. Madison Street - Primary Arterial, 55-foot half width;
C. "A" Street (Madison to "H") - Divided, each side shall be 37.5 feet wide;
D. On -site Through Streets - Local Street, 60-foot full width;
E. On -site Cul-de-sacs, 50-foot full width.
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 developer shall grant temporary public access easements to those areas
within 60 days of written request by the City.
Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes,
bus turnouts, etc.
17. Applicant shall provide a fully improved landscaped setback lot of noted width adjacent to
the following street right-of-way(s):
A. Madison Street, 20-feet wide;
B. "A" Street (Madison to "IT'), 7-feet wide;
18. Applicant shall provide a fully improved 11-foot wide landscaped raised median in "A" Street
between Madison and'IT' Street. The median shall be a lettered lot on the subdivision map.
19. Applicant shall vacate vehicle access rights to Madison Street from all abutting lots, except
the CVWD well site. Access to Madison Street from this land division shall be restricted to
street intersections only.
20. Turning movements of traffic accessing the subject subdivision from adjoining public streets
shall be as follows:
A. Madison Street
1. "A" Street: left and right turns in and out are allowed;
2. ,r, Street: right turn in and out only.
conaprv1.363
t �_
Planning Commission Resolution 96-—
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract 27224
February 27, 1996
21. The median island on Madison Street shall have no opening in it to permit vehicular left turn
movements into or out of the subdivision where "I" Street intersects Madison Street.
The access locations into the subdivision shall be approximately 635 and 1155 feet north of
the southerly tract boundary.
22. Applicant shall have street improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer. Street
improvements shall be designed and constructed for all streets within the proposed
subdivision and for off -site streets as required by these conditions of approval. All street
improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC and adopted
Standard Drawings, and City Engineer and shall include all appurtenant components required
by same, except mid -block street lighting, such as but not limited to traffic signs and
channelization markings, street name signs, sidewalks, and raised medians where required by
the City General Plan. Street design shall take into account the soil strength, anticipated traffic
loading, and design life. The minimum structural section for residential streets shall be 3" AC
over 4" Class 2 Base.
Miscellaneous incidental improvements and enhancements to existing improvements where
joined by the newly required improvements shall be designed and constructed as required by
the City engineer to assure the new and existing improvements are appropriate integrated to
provide a finished product that conforms with City standards and practices. This includes
tapered off -site street transitions that extend beyond tract boundaries and join the widened
and existing street sections.
The following specific street widths shall be constructed to conform with the General Plan
street type noted therewith:
A. ON -SITE STREETS
1. A Street (Madison to H) - divided street, 27 feet wide between curb faces for
each roadway.
2. A Street (H to B), B, C, D, E, H, and I Streets - full width Local Street, 40
feet wide, refer to Std Dwg #104;
3. F, G, and d Streets - full width Local Street cul-de-sac, 36 feet wide, refer to
Std Dwg #800.
B. OFF -SITE STREETS
The City is contemplating adoption of a major thorough fare improvement ordinance
which is intended to distribute the improvement cost of major thoroughfare
construction evenly and fairly on undeveloped land at the time the land is subdivided
or developed for beneficial use. If the ordinance is adopted, all land division maps
conaprv1.363
Planning Commission Resolution 96-—
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract 27224
February 27,1996
within this project shall be subject to exaction by said ordinance, provided the
ordinance is adopted 60 days prior to recordation of the map.
If in the event, the Major Thoroughfare Improvement Ordinance is not adopted, the off -site
street improvements for this project shall be as follows:
Madison Street (portion contiguous to tract) - install remaining portion of Primary
Arterial (86' width option) improvements, refer to Std Dwg 9100.
23. Applicant shall construct, or enter into agreement to construct, the site grading, off -site public
improvements and utilities, and on -site common area improvements before the final map is
recorded. Applicant shall pay cash, in lieu of and equivalent to the respective fair -share
construction cost, for those improvements that the applicant has partial cost responsibility and
construction must be deferred until the full complement of funding is available. Payment of
cash may be deferred to a future date mutually agreed upon by applicant and City, provided
security for said future payment is posted by applicant.
24. A thorough preliminary engineering, geological, and soils engineering investigation shall be
conducted with a report submitted for review along with grading plan. The report
recommendations shall be incorporated into the grading plan design prior to grading plan
approval. The soils engineer and/or the engineering geologist must certify to the adequacy of
the grading plan. A statement shall appear on the final subdivision map that a soils report has
been prepared for the tract pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health and Safety Code.
25. The tract grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and approved by the
City Engineer prior to final map approval.
26. The tract shall be designed and graded in a manner so the difference in building pad elevations
between contiguous lots that share a common street frontage or join lots with adjoining
existing tracts or approved tentative tracts does not exceed three (3.0) feet. The pad
elevations of contiguous lots within the subject tract that do not share a common street shall
not exceed five (5.0) feet.
If applicant is unable to comply with the pad elevation differential requirement, the City will
consider and may approve other alternatives that satisfy the City's intent to promote and
ensure community acceptance and buyer satisfaction with the proposed development.
27. The tract shall be graded in a manner that permits storm flow in excess of the retention basin
capacity to flow out of the tract through a designated emergency overflow outlet and into the
historic drainage relief route. Similarly, the tract shall be graded in a manner that anticipates
receiving storm flow from adjoining property at locations that have historically received flow.
conaprv1.363
Planning Commission Resolution 96-—
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract 27224
February 27,1996
28. Storm water run-off produced in 24 hours by a 100-year storm shall be retained on site in
landscaped retention basin(s) designed for a maximum water depth not to exceed six feet. The
basin slopes shall not exceed 3:1. The percolation rate shall be considered to be zero inches
per hour unless applicant provides site -specific data that indicates otherwise. Other
requirements include, but are not limited to, a grassed ground surface with permanent
irrigation improvements, and appurtenant structural drainage amenities all of which shall be
designed and constructed in accordance with requirements deemed necessary by the City
Engineer.
The tributary drainage area for which the applicant is responsible shall extend to the centerline
of any public street contiguous to the site.
29. A trickling sand filter and leachfield shall be installed in the retention basin to percolate
nuisance water in conformance with requirements of the City Engineer. The sand filter and
leach field shall be sized to percolate 22 gallons per 1000 square feet of lot area per day.
30. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect for the
landscaped lots. The plans and proposed landscaping improvements shall be in conformance
with requirements of the Community Development Director, City Engineer, and Coachella
Valley Water District (Chapter 8.13 of the LQMC) and the plans shall be signed by these
officials prior to construction.
31. Applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed grading, landscaping and irrigation plans to the
Coachella Valley Water District for review and approval with respect to the District's Water
Management Program.
32. Applicant shall maintain the landscaped areas of the subdivision such as the landscaped
setback lots and retention basins until accepted by the City Engineer for maintenance by the
Lighting and Landscape District.
33. Applicant shall construct a six-foot wide meandering sidewalk in the easterly parkway and
landscaped setback lot along Madison Street.
34. Applicant shall provide a blanket easement that covers the entire landscaped setback lots for
the purpose of meandering public sidewalk and equestrian trail.
35. All existing and proposed telecommunication, television cable, and electric power lines which
the power authority will accept underground, that are adjacent to the proposed site or on -site,
shall be installed in underground facilities.
l.363 conaprv:
Planning Commission Resolution 96-—
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract 27224
February 27,1996
36. Underground utilities that lie directly under street improvements or portions thereof shall be
installed, with trenches compacted to City standards, prior to installation of that portion of
the street improvements. A soils engineer retained by applicant shall provide certified reports
of soil compaction tests for review by the City engineer.
37. 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 the
final map without the approval of the City Engineer.
38. Applicant shall pay all fees charged by the City as required for processing, plan checking and
construction inspection. The fee amounts) shall be those which are in effect at the time the
work is undertaken and accomplished by the City.
39. Applicant shall retain a California registered civil engineer, or designate one who is on
applicant's staff; to exercise sufficient supervision and quality control during construction of
the tract grading and improvements to certify compliance with the plans, specifications,
applicable codes, and ordinances. The engineer retained or designated by the applicant to
implement this responsibility shall provide the following certifications and documents upon
completion of construction:
A. The engineer shall sign and seal a statement placed on the "as built" plans that says
"a11(grading and grades) (improvements) on these plans were properly monitored by
qualified personnel under my supervision during construction for compliance with the
plans and specifications and the work shown hereon was constructed as approved,
except where otherwise noted hereon and specifically acknowledged by the City
Engineer".
B. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the engineer shall provide a separate
document, signed and sealed, to the City Engineer that documents the building pad
elevations. The document shall, for each lot in the tract, state the pad elevation
approved on the grading plan, the "as built" elevation, and clearly identify the
difference, if any. The data shall be organized by tract phase and lot number and shall
be cumulative if the data is submitted at different times.
C. Provide to the City Engineer a signed set of "as built" reproducible drawings of the
site grading and all improvements installed by the applicant.
40. Applicant is responsible for the cost to design and install a traffic signal at the following
locations:
A. Madison Street at 54th Avenue; 6.25% fair -share responsibility.
B. Madison Street at "A" Street; 50% fair -share responsibility.
conaprvl.363
Planning Commission Resolution 96-—
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract 27224
February 27, 1996
SPECIAL
41. All single family homes shall be single story and no higher than 24 feet as measured from
building pad elevation as noted on the approved grading plan.
42. The production plans shall be approved by the Planning Commission prior to the submission
of the plans to the Building and Safety Department for construction permit issuance via a plot
plan application.
43. The minimum lot size shall be 10,000 square feet. The tract map shall be revised and
submitted to the Community Development Department prior to final map submission.
44. The provisions of the R-1 Zoning designation shall apply unless modified herein with all
homes with sloped roofs having clay or concrete tile.
45. All homes shall be required to install front yard landscaping prior to final occupancy. Each
lot shall have two 15-gallon shade trees (corner lots five 15-gallon trees), ten 5-gallon shrubs
and other landscaping (e.g., turf, turf and gravel, etc.), acceptable to the Community
Development Department. The applicant/developer is encouraged to use drought resistant and
native plant materials for the project. The landscaping concept shall be approved currently
with the review of the model homes plans by the Planning Commission. The applicant will be
permitted to post securities to insure that the front yard landscaping is installed for each home
if the applicant does not have plant material installed at the time the house is finaled. All
landscaping materials shall be installed within 60 days after occupancy clearances have been
given.
46. The mitigation measures of Environmental Assessment 91-216 shall be met.
47. An equestrian trail shall be provided between the east edge of the sidewalk and the property
line. The trail and the sidewalk shall be divided by a split rail fence and the trail should be
eight feet wide.
48. The developer shall disclose to the prospective buyers of the lots that the keeping of horses
or other livestock will not be allowed. The developer shall also disclose that the keeping of
horses on abutting properties is permitted if the property is zoned R-1 20,000 or larger
pursuant to the City's Municipal Zoning Code.
49. Impacts shall be mitigated in accordance with the provisions of AB 1600, Section 53080 and
63995 of the Government Code or the then existing legislation and/or local ordinances
adopted pursuant thereto or any applicable mitigation agreement entered into by the
developer and the District. In addition, the City, developer and the Coachella Valley Unified
School District shall cooperate in exploring alternatives to provide lands or facilities to the
District, through joint use agreements, dedications, or Mello -Roos District formation.
conaprv1.363
Planning Commission Resolution 96-—
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract 27224
February 27,1996
50. Perimeter security walls where required by the Noise Study shall be subject to the following
standards:
A. Setback from right-of-way lines along Madison Street shall average 30 feet.
B. All wall designs, including location and materials, shall be subject to review by the
Planning Commission.
C. Perimeter wall shall incorporate noise abatement requirements.
MISCELLANEOUS
51. 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 shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer and are not
approved for construction until they are signed.
"Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths, gates and
entryways, 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.
52. The City may maintain standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements of
construction. For a fee established by City resolution, the developer may acquire standard
plan and/or detail sheets from the City.
When final plans are approved by the City, the developer shall furnish accurate computer files
of the complete, approved plans on storage media and in program format acceptable the City
Engineer.
53. 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.
conaprvl.363
N
Planning Commission Resolution 96-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract 27224
February 27,1996
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 appropriate authority that the applicant has met all
requirements for service to lots within the subdivision.
54. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval
of the City Engineer.
55. 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.
56. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record
drawings of all plans which were signed by the City Engineer. Each sheet of the drawings
shall have the words "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" clearly marked on
each sheet and be stamped and signed by the Engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy
of the drawings.
57. The applicant shall pay all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and
construction inspection. Deposit and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant
makes application for the plan checks and permits.
58. The provisions of the Rural Residential Overlay (General Plan Policy 2-1.2.3) shall be met
during the preparation of the final map and prior to building permit issuance or a General Plan
Amendment shall be approved.
conaprv1.363
r +P
Attachment 1
VicinityMap
Case No: TTM 27224
Location: E. of Madison St., 1 /4 mi.
South of 54th Avenue
Applicant: Elliot/PoliakFamilies
Legal Description: APN 767-320-
002
r767— 32 T. R. A. 020 - 059
N. //2 of SEC. /5, T 63., R. 7E.
2/
'54th Avenue
srrs+o i s.a
i
Vacant Si-ngle Family
a� Estzte
r� O O 7B /BAc.
V 1 .9f949At. 0
41
A
K
O
Vacant acant
OL AY N/I AM
.� Sod Farm Ex. Home Vacant 33
n 0
I
dpx § i Attachment 2
hyp=��� Y6 1 3I
19us y
1 I B a
Z e
�, t9d tl� C7y
8 co i r elm
W L
i00 - 02C - LU wdtl
%/ su _ •
R ' 0912 vN 13tla1 '
ISM tl9d
w
>r--�
C
e
��--4C��
�•'�
yyM
�#
a
0
0
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: FEBRUARY 27, 1996
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 27224
REQUEST: APPROVAL OF A ONE YEAR TIME EXTENSION (EXTENSION # 1)
FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF 40 ACRES INTO 98 SINGLE FAMILY
AND AMENITY LOTS
LOCATION: ON THE EAST SIDE OF MADISON STREET, 1 /4 MILE SOUTH OF
54TH AVENUE (ATTACHMENT 1)
APPLICANT: ELLIOT/POLIAK FAMILIES
PROPERTY
OWNER: SAME AS APPLICANT
ENGINEER: WARNER ENGINEERING INC. (MR. MICHAEL A. SMITH)
REP: MR. DON CHRISTOPHER (GEORGE BERKEY & ASSOC.)
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: THE CITY COUNCIL, ON JANUARY 21, 1992, ADOPTED A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (E.A.
91-216). THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT
ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT BASED ON
MITIGATION MEASURES IMPOSED. THEREFORE, NO
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS DEEMED
NECESSARY.
GENERAL
PLAN: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH RURAL RESIDENTIAL
OVERLAY (MAX. 3 DU/AC.)
ZONING: R-1 10,000 (ONE FAMILY DWELLING WITH 10,000 SQ. FT. LOT
MIN.) WITH EQUESTRIAN OVERLAY
The proposed tract is on the east side of Madison Street, one -quarter mile south of
54th Avenue. The City annexed this site and adjacent properties (Annexation 5) in
January, 1991.
STAFFRPT.59
In 1991, Madison Estates, a California Joint Venture, filed the original Tentative
Tract Map request to subdivide approximately 40 acres into 98 single family lots.
Also processed concurrently were a general plan amendment and change of zone to
modify the land use designations from Very Low Density to Low Density Residential
and R-1 20,000 to R-1 10,000 respectively. On January 21, 1992, the Council
approved the applicant's request under Resolution 92-14 allowing the redesignation
of property and subdivision of the parcel into single family lots. A copy of the
original tentative map exhibit is attached (Attachment 2). The Equestrian Overlay
District (Chapter 9.117 of the Zoning Code) was placed on this property by the City
in 1993.
In 1993, the State Legislature passed Senate Bill 428 permitting all active tentative
maps two additional years without any penalties to the provisions outlined in the
City's Subdivision Ordinance and Subdivision Map Act. The map's expiration was
therefore extended to January 21, 1996.
The properties on the east side of Madison Street, abutting the site, are zoned for
residential homes and equestrian uses. The properties in the immediate area are
either developed with existing houses, vacant or used for the growing of sod. To the
south, is an approved development proposal to build 1,060 single family dwellings on
265 acres (Specific Plan 90-015). To the west, across Madison Street, is the master
planned PGA West Resort.
The approved tentative tract map allows single family lots on public streets that range
in sire from 10,000 to 13,000 square feet. Access to the project will be from two
public streets along Madison Street (i.e., "A" and "I" Streets). The northern most
street will allow right -in and right -out turn movements, whereas the southern most
street also permits left and right turns in and out of the single family subdivision. The
keeping of horses is not allowed because the lots do not exceed one acre, as required
per Chapter 9.117 of the Municipal Code and the developer is required to disclose to
prospective buyers that the keeping of horses or livestock is allowed on adjoining
properties that meet the equestrian standards (Condition 48). A well site and
retention basin are located on the southern boundary of the tract next to Madison
Street.
Public Notice
The case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on February 16, 1996. All
property owners within 500-feet of the affected area were mailed a copy of the public
hearing notice as required. No negative comments have been received. All
correspondence received before the meeting will be given to the Commission.
STAFFRPT.59
Staff mailed a copy of the applicant's request to all public agencies on December 21,
1995. We received no negative comments. All other comments have been
incorporated into the attached draft Conditions of Approval.
Environmental Assessment 91-216 was prepared for this case during its original
review and approval in 1992. The project engineer in 1992 (Coachella Valley
Engineers) prepared the on -site storm water control plan for the site which showed
that the proposed basin would handle drainage needs for the 98-lot development.
The attached Conditions require the developer to perform other on -site studies prior
to final map or building permit issuance (e.g., noise, archaeological, paleontology,
etc.). Since they propose no map changes, no additional environmental
consideration is warranted for a time extension request pursuant to California
Environmental Quality Act statutes.
F�111FIN94jil191610910
Issue 1 - General Plan Consistency
The City updated the General Plan in 1992. As part of the update, the General Plan
designates this site as Low Density Residential (2-4 dwellings per acre) with a Rural
Residential Overlay (RRO) which limits the density to three dwellings per acre and
establishes design guidelines, including enhanced setbacks, rural fencing, rural
streets, etc. Condition 58 was added to assure compliance with Policy 2-1.2.3 (Rural
Residential Overlay) of the 'General Plan unless a General Plan Amendment is
approved allowing modification to the rural design guidelines.
Issue 2 - Tract Design/Improvements
Access to the tract can occur at two streets along Madison Street, a primary arterial
street 0 00 to 110' r-o-w). All interior streets will be 50 to 60-feet in right-of-way
width and provide access to all single family lots. The Conditions of Approval
require improvements for this project that include streets and other infrastructure
improvements necessary for development. The recommended Conditions will insure
that all on -site work is consistent with City standards.
Issue 3 - Health and Safety
The proposed Conditions of Approval require installation of all necessary
infrastructure improvements. These include water, sewer, streets, and other
necessary improvements. Electric services will be undergrounded and they meet all
requirements of the local service agencies (gas, electric, water, etc. ).
STAFFRPT.59
Issue 4 - Equestrian Trail Corridor
Condition 47 requires the applicant to install an equestrian trail and public sidewalk
on Madison Street in the City's parkway and/or landscape easement. The General
Plan requires an equestrian trail corridor along the east side of Madison Street per the
exhibits contained in the Park and Recreation Element (Chapter 5).
CONCLUSION:
Staff has revised and/or added Conditions to this request to comply with the existing
provisions of the General Plan, Municipal Zoning Code and Subdivision Ordinance in
accordance with current standards and requirements (e.g., Conditions are 2, 3, 4, 7,
10, 16, 30, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, and 58). This subdivision map request is
consistent with all City Codes as Conditioned. No physical constraints prevent the
development of the site as planned. Findings for approval are included in the
attached draft Resolution.
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 96- , recommending to the City Council
approval of the first one year time extension for Tentative Tract Map 27224, subject
to the revised Conditions of Approval as attached.
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Exhibit (Reduced)
3. Large Map Exhibit (PC only)
Pre
USDELL, Associate Planner
Submitted by:
CHRISTINE DI IORIO, Planning Manager
STAFFRPT.59
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A ONE-YEAR TIME
EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 27224 (1ST
EXTENSION) TO ALLOW A 98-LOT SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL LAND SALES SUBDIVISION ON
APPROXIMATELY 40 ACRES
CASE NO.: TTM 27224 (1ST TIME EXTENSION)
APPLICANT: ELLIOT/POLIAK FAMILIES
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the
27th day of February, 1996, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Elliot/Poliak
Families, for a one year extension of a previously approved 98-lot single family subdivision of 40
acres, generally on the east side of Madison Street, 1/4 mile south of 54th Avenue, more particularly
described as:
BEING A SUBDIVISION OF THE NORTH Y2 OF SECTION 15,
TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO
MERIDIAN (APN: 767-320-002)
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), in
that the Community Development Director has determined that the original environmental
assessment (EA 91-216) approved in 1992, is still valid and binding on this development request.
Therefore, no additional environmental review is warranted; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did find
the following Mandatory Findings of approval to justify the recommendation for approval of said
Tentative Tract Map 27224 (1st Time Extension):
A. The proposed map or vesting map is consistent with the City of La Quinta General Plan and
any applicable specific plans.
The project is a Low Density Residential (LDR) District with Rural Residential Overlay per the
provisions of the 1992 General Plan Update; therefore, all provisions of Land Use Element
(Chapter 2) shall be met. Tentative Tract 27244 is consistent with the goals, policies and
intent of the La Quinta General Plan provided conditions contained herein are required to
ensure among other things consistency with the General Plan and mitigation of
environmental consequences pursuant to Environmental Assessment 91-216.
The site is zoned R-1 10,000 (One Family Dwelling) which permits single family
developments, and within the Equestrian Overlay District (Chapter 9.117 of the LQMC). All
plans for future single family homes shall be consistent with the provisions of the Zoning
Code (e.g., specifically Chapter 9.32 et. seq.) in effect at the time building permits are
acquired. The development of the project, as conditioned, will be compatible with the
surrounding area.
RF S0PC.1 a3/conaprv1.363
Resolution 96-
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 conform to City standards of the General Plan
and Subdivision Ordinance as designed. All on -site streets will be public (50-feet wide or
larger) which is consistent with City standards. Access for the single family lots will be
provided from internal public streets that intersect with Madison Street, a primary arterial
street. The density and design standards for the tract will comply with the Rural Residential
Overlay as designated in the Land Use Element of the General Plan (Chapter 2).
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.
The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed land division as approved in 1992.
The original development plan will not cause substantial environmental damage or injury to
fish or wildlife, or their habitat because mitigation measures have been required per
Environmental Assessment 91-216.
Before on -site grading, the applicant shall employ a qualified archaeologist and
paleontologist to conduct on -site research and review for prehistoric and historic remains.
These findings shall be submitted in report form to staff. The consultant's report shall
indicate his or her findings and convey any important information about the site or its
development. Monitoring shall be required during site grading work, if deemed necessary.
D. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public
health problems.
Noise impacts from existing and future road noise on Madison Street shall be analyzed and
mitigation measures shall be employed to reduce exterior noise for those houses along this
major arterial street to levels consistent with Table EH-1 of Chapter 8 of the General Plan
(Environmental Hazards Element). The noise study shall ensure that future roadway noise
is less than 60 dB CNEL in outdoor areas and 45 dB CNEL or less for interior areas to
conform with the City's 1992 General Plan Update. The design of the subdivision, as
conditionally approved, will not cause serious public health problems because they will install
urban improvements based on City, State, and Federal requirements.
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. A traffic signal will be built when warranted at the intersection of Street Lot
"A" with Madison Street. A retention basin and CVWD well site will also be required.
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;
RESOPC. 143/conaprvi.363
Resolution 96-
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 Commission in this
case;
2. That it does hereby reconfirm the conclusions of Environmental Assessment 91-216 as
approved in 1992;
3. That it does now recommend approval of the Tentative Tract Map 27244 (1st Time
Extension) for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission, held on this 27th day of February, 1996, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES::
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JACQUES ABELS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
RESOPC.143/ccnaprv1.363
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 27224, 1st TIME EXTENSION
FEBRUARY 27, 1996
Tentative Tract Map 27224, marked Exhibit "A", shall comply with the requirements and
standards of the State Subdivision Map Act and the City of La Quinta Subdivision Ordinance,
unless otherwise modified by the following conditions.
2. This Tentative Tract Map approval shall expire on January 21, 1997, unless approved for a
2nd extension pursuant to the City of La Quinta Subdivision Ordinance.
Prior to any site disturbance being permitted, including preliminary site work and/or
archaeological investigation, the project developer shall submit and have approved a Fugitive
Dust Control Plan (FDCP), in accordance with Chapter 6.16 of the La Quinta Municipal
Code. The plan shall define all areas proposed for development and shall indicate time lines
for 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.
4. Prior to the issuance of a 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:
♦ City Fire Marshal
♦ City of La Quinta Public Works Department
♦ Community Development Department
♦ Coachella Valley Water District
♦ Coachella Valley Unified School District
♦ Imperial Irrigation District
♦ California Regional Water Quality Board (NPDES Permit)
Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above -mentioned agencies shall be presented
to the Building and Safety Department at the time of the application for a building permit for
the use contemplated herewith.
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.
conaprV 363
Planning Commission Resolution 96-—
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract 27224
February 27,1996
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.
6. Community Development Department approval shall be secured prior to establishing any of
the following facilities uses:
A. Temporary construction facilities.
B. Sales facilities, including their appurtenant signage.
C. On -site advertising/construction signs.
7. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall retain a professionally qualified
archaeologist to conduct a field reconnaissance survey and record search of the project site.
A report of the result of the survey shall be submitted to the Community Development
Department (2 copies) complete with recommendations for further mitigation measures. All
testing shall be completed prior to any grading work commencing. The archaeologist shall
prepare a mitigation plan for review and approval by the Community Development
Department prior to implementation.
During grading activities, the project site shall be monitored by a professionally qualified
archaeological monitor. The monitor is authorized to temporarily divert or stop equipment
in order to investigate exposed cultural deposits.
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the project archaeologist shall submit a final
report to the Community Development Department. The final report shall follow the report
format contained in Preservation Planning Bulletin, No. 4(a), December, 1989 (OBP). The
final report shall be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission for completeness and
acceptability. Acceptance of the final report by the Commission signifies completion of the
archaeological mitigation program.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall retain a professionally qualified
paleontologist to provide monitoring of earth -moving activities, including trenching for both
on -site and off -site related work.
Prior to commencing grading activities, the paleontologist shall conduct a preliminary survey
and surface collection of any paleontological resources. The project paleontologist shall
prepare a monitoring and salvage program for review and approval by the Community
Development Department prior to implementation.
conaprvl.363
Planning Commission Resolution 96-—
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract 27224
February 27,1996
During grading activities, the project site shall be monitored by a professionally qualified
paleontologist who maintains the necessary paleontologic collecting permits and repository
agreements. In areas of known high potential, the project paleontologist may designate a
paleontologic monitor to be present during 100% of the earth -moving activities. If, after 50%
of the grading is completed, it can be demonstrated that the level of monitoring should be
reduced, the project paleontologist may so amend the mitigation program. The paleontologic
monitor(s) is authorized to temporarily divert equipment while removing fossils.
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the project paleontologist shall submit a final
report to the Community Development Department. The final report shall discuss the
methods used, results of the surface survey, identification, cataloging, curation, and storage
of fossil materials collected; and the significance of the paleontological resources. A final
report of the finds and their significance after all operations are complete shall be reviewed
by the Historic Preservation Commission for acceptability. Acceptance of the final report for
the project by the Historic Preservation Commission signifies completion of the program of
mitigation.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall have retained a qualified cultural
resources management firm and completed the testing and data recovery as noted in the plan.
The management firm shall monitor the grading activity as required by the plan or testing
results.
A list of the qualified archaeological monitor(s), cultural resources management firm
employees, and any assistant(s)/representative(s), 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.
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 areas reasonably suspected to overlie
adjacent human remains until appropriate mitigation measures are completed.
Upon completion of the data recovery, the Developer shall cause three copies of the final
report containing the data analysis to be prepared and published and submitted to the
Community Development Department.
8. Street name proposals (3 per street) shall be submitted for review and approval by the
Community Development Department prior to recordation of a portion of the final map.
Street name signs shall be furnished and installed by the developer in accordance with
standards of the City Engineer. Sign type and design shall be subject to review and approval
of the Community Development Department and the Public Works Department.
conaprvl.363
Planning Commission Resolution 96-—
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract 27224
February 27, 1996
9. Prior to final map approval by the City Council, the applicant shall meet the parkland
dedication requirement as set forth in Section 13.24.030, La Quinta Subdivision Ordinance,
by paying parkland fees in -lieu, as may be determined in accordance with said Section.
10. A noise study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer, to be submitted to the
Community Development Department for review and approval prior to final map approval.
The study shall concentrate on noise impacts on the tract from perimeter arterial streets, and
recommend alternative mitigation techniques. Recommendations of the study shall be
incorporated into the tract design. The study shall consider use of building setbacks,
engineering design, building orientation, noise barriers (berming, walls, and landscaping, etc.),
and other techniques so as to avoid the isolated appearance given by walled developments.
The Rural Residential Overlay provisions of Chapter 2 of the General Plan shall be met during
the preparation of the noise study.
11. If the tract is phased, tract phasing plans, including phasing of public improvements, shall be
submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department and Public
Works Department prior to final map approval.
12. All exterior lighting including that for signs and landscaping shall comply with "Dark Sky"
Ordinance (Chapter 9.210 of the Municipal Zoning Code).
FIRE ]DEPARTMENT
13. Schedule a fire protection approved super fire hydrants, (6" x 4" x 2-1/2" x 2-1/2") shall be
located at each street intersection spaced not more than 330 feet apart in any direction with
no portion of any frontage more than 165 feet from a fire hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall
be 1000 gpm for two hours duration at 20 psi.
14. Prior to recordation of the final map, applicant/developer shall furnish one blueline copy of
the water system plan to the Fire Department for review/approval. Plans shall conform to the
fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements.
Plans shall be signed/approved 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".
15. The required water system including fire hydrants shall 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.
conaprv1.363
Planning Commission Resolution 96-—
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract 27224
February 27, 1996
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
16. Applicant shall dedicate public street right-of-way and utility easements in conformance with
the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable Specific Plans if any, and as required by
the City Engineer, as follows:
A. Right-of-way geometry for cul-de-sacs, knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall
conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #800, #801, and #805
respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
B. Madison Street - Primary Arterial, 55-foot half width;
C. "A" Street (Madison to "IT) - Divided, each side shall be 37.5 feet wide;
D. On -site Through Streets - Local Street, 60-foot full width;
E. On -site Cul-de-sacs, 50-foot full width.
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 developer shall grant temporary public access easements to those areas
within 60 days of written request by the City.
Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes,
bus turnouts, etc.
17. Applicant shall provide a fully improved landscaped setback lot of noted width adjacent to
the following street right-of-way(s):
A. Madison Street, 20-feet wide;
B. "A" Street (Madison to "I ), 7-feet wide;
18. Applicant shall provide a fully improved 11-foot wide landscaped raised median in "A" Street
between Madison and "H" Street. The median shall be a lettered lot on the subdivision map.
19. Applicant shall vacate vehicle access rights to Madison Street from all abutting lots, except
the CVWD well site. Access to Madison Street from this land division shall be restricted to
street intersections only.
20. Turning movements of traffic accessing the subject subdivision from adjoining public streets
shall be as follows:
A. Madison Street
1. "A" Street: left and right turns in and out are allowed;
2. "I" Street: right turn in and out only.
conaprvl.363
Planning Commission Resolution 96-—
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract 27224
February 27, 1996
21. The median island on Madison Street shall have no opening in it to permit vehicular left turn
movements into or out of the subdivision where "I" Street intersects Madison Street.
The access locations into the subdivision shall be approximately 635 and 1155 feet north of
the southerly tract boundary.
22. Applicant shall have street improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer. Street
improvements shall be designed and constructed for all streets within the proposed
subdivision and for off -site streets as required by these conditions of approval. All street
improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC and adopted
Standard Drawings, and City Engineer and shall include all appurtenant components required
by same, except mid -block street lighting, such as but not limited to traffic signs and
channelization markings, street name signs, sidewalks, and raised medians where required by
the City General Plan. Street design shall take into account the soil strength, anticipated traffic
loading, and design life. The minimum structural section for residential streets shall be 3" AC
over 4" Class 2 Base.
Miscellaneous incidental improvements and enhancements to existing improvements where
joined by the newly required improvements shall be designed and constructed as required by
the City engineer to assure the new and existing improvements are appropriate integrated to
provide a finished product that conforms with City standards and practices. This includes
tapered off -site street transitions that extend beyond tract boundaries and join the widened
and existing street sections.
The following specific street widths shall be constructed to conform with the General Plan
street type noted therewith:
A. ON -SITE STREETS
1. A Street (Madison to H) - divided street, 27 feet wide between curb faces for
each roadway.
2. A Street (H to B), B, C, D, E, H, and I Streets - full width Local Street, 40
feet wide, refer to Std Dwg # 104;
3. F, G, and J Streets - full width Local Street cul-de-sac, 36 feet wide, refer to
Std. Dwg #800.
B. OFF -SITE STREETS
The City is contemplating adoption of a major thorough fare improvement ordinance
which is intended to distribute the improvement cost of major thoroughfare
construction evenly and fairly on undeveloped land at the time the land is subdivided
or developed for beneficial use. If the ordinance is adopted, all land division maps
conaprvl.363
Planning Commission Resolution 96-—
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract 27224
February 27, 1996
within this project shall be subject to exaction by said ordinance, provided the
ordinance is adopted 60 days prior to recordation of the map.
If in the event, the Major Thoroughfare Improvement Ordinance is not adopted, the off -site
street improvements for this project shall be as follows:
Madison Street (portion contiguous to tract) - install remaining portion of Primary
Arterial (86' width option) improvements, refer to Std Dwg #100.
23. Applicant shall construct, or enter into agreement to construct, the site grading, off -site public
improvements and utilities, and on -site common area improvements before the final map is
recorded. Applicant shall pay cash, in lieu of and equivalent to the respective fair -share
construction cost, for those improvements that the applicant has partial cost responsibility and
construction must be deferred until the full complement of funding is available. Payment of
cash may be deferred to a future date mutually agreed upon by applicant and City, provided
security for said future payment is posted by applicant.
24. A thorough preliminary engineering, geological, and soils engineering investigation shall be
conducted with a report submitted for review along with grading plan. The report
recommendations shall be incorporated into the grading plan design prior to grading plan
approval. The soils engineer and/or the engineering geologist must certify to the adequacy of
the grading plan. A statement shall appear on the final subdivision map that a soils report has
been prepared for the tract pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health and Safety Code.
25. The tract grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and approved by the
City Engineer prior to final map approval.
26. The tract shall be designed and graded in a manner so the difference in building pad elevations
between contiguous lots that share a common street frontage or join lots with adjoining
existing tracts or approved tentative tracts does not exceed three (3.0) feet. The pad
elevations of contiguous lots within the subject tract that do not share a common street shall
not exceed five (5.0) feet.
If applicant is unable to comply with the pad elevation differential requirement, the City will
consider and may approve other alternatives that satisfy the City's intent to promote and
ensure community acceptance and buyer satisfaction with the proposed development.
27. The tract shall be graded in a manner that permits storm flow in excess of the retention basin
capacity to flow out of the tract through a designated emergency overflow outlet and into the
historic drainage relief route. Similarly, the tract shall be graded in a manner that anticipates
receiving storm flow from adjoining property at locations that have historically received flow.
conaprvl.363
Planning Commission Resolution 96-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract 27224
February 27,1996
28. Storm water run-off produced in 24 hours by a 100-year storm shall be retained on site in
landscaped retention basin(s) designed for a maximum water depth not to exceed six feet. The
basin slopes shall not exceed 3:1. The percolation rate shall be considered to be zero inches
per hour unless applicant provides site -specific data that indicates otherwise. Other
requirements include, but are not limited to, a grassed ground surface with permanent
irrigation improvements, and appurtenant structural drainage amenities all of which shall be
designed and constructed in accordance with requirements deemed necessary by the City
Engineer.
The tributary drainage area for which the applicant is responsible shall extend to the centerline
of any public street contiguous to the site.
29. A trickling sand filter and leachfield shall be installed in the retention basin to percolate
nuisance water in conformance with requirements of the City Engineer. The sand filter and
leach field shall be sized to percolate 22 gallons per 1000 square feet of lot area per day.
30. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect for the
landscaped lots. The plans and proposed landscaping improvements shall be in conformance
with requirements of the Community Development Director, City Engineer, and Coachella
Valley Water District (Chapter 8.13 of the LQMC) and the plans shall be signed by these
officials prior to construction.
31. Applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed grading, landscaping and irrigation plans to the
Coachella Valley Water District for review and approval with respect to the District's Water
Management Program.
32. Applicant shall maintain the landscaped areas of the subdivision such as the landscaped
setback lots and retention basins until accepted by the City Engineer for maintenance by the
Lighting and Landscape District.
33. Applicant shall construct a six-foot wide meandering sidewalk in the easterly parkway and
landscaped setback lot along Madison Street.
34. Applicant shall provide a blanket easement that covers the entire landscaped setback lots for
the purpose of meandering public sidewalk and equestrian trail.
35. All existing and proposed telecommunication, television cable, and electric power lines which
the power authority will accept underground, that are adjacent to the proposed site or on -site,
shall be installed in underground facilities.
conaprvl.363
Planning Commission Resolution 96-—
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract 27224
February 27,1996
36. Underground utilities that lie directly under street improvements or portions thereof shall be
installed, with trenches compacted to City standards, prior to installation of that portion of
the street improvements. A soils engineer retained by applicant shall provide certified reports
of soil compaction tests for review by the City engineer.
37. 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 the
final map without the approval of the City Engineer.
38. Applicant shall pay all fees charged by the City as required for processing, plan checking and
construction inspection. The fee amount(s) shall be those which are in effect at the time the
work is undertaken and accomplished by the City.
39. Applicant shall retain a California registered civil engineer, or designate one who is on
applicant's stag, to exercise sufficient supervision and quality control during construction of
the tract grading and improvements to certify compliance with the plans, specifications,
applicable codes, and ordinances. The engineer retained or designated by the applicant to
implement this responsibility shall provide the following certifications and documents upon
completion of construction:
A. The engineer shall sign and seal a statement placed on the "as built" plans that says
"all (grading and grades) (improvements) on these plans were properly monitored by
qualified personnel under my supervision during construction for compliance with the
plans and specifications and the work shown hereon was constructed as approved,
except where otherwise noted hereon and specifically acknowledged by the City
Engineer".
B. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the engineer shall provide a separate
document, signed and sealed, to the City Engineer that documents the building pad
elevations. The document shall, for each lot in the tract, state the pad elevation
approved on the grading plan, the "as built" elevation, and clearly identify the
difference, if any. The data shall be organized by tract phase and lot number and shall
be cumulative if the data is submitted at different times.
C. Provide to the City Engineer a signed set of "as built" reproducible drawings of the
site grading and all improvements installed by the applicant.
40. Applicant is responsible for the cost to design and install a traffic signal at the following
locations:
A. Madison Street at 54th Avenue; 6.25% fair -share responsibility.
B. Madison Street at "A" Street; 50% fair -share responsibility.
conaprvl.363
Planning Commission Resolution 96-—
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract 27224
February 27, 1996
SPECIAL
41. All single family homes shall be single story and no higher than 24 feet as measured from
building pad elevation as noted on the approved grading plan.
42. The production plans shall be approved by the Planning Commission prior to the submission
of the plans to the Building and Safety Department for construction permit issuance via a plot
plan application.
43. The minimum lot size shall be 10,000 square feet. The tract map shall be revised and
submitted to the Community Development Department prior to final map submission.
44. The provisions of the R-1 Zoning designation shall apply unless modified herein with all
homes with sloped roofs having clay or concrete tile.
45. All homes shall be required to install front yard landscaping prior to final occupancy. Each
lot shall have two 15-gallon shade trees (corner lots five 15-gallon trees), ten 5-gallon shrubs
and other landscaping (e.g., turf, turf and gravel, etc.), acceptable to the Community
Development Department. The applicant/developer is encouraged to use drought resistant and
native plant materials for the project. The landscaping concept shall be approved currently
with the review of the model homes plans by the Planning Commission. The applicant will be
permitted to post securities to insure that the front yard landscaping is installed for each home
if the applicant does not have plant material installed at the time the house is finaled. All
landscaping materials shall be installed within 60 days after occupancy clearances have been
given.
46. The mitigation measures of Environmental Assessment 91-216 shall be met.
47. An equestrian trail shall be provided between the east edge of the sidewalk and the property
line. The trail and the sidewalk shall be divided by a split rail fence and the trail should be
eight feet wide.
48. The developer shall disclose to the prospective buyers of the lots that the keeping of horses
or other livestock will not be allowed. The developer shall also disclose that the keeping of
horses on abutting properties is permitted if the property is zoned R-1 20,000 or larger
pursuant to the City's Municipal Zoning Code.
49. Impacts shall be mitigated in accordance with the provisions of AB 1600, Section 53080 and
63995 of the Government Code or the then existing legislation and/or local ordinances
adopted pursuant thereto or any applicable mitigation agreement entered into by the
developer and the District. In addition, the City, developer and the Coachella Valley Unified
School District shall cooperate in exploring alternatives to provide lands or facilities to the
District, through joint use agreements, dedications, or Mello -Roos District formation.
conaprv:L363
Planning Commission Resolution 96-—
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract 27224
February 27, 1996
50. Perimeter security walls where required by the Noise Study shall be subject to the following
standards:
A. Setback from right-of-way lines along Madison Street shall average 30 feet.
B. All wall designs, including location and materials, shall be subject to review by the
Planning Commission.
C. Perimeter wall shall incorporate noise abatement requirements.
MISCELLANEOUS
51. 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 shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer and are not
approved for construction until they are signed.
"Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths, gates and
entryways, 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.
52. The City may maintain standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements of
construction. For a fee established by City resolution, the developer may acquire standard
plan and/or detail sheets from the City.
When final plans are approved by the City, the developer shall furnish accurate computer files
of the complete, approved plans on storage media and in program format acceptable the City
Engineer.
53. 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.
conaprvI.363
Planning Commission Resolution 96-—
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract 27224
February 27,1996
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 appropriate authority that the applicant has met all
requirements for service to lots within the subdivision.
54. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval
of the City Engineer.
55. 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.
56. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record
drawings of all plans which were signed by the City Engineer. Each sheet of the drawings
shall have the words "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" clearly marked on
each sheet and be stamped and signed by the Engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy
of the drawings.
57. The applicant shall pay all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and
construction inspection. Deposit and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant
makes application for the plan checks and permits.
58. The provisions of the Rural Residential Overlay (General Plan Policy 2-1.2.3) shall be met
during the preparation of the final map and prior to building permit issuance or a General Plan
Amendment shall be approved.
conaprvi.363
Attachment 1
Vicinity Map
Case No: TTM 27224
Location: E. of Madison St., 1/4 mi.
South of 54th Avenue
Applicant: EIliot/Poliak Families
Legal Description: APN 767-320-
002
r7667-32 r. R. A. ozo _ 059 N. of SEC.15, T 6S, RI-E
2/
--� / 5 4th Avenue
stems ho i s a
i
Vacant Si-ngle Family
M?5 Estate
78 /BAc.r
J9.09Ar.
�1
� tiJ
cei a
79 ------
3/
V
A
0
AV
Vacant acant
r car Sod Farm Ex. Home Vacant
or
Y s Attachment 2
•_• - I sm, ua!21
rr"-._ -lid • a
tea. t i Au ;
.
i Lam.
Z 2 vi y n.9
N V U I ® -
t., J �•t •I H ` � I• h�
t �, �-
tt r • - • a; n. CL .
�u.._._._ ._ IF00 - 02C - 491. 'Nd'tl
v
ISM tl9d
-44
w
CC\2
s3
C\2
w
lop
C-)
E—
o�
0
PH #3
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: FEBRUARY 27, 1996
CASE NUMBERS: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 95-051 AND ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT 96-312
REQUESTS: 1.) 'CERTIFY THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT;
2.) APPROVE A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO REMOVE THE
RURAL RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY (RRO) DESIGNATION ON ALL
PROPERTIES DESIGNATED AS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ON
THE LAND USE POLICY DIAGRAM
LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE OF 52ND AVENUE, EAST OF JEFFERSON STREET,
NORTH AND SOUTH OF 54TH AVENUE, AND EAST OF
MADISON STREET (ATTACHMENT 1)
APPLICANTS: MR. DWIGHT STUART, MR. WALLY FRIEND AND THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA
PROPERTY
OWNERS: VARIOUS (NOTED HEREIN)
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS
COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-312 FOR THE
PROPOSED PROJECT. BASED UPON THIS ASSESSMENT, THE
PROJECT COULD NOT HAVE AN EFFECT UPON THE
ENVIRONMENT. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN
PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT.
W�KkCH; 1111► I
The 1992 General Plan Update established the Rural Residential Overlay on 1,620
acres designated on the General Plan Map as Very Low or Low Density Residential.
The goal of this overlay district is "to facilitate the preservation and development of
a rural character in desirable locations in the City." To carry out this goal, the overlay
reduces the density by one unit per acre in each land use designation and requires
design standards reinforcing the rural theme. Prior to the implementation of the RRO
7-STAAFFRPT.055
density requirements, subdivisions were approved with an underlying density of 2-4
du/ac. for Low Density Residential and 0-2 du./ac. for Very Low Density Residential.
The two property owners initiating the general plan amendment request are:
1. r. Dwight Stuart (for Stuart Enterprises) - The vacant parcels are east of
Jefferson Street, south of 52nd Avenue, north of 53rd Avenue, on the east
and west sides of Madison Street. In 1992, the City Council approved the
planned development consisting of 850 single family dwelling units on 275.36
acres under Specific Plan 90-020. The General Plan designation is Low Density
Residential and the Zoning is R-1. Minimum lot sizes are 7,200 square feet.
A portion of the Specific Plan area, 36 acres, is designated as Very Low
Density Residential.
2. Mr. Wally/ Friend (for LQ33 Partnership) - The two parcels, 33.3 acres, are
located at the northeast corner of Jefferson Street and 53rd Avenue. The City
Council approved a 94-lot single family residential subdivision under Tentative
Tract Map 26444. The General Plan designation is Low Density Residential
and the Zoning is R-1. Minimum lot sizes are 7,200 square feet.
Staff is recommending removal of the following properties because they are also
designated as Low Density Residential on the General Plan Map and Zoned R-1, with
the exception of one parcel that is zoned R-1, 10,000:
1. Mr. Arthur Aloer - Owner of the 2.35 acre landscape cactus nursery at 52-750
Jefferson Street that is surrounded by TTM 26444.
2. Fowler Packing Co.. Inc. - The property, 223.37 acres, is bounded by
Jefferson Street, 53th and 54th Avenues, and Madison Street. A vineyard is
located on Lot 2 and includes an old packing house and single family home.
3. MsJeanne A. Brown - The parcel, 39.09 acres, is on the north side of 54th
Avenue, 1,100 feet east of Jefferson Street. Currently, the site is used for
citrus production.
4. LLC ISSAM - The vacant parcel, 38.21 acres, is located at the northwest
corner of 54th Avenue and Madison Street.
5. Mr. John P. Hooten - The vacant triangular parcel, 0.4 acres, is located south
of the American Canal, west of Mr. Stuart's property and north of Mr. Friend's
property.
6. E11iot/Poliak Families - The 98-lot single family subdivision, 40 acres, is located
on the east side of Madison Street, south of 54th Avenue. This subdivision is
zoned R-1 10,000.
7-s,rAFFRPT.055
Composite maps of properties north of 54th Avenue are attached (Attachments 2A
and 2B - Property Ownership Exhibits, Attachments 3A and 3B - Land Use Exhibits).
The total acreage of Low Density Residential with the Rural Residential Overlay is
approximately 615 acres.
North: R-1 20,000/R-2 Vacant, Single Family Homes,
Nurseries, IID Substation, and County
of Riverside
South: CPS/R-2 PGA Resort and Fire Station 70
East: R-1 20,000 Single Family Homes, Pastures, Vacant
West: R-2/CPS Vacant (Oak Tree Specific Plan - East
of Jefferson Street), Vacant, Single
Family
On December 20, 1995, staff received requests from Mr. Dwight Stuart and Mr.
Wally Friend to amend the City's Land Use Element of the General Plan removing the
Rural Residential Overlay (RRO) from their properties. Both property owners feel that
the City's adoption of the 1992 General Plan adversely impacts their approved
development plans for two reasons. The first reason is that their parcels are
designated for low density residential development, 2-4 dwellings per acre (thirty-six
acres of Mr. Stuart's property, east of Madison Street, is designated as very low
residential), however, in applying the Rural Residential Overlay the density is reduced
to three units per acre. Secondly, the General Plan Policies require Rural Residential
design standards such as enhanced setbacks, rural fencing (solid block walls are
prohibited), and architectural styles of buildings emphasizing the rural theme.
The applicants' properties are approved for traditional single family housing, in
accordance with the R-1 development standards, with minimum 7,200 square foot
lot sizes and average lot widths of 60 feet. Requiring the additional 20 foot front
yard setback, for a total of 40 feet, combined with the small sized lot and a limited
frontage will not achieve the characteristics typical of a rural residential neighborhood
(Attachment 4).
Staff placed an 1 /B page ad in the Desert Sun newspaper on February 5, 1996,
notifying the community of this hearing. Also, staff mailed the public notice to all
property owners affected by the request or within 300-feet of the affected area as
7—STAFFRPT.055
o '�
required. To date, no negative written comments have been received; all
correspondence received will be given to the Commission before or at the meeting.
An Environmental Assessment was prepared to analyze the effects of this proposal
under current standards and guidelines. Attached for your review and consideration
is the Environmental Checklist accompanied by staff's explanations for the noted
responses. Based on the completed environmental analysis, staff is recommending
the filing of a Negative Declaration for the project (Attachment 5).
ls,%LmA - Rural Characteristics
The removal of the RR Overlay from all properties designated on the existing General
Plan Map as Low Density Residential (LDR) is warranted because the LDR designation
is intended to allow more urban development, such as that which is occurring in
North La Quinta (i.e., 7,200 sq. ft. or larger lots). The RRO district is appropriate for
the Very Low Density Residential designated areas because the lots are greater than
0.3 acres in size as required by the zoning (e.g., R-1 14,000 or R-1 20,000). The
rural characteristics of large lots, generous setbacks, open space and low density are
better suited for these size lots. Staff recommends removing the RR Overlay from all
properties with the LDR land use designation.
Issue 2 - Removal of the RRO density requirements
The proposed removal of the Rural Residential Overlay from all Low Density
Residential, 615 acres, amounts to an increase of 615 units. However, as
exemplified by the two applicants' subdivisions, the approved densities exceed the
density requirements of the RRO by only 35 units over a 309-acre area. This
indicates that the remainder of the Low Density Residential area will not develop to
the high end of the density range. Allowing an increase to the density will not be a
significant because the general existing conditions of the area will not substantially
change due to existing development approvals and land uses.
i ►l1l40181-1119 [tie
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 96- , recommending to the City
Council approval of the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (EA 96-
312) according to the findings set forth in the attached Resolution.
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 96- , recommending to the City
Council approval of General Plan Amendment 95-051 removing the Rural
7-STAFFRPT.055
Residential Overlay designation from the Low Density Residential (LDR) land
use classification on the Land Use Policy Diagram.
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Property Ownership Maps (A and B)
3. Land Use Maps (A and B)
4. General Plan Policy 2-1.2.3, Rural Residential Design Guidelines
5. Environmental Documents (PC Only - On File with Staff)
7-ST;AFFRPT.055
Prepared by:
WELL, Associate Planner
Submitted by:
CHRISTINE DI IORIO,.Planning Manager
4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-312 PREPARED
FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 95-051
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-312
WALLY FRIEND/STUART ENTERPRISES
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the
27th day of February, 1996, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental
Assessment 96-312 and General Plan Amendment 95-051; and,
WHEREAS, said General Plan Amendment 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 96-312); and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that said General Plan
Amendment will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and that a Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed; and
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all
interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts,
findings, and reasons to justify recommending certification of said Environmental Assessment:
1. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or
general welfare of the community, either indirectly or directly, in that no significant
impacts can be identified beyond those associated with the current General Plan
designation for the area.
2. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop
bellow self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory, as no new impacts
beyond those associated with the current General Plan have been identified.
3. The proposed General Plan Amendment does not have the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. No significant
effects on environmental factors have been identified.
resapc.175 t � �
Planning Commission Resolution 96-_
4. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not result in impacts which are individually
limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development
in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be significantly
affected by the Amendment.
5. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not have environmental effects that will
adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant
impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public
services.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of La Quinta, California as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission for this Environmental Assessment.
2. That it does hereby recommend that the City Council certify Environmental Assessment
96-312 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 27th day of February, 1996, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JACQUES ABELS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
resop:.175
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF
A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO REMOVE THE
RURAL RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY (RRO) DESIGNATION
ON ALL PROPERTIES DESIGNATED AS LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL (LDR) ON THE LAND USE POLICY
DIAGRAM.
CASE NO. GPA 95-051- DWIGHT STUART,
WALLY FRIEND, AND CITY OF LA QUINTA
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did on the
27th day of February, 1996, hold a duly noticed Public Meeting to consider the request of Mr.
Dwight Stuart, Mr. Wally Friend, and the City of La Quinta, to amend the City's General Plan to
remove the Rural Residential Overlay (RRO) on all properties designated as Low Density Residential
on the Land Use Policy Diagram, more particularly described as:
A PORTION OF SECTIONS 9 AND 15, T6S, R7E, SBBM (Exhibit "A")
WHEREAS, said General Plan Amendment has complied with the requirements of
"The Rules to Implement the California Environmental quality Act of 1970" (as amended and adopted
in City Council Resolution 83-68), in that the Community Development Director conducted an initial
study and has determined that the proposed General Plan Amendment will not have a significant
adverse impact on the environment; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find
the following facts and reasons to justify the approval of said General Plan Amendment:
The proposed removal of the Rural Residential Overlay (RRO) from all Low Density
Residential designated areas has the potential to increase the density by 615 units. However,
allowing an increase to the density will not be significant because the general conditions of
the area will not substantially change due to existing development proposals and land uses.
2. The removal of the Rural Residential Overlay for all properties designated as Low Density
Residential is, warranted because of the LDR designation is intended to allow more urban
development with minimum 7,200 square foot minimum lot sizes and average widths of 60
feet. This small lot size combined with the required 40-foot front yard setback and limited
frontage does not achieve the characteristics typical of a rural residential neighborhood.
resope.178
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 adoption of the Negative Declaration;
3. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not have environmental effects that will
adversely affect humans, either directly or indirectly, with the implementation of this proposal.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission held on this 27th day of February, 1996, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JACQUES ABELS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY BERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta
resopc.178
4
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 95-051
EXHIBIT "A"
50th Avenue
52nd Avenue
c
.PCiA We , st Resort
,
LOCATION MAP ATTACHMENT 1
GPA 95-051
cc
50th Avenue `
rNCNC
' I
7C �
0
C 4
52nd Avenue
c
Cokb-f
rAmW
w53rdAvenue
i
i
i
i
i
54th Avenue i
r: PGA West Resort
a�
-_ cod
y A
■ ■
7p
`i
C
N �
:s
1A0 V w
51
1I70 OW �1 I
0
m �
paa4s uosipvw
Attachment 2A
0
Z
O
m
Q
d•
d•
y
y
W
r-+
Cn Cd
2
z
Cn
ob
• �
Qr
CnA
.0
a
M
o
CY
•�
o ti
...
t
0 0
0 0 0`
14 � Imo
` b
i Of
� r
U
Q
1/7O g
i L d779NOd09
S+_ j/1O OIONI
aa.Tis uoslalfar - — — -
N
��■ixn
IRINIII
Attachment 2B
me
is ----- halls uosipvw ° �L.
C
�
t
a
t
3
j
t
Q
�
I
>
M
8
0
U
O
U
1 ~
0
O M
0 �
� p
Z O
1+1 q
V1170
q C'773N7V0J
V773N aoN; —= 1 �aaa�s uos.�a��ar � �
m�
� N �
� o t
_TJ R ii
-I)1' L�
d
CI'
F�1
�
V]
ram-
'` e
N
�
U
s ®oC
L
M 4
dT73N'ov,
e
lowliq uosTp73W
Attachment 3A
q
n
0
4
h
I �
u
aa.z�s uos.zajjar — — -
U
u
ln0
d779N0d00
1/b 0I0NI
I
I
011111111
14-Itm1 1 11 Jill
1
I
N
h
O
Attachment 3 B o
1a0.ITS UOSIPUW
b
Q
O
�O
I
"C3 O
Y+�
A
i7
C O
O
M
a
o
7
�+
c O
a
Qv n3.L doh
T-aoNi
s _--- —
- ----
:[S_
- ' 1
Z�s u0s�a ar
b
!3/' j ►�
I
_
_ — _
Cd
_
a
Rural Residential Policies
Policy, 2-1.2.2 of the Land Use Element establishes the allowable density for a project
in the RRO as follows:
* 0 to 1 dwelling per acre for properties in the Very Low Density
Residential (VLDR) areas.
* 0 to 3 dwellings per acre for properties in the Low Density Residential
(LDR) areas.
Policy 2-1.2.3 of the Land Use Element provides design guidelines as follows:
* All development in areas subject to the RRO shall utilize rural street
cross -sections (e.g., no vertical curb and gutter).
* The front yard setbacks of all structures shall be increased an additional
20 feet beyond the minimum specified in the applicable zoning district.
* Architectural styles of buildings shall emphasize a rural theme (e.g.,
Ranch, Western, Southwest or Mission styles).
* Fencing guidelines representative of a rural, equestrian theme shall be
developed for each project. Solid, opaque block walls shall be
prohibited.
* Equestrian paths adjacent to specified collector and arterial streets shall
be required to link residential areas with trail systems and Lake Cahuilla
County Park.
7-ST.AFFRPT.055
Attachment 5
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Environmental Assessment No. 96-312
Case No.: OPA 95-051 Date: January 29, 1996
I.
Name of Proponent: ' Wally Friend/Stuart Enterprises
Address: c/o Winchester Asset Development Company, Mr. Craig Bryant
41-865 Boardwalk, Suite 101, Palm Desert, CA 92211
Phone: 619-340-3575
Agency Requiring Checklist: City of La Quinta
Project Name (if applicable): General Plan Amendment to diminish the Rural Residential
Overlay designation and revise associated standards.
CITY OF LA QUINTA
Community Development Department
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California 92253
resopc.175 s
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
III. DETERMINATION.
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
Transportation/Circulation
Biological Resources
Energy and Mineral Resources
Risk of Upset and Human Health
Noise
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Public Services
Utilities
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. X
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on
the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because
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 January 12, 1996
Printed Name and Title Wallace H. Nesbit, Associate Planner
For CITY OF LA QUINTA, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
i
Potentially
Potentially
Significant Less Than
Significant
Unless Significant No
Impact
Mitigated Impact Impact
3.1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a)
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
X
(source #(s):
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?
X
b)
Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped
area or extension of major infrastructure)?
X
c)
Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing?
X
3.3. EARTH AND GEOLOGY. Would the project result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a)
Fault 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
f)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading or fill?
X
g) Subsidence of the land?
h) Expansive soils?
i) Unique geologic or physical features?
X
X
X
c13
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
3.4. 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 glow of groundwater? X
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? X
3.5. 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? X
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? X
d) Create objectional odors? X
iii
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
3.6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the project
result in:
a)
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
X
b)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g. farm equipment)?
X
c)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses?
X
d)
Insufficient parking capacity on site or off site?
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
3.7. 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,
X
insects, animals, and birds?
b)
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
X
c)
Locally designated natural communities (e.g.* oak
forest, (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
X
iv
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
3.8. 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?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees?
3.10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
X
X
K1
X
X
X
X
X
X
a) - Increases in existing noise levels? X
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X
3.11. 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
v
».x
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant
No
Impact Mitigated Impact
Impact
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
X
e) Other governmental services?
X
3.12. UTILITIES.
Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or
substantial alternations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas?
X
b) Communications systems?
X
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities?
X
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
X
e) Storm water drainage?
X
f) Solid waste disposal?
X
3.13. 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
3.14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? X
b) Disturb archaeological resources? X
c) Affect historical resources? X
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? X
e) Restrict existing religious of sacred uses within the
potential impact area? X
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
3.15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks of other recreational facilities? X
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
4. MANDATORY 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?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-
term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental
goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects).
d) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
EARLIER ANALYSES.
X
X
X
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or
mare effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed 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.
vii
:� 4
INITIAL STUDY - ADDENDUM
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-312
Prepared for:
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT #95-051
Tentative Tract 26444/SPECIFIC PLAN #90-020
Wally Friend/Stuart Enterprises
Prepared by:
Community Development Department
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California 92253
January 29,1996
2
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
2 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
4
2.6 Related Projects
5
3 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
5
3.1 Land Use and Planning
5
3.2 Population and Housing
6
3.3 Earth Resources
8
3.4 Water
10
3.5 Air Quality
11
3.6 Transportation/Circulation
12
3.7 Biological Resources
14
3.8 Energy and Mineral Resources
15
3.9 Risk of Upset/Human Health
15
3.10 Noise
16
3.11 Public Services
17
3.12 Utilities
18
3.13 Aesthetics
19
3.14 Cultural Resources
20
3.15 Recreation
21
4 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
22
5 EARLIER ANALYSIS
22
,1 .
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW
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). A 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 proposal.
1.2 PURPOSE OF THE IMTIAL STUDY
As part of the environmental review for the proposed amendment, the City of La Quinta Community
Development Department has prepared this Initial Study. This document provides a basis for
determining the nature and scope of the subsequent environmental review for the amendment. The
purposes of the initial Study, as stated in Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines, include the following:
• To provide the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an
environmental impact report (EIR) or a negative declaration for the amendment;
• 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.
1.3 BACKGROUND OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project was deemed subject to the environmental review requirements of CEQA in light
of the proposed amendment to the La Quinta General Plan (LQGP). The Environmental Officer for the
Community Development Department prepared this Initial Study and addendum for review and
certification by the Planning Commission and City Council for the City of La Quinta.
1.4 SUNUM ARY OF PRELEM INARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
This Initial Study did not indicate any potential for significant environmental impacts in any of the issue
areas in the Environmental Checklist. As a result, no mitigation measures are recommended, and a
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact will be recommended for this project.
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 southwestern portion of the
Coachella Valley. 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 federal and County lands to the
south. The City of La Quinta was incorporated in May, 1982.
2.2 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
The proposed amendment request involves removal of General Plan rural standards from approximately
309 acres, for which two residential projects are approved consisting of 948 units. A total of 612 acres
could be affected by this amendment, as additional property owners within the RRO area were notified
of the applicant's request.
2.3 OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
Not applicable.
2.4 OBJECTIVES
The objective of the applicants is to accommodate their currently approved projects under the General
Plan.
2.5 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
A discretionary action is an action taken by a government agency (for this project, the government
agency is the City of La Quinta) that calls for the exercise of judgment in deciding whether to approve
a project. The proposed project will require discretionary approval from the Planning Commission and
City Council for the following:
* Approval of a General Plan Amendment for the project;
* Certification of the Environmental Assessment for the project.
�,p
2.6 RELATED PROJECTS
There are several projects within the Rural Residential Overlay (RRO) designation which may be
affected by this amendment, if expanded beyond the subject 615 acres. The projects related to this
application are Tract 26444, recently extended for 94 lots on 31.5 acres; and Specific Plan 90-020,
approved for 850 units on 273 acres. The following table shows the RRO area's approved projects:
PROJECT
ACREAGE
NO. OF UNITS
DENSITY
Specific Plan 90-020
273
850
3.11 (a)
Tract 26444
31.5
94
2.98 (a)
Tract 24774*
40*
119*
2.97 (a)
Tract 27224
40
98
2.45 (a)
Tract 26768
20
21
1.05 (b)
Tract 26769
20
14
0.70 (b)
Specific Plan 90-018*
37*
64*
1.73 (b)
TOTALS:
461.5
1260
2.73
*Approval expired 1 /31 /96
(a) - Underlying General Plan density is LDR, 2 - 4 units/acre; RRO allows 1 - 3 units/acre.
(b) - Underlying General Plan density is VLDR, 0 - 2 units/acre; RRO allows 0 - 1 units/acre.
In addition, approximately 120 acres are occupied by the La Quinta Polo Estates, which consists of 47
individual lots ranging from 1.73 to 2.9 acres.
SECTION 3: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
This section analyzes potential environmental impacts associated with the diminishment of the RRO
District for the applicant properties. CEQA issue areas are evaluated in this addendum as contained in
the initial Study Checklist. Under each checklist item, the environmental setting is discussed, including
a description of conditions as they presently exist within the City and the areas affected by the proposed
project. Thresholds for 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 plant and animal life. Topographical relief ranges from -237 feet below
mean sea level (msl) to about 2,000 feet above msl. The valley is surrounded by the San Jacinto
0
Mountains, the Santa Rosa Mountains, the Orocopia Mountains, and the San Bernardino Mountain
range. The San Andreas fault traverses the northeastern edge of the valley.
Local Environmental Setting
The RRO area is located in the southeastern portion of the City of La Quinta. The subject parcels are
generally located between 52nd and 53rd Avenues, and Jefferson and Madison Streets. These properties
are generally flat, with generally well -drained, prime agricultural soils. The area is sparsely developed
with ranch and estate type homesites.
A. Would the project conflict with the general plan designation or zoning?
Less Than Significant Impact. The PRO district is an overlay which would not conflict with the
underlying density or zoning, whether the designation is removed or applied in other VLDR or LDR
designations. The only effect would be to raise or lower the density range by one unit/acre.
B. 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 approval. The primary
environmental plans and policies related to the RRO designation are identified in the La Quinta General
Plan (LQGP) and the La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment (LQN EA).The amendment as
proposed will not exceed the development standards contained in the City's General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance.
C. Would the project affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to soils or
farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)?
Less Than Significant Impact. No substantial agricultural operations are currently ongoing in the
subject area. The subject properties are currently approved for development, and removal of the RRO
designation will not create incompatible land uses or impact soil conditions in the area. The removal may
cause a change in the rural character originally envisioned in the General Plan due to deletion of the rural
development standards, although these are proposed to be incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance
revision currently being culminated.
D. Would the project disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
community (including a low-income minority community)?
No Impact. The project area has no defined established communities. The RRO removal will not affect
the subject properties, in that their current development approvals are based upon the properties as
designated without the RRO designation.
3.2 POPULATION AND ]HOUSING
Regional Environmental Selling
" "(1
Between 1980 and 1990, the population of La Quinta expanded 125%, as reported by the U.S. Census,
malting it the second fastest growing city in the Coachella Valley. The number of City residents
blossomed from 4,992 to 11,215. La Quinta's share of the entire valley population increased from 3.7%,
in 1980, to 5.1%, in 1990. These figures are based upon information provided by the U.S. Census
Bureau, the State Department of Finance, and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments
(CVAG).
The City's population as of January, 1995, is estimated by the State Department of Finance to be 17,591
persons. In addition to permanent residents, the City has approximately 8,000 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. The average occupancy is 2.85 persons per occupied unit.
The major employers in the City include the La Quinta Hotel and Resort, PGA West, Von's, Simon
Motors, WdMart, Albertson's, Ralph's, and the City of La Quinta.
Local Environmental Setting
The RRO area is sparsely populated. Estimates range from 50 to 200 persons (La Quinta Community
Development Department), with less than 40 homes estimated to be in existence.
A. Would the project cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed amendment will facilitate projects which had already
been approved prior to establishment of the RRO designation during development of the La Quinta
General Plan update. There are currently 950 acres of VLDR and 650 acres of LDR which have the
RRO designation applied. This amounts to a potential increase of 1600 units if all of the RRO
designation were removed; however, several projects have been approved at the higher range in the area
prior to establishment of the RRO district. Even considering this, the two subject project areas only
exceed the allowable density under the RRO by 35 units over an area of 309 acres. This indicates that
most properties would not develop to the high end of the density range, effectively cancelling out the
density increase afforded by removal of the RRO designation. Approval of the amendment may increase
population, depending on the intensity of any future proposed projects, but this is not anticipated as a
significant impact due to existing development approvals and land use.
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 amendment will not significantly change the type and
intensity of anticipated growth patterns in the area. It is not anticipated that substantial growth in
development will result from the amendment's approval.
C. Would the project displace existing housing, especially affordable housing?
No Impact. The proposal will not have any impact in displacement of housing beyond the land use
designations currently established in the La Quinta General Plan.
3.3 EARTH RESOURCES
Regional Environmental Setting
The City of La Quinta has a varied topography, from gently sloping alluvial fans, steep hillsides, to
relatively flat desert floor. The alluvial soils that make up most of the City's soil types 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.
Local Environmental Setting
The subject area is dominated by Coachella, Gilman and Myoma series soils. These soils are well -
drained, but due to irrigation activities exhibit higher water table characteristics. Due to this, the area
has a moderate to high hazard potential for liquefaction. Myoma series soils are not considered prime
agricultural soils. The Oasis fault trace (inferred) runs southeasterly, along the southwest periphery of
the area, but is not seismically active (Source: LQMEA)
A. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity:
fault rupture?
Less Than Significant Impact. A major earthquake along the Oasis 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, and the fault has not been
seismically active in historic times. No fault rupture hazard is anticipated for the project site. (Source:
Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan; LQGP; LQMEA)
B. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismic
ground shaldng?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed amendment will not impact the current potential for
seismic risk, as the existing land use designations essentially allow similar residential development
intensities, when compared to the proposed amendment. Any development in the area must conform to
applicable building codes relating to seismic impact reduction, notwithstanding the amendment.
C. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity:
ground failure or liquefaction?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed amendment will not impact the current potential for
seismic related ground failure or liquefaction, as the existing land use designations essentially allow
similar residential development intensities, when compared to the proposed amendment. Any
development in the area would have to conform to applicable building codes relating to seismic impact
reduction, notwithstanding the amendment.
D. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity:
seiche or tsunami or volcanic hazard?
Less than Significant Impact. The City is located inland from the Pacific Ocean and would not be
subject to a tsunami. Lake Cahuilla, a man-made reservoir located in the southeast area of the City,
might experience some moderate wave activity as a result of an earthquake and groundshaking. In the
event of a levee failure or seiche at Lake Cahuilla, the area could be impacted. The hydrologic design of
the PGA West golf courses was required to take this potential impact into consideration.
E. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving landslides or
mudslides?
No Impact. The amendment area is over I/Z mile from the closest outcroppings of the Santa Rosa
mouuntains. Thus, the project would not be impacted by potential mudslides or landslides.
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?
No Impact. The area is identified as having moderate to high hazard potential for liquefaction due to
seismic activity. No impacts are anticipated due to grading activities. Conditions attached to any
development approval would adequately address such impacts.
G. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving subsidence
of the land?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is in an area which is considered to have subsidence
hazards, according to the LQMEA. Dynamic settlement results in geologically seismic areas where
poorly consolidated soils mix with perched groundwater causing dramatic decreases in the elevation of
the ground (Source: LQMEA). Soils reports as required for any development approval would adequately
address such impacts.
H. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving expansive
soils?
No Impact. The underlying soils on the project site consist of Coachella, Gilman and Myoma series.
The shrink/swell capacity for such soils is low. These soils are permeable and generally exhibit slow
runoff, negligible erosion, and low incidence of flooding (Source: Soil Survey of Riverside County,
California, Coachella Valley Area). No impacts are anticipated beyond existing conditions.
L Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving unique
geologic or physical features?
No Impact. The Coral Reef :'Mountains and the Santa Rosa Mountains represent unique geologic
features in the La Quinta area. These unique geologic features are not located on or proximate to the
subject area.
10
3.4 WATER
Regional Environmental Setting
Groundwater resources in the La Quinta area consist of a system of large aquifers (porous layer of rock
material) and groundwater basins separated by bedrock or layers of soil that trap or retain groundwater.
Water supplies are also augmented with surface water from the Colorado River transported via the
Coachella Canal and stored at Lake Cahuilla.
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 a requirement in the near future.
Local Environmental Setting
The proposed amendment area has small areas of standing water within it's boundaries. These consist
of several small ponds which are utilized primarily for irrigation needs. The closest significant water
body is Lake Cahuilla, just over a mile southwest of the subject area.
A. Would the project result in changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate
and amount of surface runoff?
No Impact. The proposed amendment will not impact the current potential for surface runoff and
drainage, as the existing land use designations essentially allow similar residential development
intensities, when compared to the proposed amendment. Any.development in the area must conform to
applicable drainage and hydrologic standards, notwithstanding the amendment.
B. Would the project result in exposure of people or property to water -related hazards
such as flooding?
Less than Significant Impact. The site is within designated 100 year flood zones (Zones AO and A).
The hazard factors for Zone A have not been determined; Zone AO factors have been determined,
generally at one foot. There are existing flood control facilities in the City that generally protect the
project site.
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. The proposed amendment will not affect the current potential for surface
runoff impacts, as the existing land use designations essentially allow similar residential development
intensities, when compared to the proposed amendment. Any development in the area must conform to
NPDES requirements, applicable drainage and hydrologic standards, notwithstanding the amendment.
D. Would the project result in changes in the amount of surface water in any water body?
No Impact. No increase in runoff is expected, as the existing land use designations essentially allow
similar residential development intensities, when compared to the proposed amendment.
11
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 substantial bodies of water or rivers. There are
many small man-made lakes and ponds on golf courses within the City. The Whitewater River and the
La Quinta Evacuation Channel are stormwater channels that are usually dry except for runoff from
seasonal storms. This amendment would not affect these facilities.
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?
No Impact. Water supply in the City is derived from groundwater and supplementary water brought
in from the Colorado River. No impacts to groundwater sources can be associated with this amendment.
G. Would the project result in altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
No Impact. The proposed project will not have an impact on groundwater wells. No alteration to the
direction or rate of flow of the groundwater supply will occur due to this amendment.
H. Would the project result in impacts to groundwater quality?
No Impact. The proposed amendment will not impact ground water quality beyond the existing land
uses as currently designated in the General Plan. The existing land use designations essentially allow
similar residential development intensities, when compared to the proposed amendment.
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). SEDAB has a distinctly
different air pollution problem than the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). A discussion of the
jurisdictional organization and requirements is found in the LQMEA.
Currently, the SEDAB does not meet federal standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate
matter. In the Coachella Valley, the standards for PM 10 are frequently exceeded. PM 10 is particulate
matter 10 microns or less in diameter that becomes suspended in the air due to winds, grading activity,
and by vehicles on unpaved roads, among other causes.
Local Environmental Setting
The City is located in the Coachella Valley, which has a 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.
17)
12
The City is located within Source Receptor Area (SRA) 30, which now includes three air quality
monitoring stations, two located in the City of Palm Springs and one in the City of Indio. The Indio
station monitors conditions which are most representative of the La Quinta area. The station has been
collecting data for ozone and particulate matter since 1983. The Palm Springs station monitors carbon
monoxide in addition to ozone and particulate matter and has been in operation since 1985. Eight wind
monitors are being installed by the District, the first in Desert Hot Springs in January 1996.
A. Would the project violate any air standard or contribute to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed amendment will not significantly impact air quality
beyond the existing land uses as currently designated in the General Plan. The existing land use
designations essentially allow similar residential development intensities, when compared to the
proposed amendment. When existing established land uses, previously approved projects and rural
development patterns in the area are considered, any additional impact due to density increase associated
withthe amendment are not considered significant.
B. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
No Impact. Sensitive receptors include schools, day care centers, parks and recreation areas, medical
facilities, rest homes, and other land uses that include concentrations of individuals recognized as
exhibiting particular sensitivity to air pollution. The adjacent land uses consist of residential and golf
development to the immediate west and south, with scattered lower density residential within the subject
area and to the southeast. The closest schools are Truman Elementary school, the La Quinta Middle
School and the YMCA Preschool, all located over a mule from the subject area at 50th and Park
Avenues. There are no proximate medical facilities which could be impacted.
C. Would the project alter air movements, moisture, temperature, or cause any change in
climate?
No Impact. The amendment will not cause any impacts associated with these factors.
D. Would the project create objectionable odors?
No Impact. The proposed amendment will not create any objectionable odors.
3.6 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
Regional Environmental Setting
La. Quinta is a desert community of over 17,500 permanent residents. There is a substantial portion of
the City that is undeveloped. The existing circulation system is a combination of early roadwork
constructed 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.
13
There are some existing pedestrian, bicycle and equestrian facilities in La Quinta, however, these
systems are to be completed as new developments come to the City.
Local Environmental Setting
The road system in and around the amendment area consists primarily of two lane undivided pavement
in fair condition, with no curbing or gutters.
A. Would the project result in increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
Less Than Significant Impact. The amendment will allow densities in the subject properties to
increase by one unitlacre. The acreage of the applicant's properties for which the amendment is sought
is 309, which could create 3,090 trips/day. Considering the 615 acres affected by this amendment, this
number increases to 6,150 trips/day. However, these projects were approved at the time the General
Plan was updated in 1992, and were therefore accounted for in the City wide traffic analysis for the
LQGP. By removal of any additional acreage, density allowances would increase by one unit for each
acre removed. Assuming single family development occurs at the high end of the density range, trip
counts are estimated to increase by 10 for each additional unit. Considering existing subdivided areas
and larger holdings in the area not likely to change over time (Griffin estate, Vista Montana), along with
other existing project approvals considered under the LQGP and road improvements to be required as
these develop, the additional potential impact is not viewed as significant.
B. Would the project result in hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or
dangerous intersection) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)?
No Impact. No design features are associated with the project. Uses allowed under the amendment are
similar to and compatible with those currently designated by the LQGP.
C. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access to nearby uses?
No Impact. The proposed amendment will not impact access provisions beyond the existing land uses
as currently designated in the General Plan. The existing land use designations essentially require similar
residential access provisions, when compared to the proposed amendment.
D. Would the project result in insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site?
No Impact. No change in use is contemplated by this amendment. All residential projects in the subject
area must provide the required parking for each unit. This will be assured when development plans are
submitted.
E. Would the project result in hazards or barriers for pedestrian or bicyclists?
No Impact. The proposed amendment will not impact pedestrians or bicyclists beyond the existing land
uses as currently designated in the General Plan. The existing land use designations essentiallyallows
the same or similar types of residential development, when compared to the proposed amendment.
14
F. Would the project result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
No Impact. The amendment will not interfere with existing alternative transportation modes and
facilities or create a need for new modes and facilities.
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. There are no navigable rivers or
waterways, or air travel lanes within the City limits. Thus, there will be no impacts upon these issues.
3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Regional Environmental Setting
The City of La Quinta lies within the Colorado Desert. Two ecosystems are found within the City; the
Sonoran Desert Scrub and the Desert Transition. The disturbed environments within the City are
classified as urban or agricultural. A discussion of these ecosystems is found in the LQMEA.
Local Environmental Setting
The subject area is developed with rural ranch housing and estates, with some limited agricultural
activities. The LQMEA does not identify any potential biological resources or habitat in the area.
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)?
No Impact. The LQMEA does not identify any potential biological resources or habitat in the area.
B. Would the project result in impacts to locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
No Impact. The LQMEA does not identify any potential biological resources or habitat in the area.
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 amendment area.
D. Would the project result in impacts to wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian, and vernal
pool)?
No Impact. There are no wetlands, marshes, riparian communities, or vernal pools within the City
(Source: LQMEA).
E. Would the project result in impacts to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
No Impact. There are no known wildlife corridors within the project area (Source: LQMEA).
15
3.8 ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
Regional Environmental Setting
The City of La Quinta contains both areas of insignificant and significant Mineral Aggregate Resources
Areas (SMARA), as designated by the State Department of Conservation. There are no known oil
resources in the City. Major energy resources used in the City come from the Imperial Irrigation District
(IID), Southern California Gas Company, and gasoline companies.
Local Environmental Setting
There are no oil wells or other fuel or energy producing resources on the proposed project site. The
project area is located within MRZ-1, a designation for areas where adequate information exists to
indicate that no significant mineral deposits are present, or it is determined that there is little likelihood
for their presence (Source: LQMEA).
A. Would the project conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
No Impact. The proposed amendment will not significantly conflict with any such plans, as nothing
has been adopted by the City.
B. Would the project use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner?
No Impact. The proposed amendment will not impact use of non-renewable resources beyond the
existing land uses as currently designated in the General Plan. The existing land use designations
essentially require similar resource needs, when compared to the proposed amendment.
3.9 RISK OF UPSET/HUMAN HEALTH
Regional Environmental Setting
Although large scale, hazardous waste generating employment is not yet located within 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, transportation of such materials out of and through La Quinta takes place.
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 in the past.
A. Would the project involve a risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)?
No Impact. There is no additional risk beyond those associated with existing land uses as currently
designated in the General Plan.
Y. J
16
B. Would the project involve possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. The amendment would have no impact on emergency response or evacuation.
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 amendment.
D. Would the project involve exposure of people to existing sources of potential health
hazards?
No Impact. There are no existing health hazards in the proposed amendment area. The proposed
amendment is not expected to create any health hazards beyond those associated with existing land uses
as currently designated in the General Plan.
E. Would the proposal involve increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass,
or trees?
No Impact. The proposed amendment will not increase fire hazard in the area.
3.10 NOISE
Regional Environmental Setting
Noise levels in the City are created by a variety of sources in and near the City. The major sources
include vehicular noise on City streets and Highway 111, and temporary construction noises. The
ambient noise levels are dominated by vehicular noise along the highway and major arterials.
Local Environmental Setting
Primary noise sources in the subject area are associated with vehicle traffic.
A. Would the project result in increases in existing noise levels?
Less Than Significant Impact. Any increase in vehicular noise due to additional vehicle traffic
attributable to the amendment is anticipated to be insignificant. Ambient noise levels will increase as
development occurs in the area under the existing land use designations. Increased traffic associated with
a slightly higher density allowance for some of the area properties should not significantly increase the
ambient levels which would occur anyway due to development under the existing General Plan.
B. Would the project result in exposure of people to severe noise levels?
No Impact. Exposure to noise levels associated with the amendment will not occur beyond the existing
land uses as currently designated in the General Plan. The existing land use designations essentially
expose people to similar noise levels as those associated with the proposed amendment.
17
3.11 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.
Fire protection service is provided to the City by Riverside County Fire Department. The Fire
Department administers two stations in the City; Station #32 on Frances Hack Lane, and Station 970,
at the intersection of Madison Street and Avenue 54.
Health care services are provided in the City through JFK Memorial Hospital in Indio, and the
Eisenhower Immediate Care Clinic located in the One -Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center. Paramedic
services are provided by Springs Ambulance Service.
Local Environmental Setting
The nearest fire station to the project is Station #70 located adjacent to the subject area. Governmental
services in La Quinta are provided by City staff at the Civic Center and by County, State, and federal
agency offices in the desert and region .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 contains 2,065 square feet of space and approximately 18,000 volumes.
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 amendment will not impact the current fire protection
services, as the existing land use designations essentially allow similar residential development
intensities, when compared to the proposed amendment. Any development in the area would have to
conform to applicable fire codes, notwithstanding the amendment.
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 It is not anticipated that approval of the amendment would significantly
impact police services in the area, as the existing land use designations essentially allow similar
residential development intensities.
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 Payment of school impact fees to mitigate potential impacts on local
schools would be required for any development in the area. No significant impacts beyond current
conditions are anticipated.
18
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.
No Impact. The existing roadways in and around the amendment area will not be impacted beyond the
currently approved land uses, as the existing land use designations essentially allow similar residential
development intensities contemplated by the amendment.
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?
No Impact. No new impacts are anticipated beyond the current approved land uses.
3.12 UTILITIES
Regional Environmental Setting
The City of La Quinta is served by the Imperial irrigation District (1ID) for electrical power supply and
the Southern California Gas Company (SCG) for natural gas service. General Telephone Exchange
(GTE) provides telephone services for the City. Continental Cablevision services the area for cable
television service.
The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) provides water service to the City. CVWD obtains its
water from underground aquifers and from the Colorado River. Potable water is stored in five reservoirs
located in the City.
The City's stormwater drainage system is administered by 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 three landfills within the Coachella Valley.
Local Environmental Setting
The subject area is sparsely developed at present. A Mello -Roos assessment district has been proposed
as part of the approved Vista Santa Rosa specific plan (SP 90-020). Minimal improvements exist in the
area.
A. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to power
and gas services?
No Impact. Power, sewer, and gas lines will need to be brought in to the area for development to occur
under the current land use designations. No substantial alterations to those required facilities are
anticipated due to the amendment, as the existing land use designations essentially allow similar
residential development intensities to those contemplated by the amendment.
B. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to
communication systems?
I'll '1
W"
No Impact. Telephone and communication facilities will need to be brought in to the area for
development to occur under the current land use designations. No substantial alterations to any required
facilities are anticipated due to the amendment, as the existing land use designations approved under the
General Plan essentially allow similar residential development intensities to those contemplated by the
amendment.
C. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to local or
regional water treatment or distribution facilities?
No Impact. Water service facilities will need to be brought in to the area for development to occur under
the current land use designations. No substantial alterations to any required facilities are anticipated due
to the amendment, as the existing land use designations approved under the General Plan essentially
allow similar residential development intensities to those contemplated by the amendment.
D. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to sewer
services or septic tanks?
No Impact. Sewage facilities will need to be brought in to the area for development to occur under the
current land use designations. No substantial alterations to any required facilities are anticipated due to
the amendment, as the existing land use designations approved under the General Plan essentially allow
similar residential development intensities to those contemplated by the amendment.
E. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to storm
water drainage?
No Impact. Drainage facilities will need to be brought in to the area for development to occur under the
current land use designations. No substantial alterations to any required facilities are anticipated due to
the amendment, as the existing land use designations approved under the General Plan essentially allow
similar residential development intensities to those contemplated by the amendment.
F. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to solid waste
disposal?
No Impact. The area receives solid waste disposal service from Waste Management of the Desert.
Service needs will significantly increase as the area develops under the existing approved land uses for
the area. No impacts as a result of the amendment are anticipated beyond those identified by the General
Plan EIR for existing approved densities.
3.13 AESTHETICS
Regional Environmental Setting
The City of La Quinta is partially located within a desert valley cove. 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.
i''��
20
The project area is a sparsely developed, rural low density section of the City. Views of the Santa Rosa
and Coral Reef Mountains exist to the south and west.
A. Would the project affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
No Impact. The amendment would not affect any existing views or scenic highways.
B. Would the project have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
No Impact. The amendment would not cause any demonstrable negative effects.
C. Would the project create light or glare?
No Impact. The currently anticipated development of the land uses designated for this area will
cumulatively contribute to the existing light and glare emanating from other areas of the City. No
additional impacts beyond those associated with current densities as approved under the General Plan
are anticipated due to the amendment.
3.14 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Regional Environmental Setting
The most likely locations of prehistoric cultural resources in the La Quinta area are along the foothills.
However, many sites have been found on the open desert floor area. Camp and village sites are usually
located near sources of water, food, and shelter. Temporary camp sites have been found near game trails,
springs, mesquite groves, grass stands, bedrock outcrops, marshy areas, or along the ancient lake shore
line. Isolated milling features, sparse lithic scatters, and isolated pottery scatters have been found
throughout the City.
The settling of the La Quinta area has been chronicled by the La Quinta historical Society in several
publications and museum exhibits. There are 13 designated historical structures and sites recorded on
the California Historic Resources Inventory. These resources are listed in the La Quinta General Plan.
Local Environmental Setting
The proposed amendment area is partially within the limits of the ancient lakebed for Lake Cahuilla, and
is located within the lakebed delineation study area for paleontological resources shoreline of ancient
Lake Cahuilla. The shoreline corresponds with the known occurrence of fossil -bearing soil strata.
A. Would the project disturb paleontological resources?
No Impact The RRO designation does not affect development which would be permissible under the
General Plan. Impacts associated with development will be assessed as projects are submitted. No
additional impacts beyond those associated with current densities as approved under the General Plan
are anticipated due to the amendment.
B. Would the project disturb archaeological resources?
21
No Impact Refer to 3.14.A.
C. Would the project affect historical resources?
No Impact No historic resources or structures have been identified in the subject area. The amendment
would not create additional impacts beyond development already permitted by the General Plan.
D. Would the project have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique
cultural values?
Less Than Significant Impact. The amendment will not affect any known ethnic cultural values. The
rural Character of the area could be impacted due to removal or modification of the RROpolicies in the
General Plan. These policies are intended to be incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance revision project,
which is nearing completion.
E. Would the project restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact
area?
No Impact. There are no known religious functions or uses or sacred uses in the subject area, or
adjacent to it. The amendment would not create any impacts beyond existing conditions.
3.15 RECREATION
Regional Environmental Setting
The City of La Quinta has an adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan that assesses the existing
resources and facilities and the fixture needs of the City. The City contains approximately 28.7 acres of
developed parkland for Quimby Act purposes. The 845.0 acre regional Lake Cahuilla Park is not
included in this count. There are also bike and equestrian pathways and trails within the City and
designated pedestrian hiking trails.
A. Would the project increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other
recreational facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact The amendment may result in less rural development occurring in the
area, which may impact recreational needs and opportunities in the area, relative primarily to the
potential for more urban low density development. This is not considered a significant impact in light
of property owner support for maintaining the rural character in the area.
B. Would the project affect existing recreational opportunities?
Less Than Significant Impact The amendment may serve to displace some rural development in favor
of more urban low density development, due to the increase in density. This may reduce opportunities
for equestrian recreational use and other rural recreation in the area. This is not considered a significant
impact in light of current development patterns and property owner desires in the area, and the current
availability of larger holdings not individually conducive to tract development trends.
22
SECTION 4: MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Initial Study for the proposed general plan amendment did not discover any significant impacts
associated with the project. Development of the subject area will occur irregardless of whether or not
the amendment is carried through. The density increase in the area relates to several projects already
approved and assessed for impacts prior to the RRO designation being applied.
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,
* The proposed project will not have the potential to achieve short term
goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals,
* The proposed project will not have impact which are individually limited
but cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed
development in the immediate vicinity,
* The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will
adversely affect humans, either directly or indirectly.
SECTION 5: EARLIER ANALYSES
A. Earlier Analyses Used.
The following documents were used and/or referred to in the preparation of this assessment:
• La Quinta General Plan Update; October 1992
• La Quinta Housing Element Update, May 1995
• La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment; October 1992
• La Quinta Parks and Recreation Master Plan; April 1993
• USDA Soil Conservation Service - Coachella Valley Soil Survey
These and various other documents on file with the Community Development Department were
used in the preparation of this Initial Study.
B. Impacts Adequately Addressed.
No significant impacts were identified in the Initial Study.
C. Mitigation Measures.
No mitigation measures are identified, therefore none have been required.
23
Prepared) by: Date:
Wallace H. Nesbit
Associate Planner
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: FEBRUARY 27, 1996
CASE NUMBERS: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 95-051 AND ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT 96-312
REQUESTS: 1.) 'CERTIFY THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT;
2.) APPROVE A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO REMOVE THE
RURAL RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY (RRO) DESIGNATION ON ALL
PROPERTIES DESIGNATED AS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ON
THE LAND USE POLICY DIAGRAM
LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE OF 52ND AVENUE, EAST OF JEFFERSON STREET,
NORTH AND SOUTH OF 54TH AVENUE, AND EAST OF
MADISON STREET (ATTACHMENT 1)
APPLICANTS: MR. DWIGHT STUART, MR. WALLY FRIEND AND THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA
PROPERTY
OWNERS: VARIOUS (NOTED HEREIN)
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS
COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-312 FOR THE
PROPOSED PROJECT. BASED UPON THIS ASSESSMENT, THE
PROJECT COULD NOT HAVE AN EFFECT UPON THE
ENVIRONMENT. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN
PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT.
The 1992 General Plan Update established the Rural Residential Overlay on 1,620
acres designated on the General Plan Map as Very Low or Low Density Residential.
The goal of this overlay district is "to facilitate the preservation and development of
a rural character in desirable locations in the City." To carry out this goal, the overlay
reduces the density by one unit per acre in each land use designation and requires
design standards reinforcing the rural theme. Prior to the implementation of the RRO
7-STAFFRPT.055
density requirements, subdivisions were approved with an underlying density of 2-4
du/ac. for Low Density Residential and 0-2 du./ac. for Very Low Density Residential.
The two property owners initiating the general plan amendment request are:
1 Mr. Dwight Stuart (for Stuart Enterprises) - The vacant parcels are east of
Jefferson Street, south of 52nd Avenue, north of 53rd Avenue, on the east
and west sides of Madison Street. In 1992, the City Council approved the
planned development consisting of 850 single family dwelling units on 275.36
acres under Specific Plan 90-020. The General Plan designation is Low Density
Residential and the Zoning is R-1. Minimum lot sizes are 7,200 square feet.
A portion of the Specific Plan area, 36 acres, is designated as Very Low
Density Residential.
2. Mr. Wally Friend (for LQ33 Partnership) - The two parcels, 33.3 acres, are
located at the northeast corner of Jefferson Street and 53rd Avenue. The City
Council approved a 94-lot single family residential subdivision under Tentative
Tract Map 26444. The General Plan designation is Low Density Residential
and the Zoning is R-1. Minimum lot sizes are 7,200 square feet.
Staff is recommending removal of the following properties because they are also
designated as Low Density Residential on the General Plan Map and Zoned R-1, with
the exception of one parcel that is zoned R-1, 10,000:
1. Mr. Arthur Alper - Owner of the 2.35 acre landscape cactus nursery at 52-750
Jefferson Street that is surrounded by TTM 26444.
2. Fowler Packing Co.. Inc. - The property, 223.37 acres, is bounded by
Jefferson Street, 53th and 54th Avenues, and Madison Street. A vineyard is
located on Lot 2 and includes an old packing house and single family home.
3. Ms. Jeanne A. Brown - The parcel, 39.09 acres, is on the north side of 54th
Avenue, 1,100 feet east of Jefferson Street. Currently, the site is used for
citrus production.
4. LLC ISSAM - The vacant parcel, 38.21 acres, is located at the northwest
corner of 54th Avenue and Madison Street.
5. Mr. John P. Hooten - The vacant triangular parcel, 0.4 acres, is located south
of the American Canal, west of Mr. Stuart's property and north of Mr. Friend's
property.
6. Elliot/Pollak Families - The 98-lot single family subdivision, 40 acres, is located
on the east side of Madison Street, south of 54th Avenue. This subdivision is
zoned R-1 10,000.
7-STAFFRPT.055
Composite maps of properties north of 54th Avenue are attached (Attachments 2A
and 2B - Property Ownership Exhibits, Attachments 3A and 3B - Land Use Exhibits).
The total acreage of Low Density Residential with the Rural Residential Overlay is
approximately 615 acres.
North: R-1 20,000/R-2 Vacant, Single Family Homes,
Nurseries, IID Substation, and County
of Riverside
South: CPS/R-2 PGA Resort and Fire Station 70
East: R-1 20,000 Single Family Homes, Pastures, Vacant
West: R-2/CPS Vacant (Oak Tree Specific Plan - East
of Jefferson Street), Vacant, Single
Family
On December 20, 1995, staff received requests from Mr. Dwight Stuart and Mr.
Wally Friend to amend the City's Land Use Element of the General Plan removing the
Rural Residential Overlay (RRO) from their properties. Both property owners feel that
the City's adoption of the 1992 General Plan adversely impacts their approved
development plans for two reasons. The first reason is that their parcels are
designated for low density residential development, 2-4 dwellings per acre (thirty-six
acres of Mr. Stuart's property, east of Madison Street, is designated as very low
residential), however, in applying the Rural Residential Overlay the density is reduced
to three units per acre. Secondly, the General Plan Policies require Rural Residential
design standards such as enhanced setbacks, rural fencing (solid block walls are
prohibited), and architectural styles of buildings emphasizing the rural theme.
The applicants' properties are approved for traditional single family housing, in
accordance with the R-1 development standards, with minimum 7,200 square foot
lot sizes and average lot widths of 60 feet. Requiring the additional 20 foot front
yard setback, for a total of 40 feet, combined with the small sized lot and a limited
frontage will not achieve the characteristics typical of a rural residential neighborhood
(Attachment 4).
Staff placed an 1 /8 page ad in' the Desert Sun newspaper on February 5, 1996,
notifying the community of this hearing. Also, staff mailed the public notice to all
property owners affected by the request or within 300-feet of the affected area as
7-STAFFRPT.055
required. To date, no negative written comments have been received; all
correspondence received will be given to the Commission before or at the meeting.
An Environmental Assessment was prepared to analyze the effects of this proposal
under current standards and guidelines. Attached for your review and consideration
is the Environmental Checklist accompanied by staff's explanations for the noted
responses. Based on the completed environmental analysis, staff is recommending
the filing of a Negative Declaration for the project (Attachment 5).
Issue 1 - Rural Characteristics
The removal of the RR Overlay from all properties designated on the existing General
Plan Map as Low Density Residential (LDR) is warranted because the LDR designation
is intended to allow more urban development, such as that which is occurring in
North La Quinta (i.e., 7,200 sq. ft. or larger lots). The RRO district is appropriate for
the Very Low Density Residential designated areas because the lots are greater than
0.3 acres in size as required by the zoning (e.g., R-1 14,000 or R-1 20,000). The
rural characteristics of large lots, generous setbacks, open space and low density are
better suited for these size lots. Staff recommends removing the RR Overlay from all
properties with the LDR land use designation.
Issue 2 - Removal of the RRO density requirements
The proposed removal of the Rural Residential Overlay from all Low Density
Residential, 615 acres, amounts to an increase of 615 units. However, as
exemplified by the two applicants' subdivisions, the approved densities exceed the
density requirements of the RRO by only 35 units over a 309-acre area. This
indicates that the remainder of the Low Density Residential area will not develop to
the high end of the density range. Allowing an increase to the density will not be a
significant because the general existing conditions of the area will not substantially
change due to existing development approvals and land uses.
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 96- , recommending to the City
Council approval of the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (EA 96-
312) according to the findings set forth in the attached Resolution.
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 96- , recommending to the City
Council approval of General Plan Amendment 95-051 removing the Rural
7-STAFFRPT.055
Residential Overlay designation from the Low Density Residential (LDR) land
use classification on the Land Use Policy Diagram.
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Property Ownership Maps (A and B)
3. Land Use Maps (A and B)
4. General Plan Policy 2-1.2.3, Rural Residential Design Guidelines
5. Environmental Documents (PC Only - On File with Staff)
Prepared by:
DELL, Associate Planner
Submitted by:
CHRISTINE DI IORIO, Planning Manager
7-STAFFRPT.055
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-312 PREPARED
FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 95-051
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-312
WALLY FRIEND/STUART ENTERPRISES
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the
27th day of February, 1996, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental
Assessment 96-312 and General Plan Amendment 95-051; and,
WHEREAS, said General Plan Amendment 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 96-312); and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that said General Plan
Amendment will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and that a Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed; and
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all
interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts,
findings, and reasons to justify recommending certification of said Environmental Assessment:
1. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or
general welfare of the community, either indirectly or directly, in that no significant
impacts can be identified beyond those associated with the current General Plan
designation for the area.
2. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory, as no new impacts
beyond those associated with the current General Plan have been identified.
3. The proposed General Plan Amendment does not have the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. No significant
effects on environmental factors have been identified.
resope.175
Planning Commission Resolution 96-
4. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not result in impacts which are individually
limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development
in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be significantly
affected by the Amendment.
5. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not have environmental effects that will
adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant
impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public
services.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of La Quinta, California as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission for this Environmental Assessment.
2. That it does hereby recommend that the City Council certify Environmental Assessment
96-312 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 27th day of February, 1996, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JACQUES ABELS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
resopc.175
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF
A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO REMOVE THE
RURAL RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY (RRO) DESIGNATION
ON ALL PROPERTIES DESIGNATED AS LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL (LDR) ON THE LAND USE POLICY
DIAGRAM.
CASE NO. GPA 95-051- DWIGHT STUART,
WALLY FRIEND, AND CITY OF LA QUINTA
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did on the
27th day of February, 1996, hold a duly noticed Public Meeting to consider the request of Mr.
Dwight Stuart, Mr. Wally Friend, and the City of La Quinta, to amend the City's General Plan to
remove the Rural Residential Overlay (RRO) on all properties designated as Low Density Residential
on the Land Use Policy Diagram, more particularly described as:
A PORTION OF SECTIONS 9 AND 15, T6S, R7E, SBBM (Exhibit "A")
WHEREAS, said General Plan Amendment has complied with the requirements of
"The Rules to Implement the California Environmental quality Act of 1970" (as amended and adopted
in City Council Resolution 83-68), in that the Community Development Director conducted an initial
study and has determined that the proposed General Plan Amendment will not have a significant
adverse impact on the environment; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find
the following facts and reasons to justify the approval of said General Plan Amendment:
The proposed removal of the Rural Residential Overlay (RRO) from all Low Density
Residential designated areas has the potential to increase the density by 615 units. However,
allowing an increase to the density will not be significant because the general conditions of
the area will not substantially change due to existing development proposals and land uses.
2. The removal of the Rural Residential Overlay for all properties designated as Low Density
Residential is'warranted because of the LDR designation is intended to allow more urban
development with minimum 7,200 square foot minimum lot sizes and average widths of 60
feet. This small lot size combined with the required 40-foot front yard setback and limited
frontage does not achieve the characteristics typical of a rural residential neighborhood.
resopc.178
NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of
La Quinta, California, as follows:
That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission
in this case;
2. That it does hereby recommend adoption of the Negative Declaration;
3. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not have environmental effects that will
adversely affect humans, either directly or indirectly, with the implementation of this proposal.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission held on this 27th day of February, 1996, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JACQUES ABELS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERKY BERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta
resopc.178
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 95-051
EXHIBIT "A"
50th Avenue
52nd Avenue
CC
\ a3." SGySo
PGmA Nest Resort
5
I1�5
LOCATION MAP
GPA 95-051
ATTACHMENT I
■ ■
o,
.� cc 50th Avenue `
Nc {
Tc
L L __
- Oj.
4
52nd Avenue
o
l l IAAN
w rd Avenue
. i
i
i
i
i
cc If 54th Avenue i
r-41 PGA West Resort
OV
■
�L�
(C5to
4-)=
O -P cc
_1 (n CY)
't7
N
0
ON
a
•
W
Co
-
lno �h�a
rn3//oroo _
Ino oa,vi ,ill
Attachment 2A
m�
la;ujs uosipvw
==T laa.11s uosaaijar -
y
Wy+
R
0
CCC
by �
r or. r
`n 0
N "0 ca. W C)
r-+ M
o d a
�� 49
o
A
�Cd
y .-• rn oo v
0 0 0 0 0
�-4aaaa
to
q
Z
U
2
sno g
l _ _C773HOdO9
ln0 O/ON/
Attachment 2B
9
ss laa.14s uosipuw ° I�
I
a
I
•
�
3
V
�
�
a
Q
IQ
�
II
C
"O
M
i
I
0
0
• •
0
3
z
I
V1n0
•r
�
p773NOVOJ 2
--�--1q0
71
OION/
$ 1
pails uosaalk
— 4
O
>1
1 R
ii
ct3
:1S
E
US
� �
I
1
7�
�1
W
ooc'
b
OR
�w N
U
V1
bI
�F�
ao
w�
n
4
v
es
Lno v �,
ln0 0/ON/ 'ice( I r IS
9
_M
m e Attachment 3 A
133.zls uosipl?w _ 3+ _
Q
h
U
ftS
9
II
o 4-4
�o
I� Q
o
o•a.l
z �
� c�
V773NOdOJ
uos zajjar — —
UWpm
y �
�
� U
C�3
W
� N
Attachment 3 B o
x
is 103.11s uosTpI?W rodw L
I.
� U
� O
W
�
�
r
r.
w vn
t-i
V.
°
+-A
7
kn
a
ing
To�aNr
•s
uos.za�ar'-�''
a
�+
_VTU
In6
— —
— —
T,ur,?I i • Policies
Policy 2-1.2.2 of the Land Use Element establishes the allowable density for a project
in the RRO as follows:
* 0 to 1 dwelling per acre for properties in the Very Low Density
Residential (VLDR) areas.
* 0 to 3 dwellings per acre for properties in the Low Density Residential
(LDR) areas.
Policy 2-1.2.3 of the Land Use Element provides design guidelines as follows:
* All development in areas subject to the RRO shall utilize rural street
cross -sections (e.g., no vertical curb and gutter).
* The front yard setbacks of all structures shall be increased an additional
20 feet beyond the minimum specified in the applicable zoning district.
* Architectural styles of buildings shall emphasize a rural theme (e.g.,
Ranch, Western, Southwest or Mission styles).
* Fencing guidelines representative of a rural, equestrian theme shall be
developed for each project. Solid, opaque block walls shall be
prohibited.
* Equestrian paths adjacent to specified collector and arterial streets shall
be required to link residential areas with trail systems and Lake Cahuilla
County Park.
7-STAFFRPT.055
Attachment 5
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Environmental Assessment No. 96-312
Case No.: GPA 95-051 Date: January 29,1996
I.
Name of Proponent: Wally Friend/Stuart Enterprises
Address: c/o Winchester Asset Development Company, Mr. Craig Bryant
41-865 Boardwalk, Suite 101, Palm Desert, CA 92211
Phone: 619-340-3575
Agency Requiring Checklist: City of La Quinta
Project Name (if applicable): General Plan Amendment to diminish the Rural Residential
Overlay designation and revise associated standards.
CITY OF LA QUINTA
Community Development Department
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California 92253
resopc.175
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 Transportation/Circulation Public Services
Population and Housing Biological Resources Utilities
]Earth Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Aesthetics
Water Risk of Upset and Human Health Cultural Resources
Air Quality Noise Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
III. DETERMINATION.
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on
the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because
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 January 12, 1996
Printed Name and Title Wallace H. Nesbit, Associate Planner
For CITY OF LA QUINTA, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
i
Potentially
Potentially Significant less Than
^ Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated hnpact Impact
3.1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a)
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
X
(source ##(s):
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?
X
b)
Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped
area or extension of major infrastructure)?
X
c)
Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing?
X
3.3. EARTH AND GEOLOGY. Would the project result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a)
Fault 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
f)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading or fill?
X
g) Subsidence of the land?
h) Expansive soils?
i) Unique geologic or physical features?
R.
/1
X
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact lmpact
3.4. WATER. Would the project result in:
a)
Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattems, 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 glow of groundwater?
X
h)
Impacts to groundwater quality?
X
3.5. 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? X
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? X
d) Create objectional odors? X
iii
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
3.6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the project
result in:
a)
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
X
b)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g. farm equipment)?
X
c)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses?
x
d)
Insufficient parking capacity on site or off site?
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
3.7. 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,
X
insects, animals, and birds?
b)
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
R
c)
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
X
iv
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
3.8. 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?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees?
3.10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
R
E4
X
In
X
X
X
X
X
a) Increases in existing noise levels? X
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X
3.11. 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
v
Potentially
Potentially Significant
Less Than
Significant Unless
Significant
No
Impact Mitigated
Impact
Impact
b) Police protection?
X
c) Schools?
X
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
X
e) Other governmental services?
X
3.12. UTILITIES.
Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or
substantial alternations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? X
b) Communications systems? X
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? X
d) Sewer or septic tanks? X
e) Storm water drainage? X
f) Solid waste disposal? X
3.13. 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
3.14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? X
b) Disturb archaeological resources? X
c) Affect historical resources? X
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? X
e) Restrict existing religious of sacred uses within the
potential impact area? X
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
3.15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks of other recreational facilities? X
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
4. MANDATORY 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?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-
term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental
goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects).
d) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
EARLIER ANALYSES.
t2
P
X
R.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or
more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed 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.
vii
INITIAL STUDY - ADDENDUM
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-312
Prepared for:
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1495-051
Tentative Tract 26444/SPECIFIC PLAN 990-020
Wally Friend/Stuart Enterprises
Prepared by:
Community Development Department
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California 92253
January 29,1996
0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
1
2
3
4
Page
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
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 4
2.6
Related Projects 5
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5
3.1 Land Use and Planning
5
3.2 Population and Housing
6
3.3 Earth Resources
8
3.4 Water
10
3.5 Air Quality
11
3.6 Transportation/Circulation
12
3.7 Biological Resources
14
3.8 Energy and Mineral Resources
15
3.9 Risk of Upset/Human Health
15
3.10 Noise
16
3.11 Public Services
17
3.12 Utilities
18
3.13 Aesthetics
19
3.14 Cultural Resources
20
3.15 Recreation
21
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 22
5 EARLIER ANALYSIS 22
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW
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). A 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 proposal.
1.2 PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY
As part of the environmental review for the proposed amendment, the City of La Quinta Community
Development Department has prepared this Initial Study. This document provides a basis for
determining the nature and scope of the subsequent environmental review for the amendment. The
purposes of the initial Study, as stated in Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines, include the following:
• To provide the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an
environmental impact report (EIR) or a negative declaration for the amendment;
• 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
1.3 BACKGROUND OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project was deemed subject to the environmental review requirements of CEQA in light
of the proposed amendment to the La Quinta General Plan (LQGP). The Environmental Officer for the
Community Development Department prepared this Initial Study and addendum for review and
certification by the Planning Commission and City Council for the City of La Quinta.
1.4 SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
This Initial Study did not indicate any potential for significant environmental impacts in any of the issue
areas in the Environmental Checklist. As a result, no mitigation measures are recommended, and a
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact will be recommended for this project.
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 southwestern portion of the
Coachella Valley. 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 federal and County lands to the
south. The City of La Quinta was incorporated in May, 1982.
2.2 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
The proposed amendment request involves removal of General Plan rural standards from approximately
309 acres, for which two residential projects are approved consisting of 948 units. A total of 612 acres
could be affected by this amendment, as additional property owners within the RRO area were notified
of the applicant's request.
2.3 OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
Not applicable.
2.41 OBJECTIVES
The objective of the applicants is to accommodate their currently approved projects under the General
Plan.
2.5 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
A discretionary action is an action taken by a government agency (for this project, the government
agency is the City of La Quinta) that calls for the exercise of judgment in deciding whether to approve
a project. The proposed project will require discretionary approval from the Planning Commission and
City Council for the following:
Approval of a General Plan Amendment for the project;
Certification of the Environmental Assessment for the project.
2.6 RELATED PROJECTS
There are several projects within the Rural Residential Overlay (RRO) designation which may be
affected by this amendment, if expanded beyond the subject 615 acres. The projects related to this
application are Tract 26444, recently extended for 94 lots on 31.5 acres; and Specific Plan 90-020,
approved for 850 units on 273 acres. The following table shows the RRO area's approved projects:
PROJECT
ACREAGE
NO. OF UNITS
DENSITY
Specific Plan 90-020
273
850
3.11 (a)
Tract 26444
31.5
94
2.98 (a)
Tract 24774*
40*
119*
2.97 (a)
Tract 27224
40
98
2.45 (a)
Tract 26768
20
21
1.05 (b)
Tract 26769
20
14
0.70 (b)
Specific Plan 90-018*
37*
64*
1.73 (b)
TOTALS:
461.5
1260
2.73
*Approval expired 1 /31 /96
(a) - Underlying General Plan density is LDR, 2 - 4 units/acre; RRO allows 1 - 3 units/acre.
(b) - Underlying General Plan density is VLDR, 0 - 2 units/acre; RRO allows 0 - 1 units/acre.
hi addition, approximately 120 acres are occupied by the La Quinta Polo Estates, which consists of 47
individual lots ranging from 1.73 to 2.9 acres.
SECTION 3• ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
This section analyzes potential environmental impacts associated with the diminishment of the PRO
District for the applicant properties. CEQA issue areas are evaluated in this addendum as contained in
the initial Study Checklist. Under each checklist item, the environmental setting is discussed, including
a description of conditions as they presently exist within the City and the areas affected by the proposed
project. Thresholds for 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 plant and animal life. Topographical relief ranges from -237 feet below
mean sea level (msl) to about 2,000 feet above msl. The valley is surrounded by the San Jacinto
Mountains, the Santa Rosa Mountains, the Orocopia Mountains, and the San Bernardino Mountain
range. The San Andreas fault traverses the northeastern edge of the valley.
Local Environmental Setting
The RRO area is located in the southeastern portion of the City of La Quinta. The subject parcels are
generally located between 52nd and 53rd Avenues, and Jefferson and Madison Streets. These properties
are generally flat, with generally well -drained, prime agricultural soils. The area is sparsely developed
with ranch and estate type homesites.
A. Would the project conflict with the general plan designation or zoning?
Less Than Significant Impact. The RRO district is an overlay which would not conflict with the
underlying density or zoning, whether the designation is removed or applied in other VLDR or LDR
designations. The only effect would be to raise or lower the density range by one unit/acre.
B. 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 approval. The primary
environmental plans and policies related to the RRO designation are identified in the La Quinta General
Plan (LQGP) and the La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment (LQMEA).The amendment as
proposed will not exceed the development standards contained in the City's General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance.
C. Would the project affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to soils or
farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)?
Less Than Significant Impact. No substantial agricultural operations are currently ongoing in the
subject area. The subject properties are currently approved for development, and removal of the RRO
designation will not create incompatible land uses or impact soil conditions in the area. The removal may
cause a change in the rural character originally envisioned in the General Plan due to deletion of the rural
development standards, although these are proposed to be incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance
revision currently being culminated.
D. Would the project disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
community (including a low-income minority community)?
No Impact. The project area has no defined established communities. The RRO removal will not affect
the subject properties, in that their current development approvals are based upon the properties as
designated without the RRO designation.
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 it the second fastest growing city in the Coachella Valley. The number of City residents
blossomed from 4,992 to 11,215. La Quinta's share of the entire valley population increased from 3.7%,
in 1980, to 5.1%, in 1990. These figures are based upon information provided by the U.S. Census
Bureau, the State Department of Finance, and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments
(CVAG).
The City's population as of January,1995, is estimated by the State Department of Finance to be 17,591
persons. In addition to permanent residents, the City has approximately 8,000 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. The average occupancy is 2.85 persons per occupied unit.
The major employers in the City include the La Quinta Hotel and Resort, PGA West, Von's, Simon
Motors, WalMart, Albertson's, Ralph's, and the City of La Quinta.
Loral Environmental Setting
The RRO area is sparsely populated. Estimates range from 50 to 200 persons (La Quinta Community
Development Department), with less than 40 homes estimated to be in existence.
A. Would the project cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed amendment will facilitate projects which had already
been approved prior to establishment of the RRO designation during development of the La Quinta
General Plan update. There are currently 950 acres of VLDR and 650 acres of LDR which have the
RRO designation applied. This amounts to a potential increase of 1600 units if all of the RRO
designation were removed; however, several projects have been approved at the higher range in the area
prior to establishment of the RRO district. Even considering this, the two subject project areas only
exceed the allowable density under the RRO by 35 units over an area of 309 acres. This indicates that
most properties would not develop to the high end of the density range, effectively cancelling out the
density increase afforded by removal of the RRO designation. Approval of the amendment may increase
population, depending on the intensity of any future proposed projects, but this is not anticipated as a
significant impact due to existing development approvals and land use.
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 amendment will not significantly change the type and
intensity of anticipated growth patterns in the area. It is not anticipated that substantial growth in
development will result from the amendment's approval.
C. Would the project displace existing housing, especially affordable housing?
No Impact. The proposal will not have any impact in displacement of housing beyond the land use
designations currently established in the La Quinta General Plan.
3.3 EARTH RESOURCES
Regional Environmental Setting
The City of La Quinta has a varied topography, from gently sloping alluvial fans, steep hillsides, to
relatively flat desert floor. The alluvial soils that make up most of the City's soil types 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.
Local Environmental Setting
The subject area is dominated by Coachella, Gilman and Myoma series soils. These soils are well -
drained, but due to irrigation activities exhibit higher water table characteristics. Due to this, the area
has a moderate to high hazard potential for liquefaction. Myoma series soils are not considered prime
agricultural soils. The Oasis fault trace (inferred) runs southeasterly, along the southwest periphery of
the area, but is not seismically active (Source: LQMEA)
A. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity:
fault rupture?
Less Than Significant Impact. A major earthquake along the Oasis 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, and the fault has not been
seismically active in historic times. No fault rupture hazard is anticipated for the project site. (Source:
Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan; LQGP; LQMEA)
B. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismic
ground shaldng?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed amendment will not impact the current potential for
seismic risk, as the existing land use designations essentially allow similar residential development
intensities, when compared to the proposed amendment. Any development in the area must conform to
applicable building codes relating to seismic impact reduction, notwithstanding the amendment.
C. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity:
ground failure or liquefaction?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed amendment will not impact the current potential for
seismic related ground failure or liquefaction, as the existing land use designations essentially allow
similar residential development intensities, when compared to the proposed amendment. Any
development in the area would have to conform to applicable building codes relating to seismic impact
reduction, notwithstanding the amendment.
D. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity:
seiche or tsunami or volcanic hazard?
Less than Significant Impact. The City is located inland from the Pacific Ocean and would not be
subject to a tsunami. Lake Cahuilla, a man-made reservoir located in the southeast area of the City,
might experience some moderate wave activity as a result of an earthquake and groundshaking. In the
event of a levee failure or seiche at Lake Cahuilla, the area could be impacted. The hydrologic design of
the PGA West golf courses was required to take this potential impact into consideration.
E. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving landslides or
mudslides?
No Impact. The amendment area is over `h mile from the closest outcroppings of the Santa Rosa
mouuntains. Thus, the project would not be impacted by potential mudslides or landslides.
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?
No Impact. The area is identified as having moderate to high hazard potential for liquefaction due to
seismic activity. No impacts are anticipated due to grading activities. Conditions attached to any
development approval would adequately address such impacts.
G. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving subsidence
of the land?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is in an area which is considered to have subsidence
hazards, according to the LQMEA. Dynamic settlement results in geologically seismic areas where
poorly consolidated soils mix with perched groundwater causing dramatic decreases in the elevation of
the ground (Source: LQMEA). Soils reports as required for any development approval would adequately
address such impacts.
H. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving expansive
soils?
No Impact. The underlying soils on the project site consist of Coachella, Gilman and Myoma series.
The shrink/swell capacity for such soils is low. These soils are permeable and generally exhibit slow
runoff, negligible erosion, and low incidence of flooding (Source: Soil Survey of Riverside County,
California, Coachella Valley Area). No impacts are anticipated beyond existing conditions.
L Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving unique
geologic or physical features?
No Impact. The Coral Reef Mountains and the Santa Rosa Mountains represent unique geologic
features in the La Quinta area. These unique geologic features are not located on or proximate to the
subject area.
10
3.4 WATER
Regional Environmental Setting
Groundwater resources in the La Quinta area consist of a system of large aquifers (porous layer of rock
material) and groundwater basins separated by bedrock or layers of soil that trap or retain groundwater.
Water supplies are also augmented with surface water from the Colorado River transported via the
Coachella Canal and stored at Lake Cahuilla.
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 a requirement in the near future.
Local Environmental Setting
The proposed amendment area has small areas of standing water within it's boundaries. These consist
of several small ponds which are utilized primarily for irrigation needs. The closest significant water
body is Lake Cahuilla, just over a mile southwest of the subject area.
A. Would the project result in changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate
and amount of surface runoff'.'
No Impact. The proposed amendment will not impact the current potential for surface runoff and
drainage, as the existing land use designations essentially allow similar residential development
intensities, when compared to the proposed amendment. Any.development in the area must conform to
applicable drainage and hydrologic standards, notwithstanding the amendment.
B. Would the project result in exposure of people or property to water -related hazards
such as flooding?
Less than Significant Impact. The site is within designated 100 year flood zones (Zones AO and A).
The hazard factors for Zone A have not been determined, Zone AO factors have been determined,
generally at one foot. There are existing flood control facilities in the City that generally protect the
project site.
C. Would the project result in discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface
water duality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed amendment will not affect the current potential for surface
runoff impacts, as the existing land use designations essentially allow similar residential development
intensities, when compared to the proposed amendment. Any development in the area must conform to
NPDES requirements, applicable drainage and hydrologic standards, notwithstanding the amendment.
D. Would the project result in changes in the amount of surface water in any water body?
No Impact. No increase in runoff is expected, as the existing land use designations essentially allow
similar residential development intensities, when compared to the proposed amendment.
it
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 substantial bodies of water or rivers. There are
many small man-made lakes and ponds on golf courses within the City. The Whitewater River and the
La Quinta Evacuation Channel are stormwater channels that are usually dry except for runoff from
seasonal storms. This amendment would not affect these facilities.
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?
No Impact. Water supply in the City is derived from groundwater and supplementary water brought
in from the Colorado River. No impacts to ground water sources can be associated with this amendment.
G. Would the project result in altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
No Impact. The proposed project will not have an impact on groundwater wells. No alteration to the
direction or rate of flow of the groundwater supply will occur due to this amendment.
IL Would the project result in impacts to groundwater quality?
No Impact The proposed amendment will not impact ground water quality beyond the existing land
uses as currently designated in the General Plan. The existing land use designations essentially allow
similar residential development intensities, when compared to the proposed amendment.
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). SEDAB has a distinctly
different air pollution problem than the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). A discussion of the
jurisdictional organization and requirements is found in the LQMEA.
Currently, the SEDAB does not meet federal standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate
matter. In the Coachella Valley, the standards for PM 10 are frequently exceeded. PM 10 is particulate
matter 10 microns or less in diameter that becomes suspended in the air due to winds, grading activity,
and by vehicles on unpaved roads, among other causes.
Local Environmental Setting
The City is located in the Coachella Valley, which has a 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.
12
The City is located within Source Receptor Area (SRA) 30, which now includes three air quality
monitoring stations, two located in the City of Palm Springs and one in the City of Indio. The Indio
station monitors conditions which are most representative of the La Quinta area. The station has been
collecting data for ozone and particulate matter since 1983. The Palm Springs station monitors carbon
monoxide in addition to ozone and particulate matter and has been in operation since 1985. Eight wind
monitors are being installed by the District, the first in Desert Hot Springs in January 1996.
A. Would the project violate any air standard or contribute to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed amendment will not significantly impact air quality
beyond the existing land uses as currently designated in the General Plan. The existing land use
designations essentially allow similar residential development intensities, when compared to the
proposed amendment. When existing established land uses, previously approved projects and rural
development patterns in the area are considered, any additional impact due to density increase associated
withthe amendment are not considered significant.
B. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
No Impact. Sensitive receptors include schools, day care centers, parks and recreation areas, medical
facilities, rest homes, and other land uses that include concentrations of individuals recognized as
exhibiting particular sensitivity to air pollution. The adjacent land uses consist of residential and golf
development to the immediate west and south, with scattered lower density residential within the subject
area and to the southeast. The closest schools are Truman Elementary school, the La Quinta Middle
School and the YMCA Preschool, all located over a mile from the subject area at 50th and Park
Avenues. There are no proximate medical facilities which could be impacted.
C. Would the project alter air movements, moisture, temperature, or cause any change in
climate?
No Impact. The amendment will not cause any impacts associated with these factors
D. Would the project create objectionable odors?
No Impact. The proposed amendment will not create any objectionable odors.
3.6 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
Regional Environmental Selling
La Quinta is a desert community of over 17,500 permanent residents. There is a substantial portion of
the City that is undeveloped. The existing circulation system is a combination of early roadwork
constructed 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.
13
There are some existing pedestrian, bicycle and equestrian facilities in La Quinta, however, these
systems are to be completed as new developments come to the City.
Local Environmental Setting
The road system in and around the amendment area consists primarily of two lane undivided pavement
in fair condition, with no curbing or gutters.
A. Would the project result in increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
Less Than Significant Impact. The amendment will allow densities in the subject properties to
increase by one unittacre. The acreage of the applicant's properties for which the amendment is sought
is 309, which could create 3,090 trips/day. Considering the 615 acres affected by this amendment, this
number increases to 6,150 trips/day. However, these projects were approved at the time the General
Plan was updated in 1992, and were therefore accounted for in the City wide traffic analysis for the
LQGP. By removal of any additional acreage, density allowances would increase by one unit for each
acre removed. Assuming single family development occurs at the high end of the density range, trip
counts are estimated to increase by 10 for each additional unit. Considering existing subdivided areas
and larger holdings in the area not likely to change over time (Griffin estate, Vista Montana), along with
other existing project approvals considered under the LQGP and road improvements to be required as
these develop, the additional potential impact is not viewed as significant.
B. Would the project result in hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or
dangerous intersection) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)?
No Impact. No design features are associated with the project. Uses allowed under the amendment are
similar to and compatible with those currently designated by the LQGP.
C. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access to nearby uses?
No Impact. The proposed amendment will not impact access provisions beyond the existing land uses
as currently designated in the General Plan. The existing land use designations essentially require similar
residential access provisions, when compared to the proposed amendment.
D. Would the project result in insufficient parldng capacity on -site or off -site?
No Impact. No change in use is contemplated by this amendment. All residential projects in the subject
area must provide the required parking for each unit. This will be assured when development plans are
submitted.
E. Would the project result in hazards or barriers for pedestrian or bicyclists?
No Impact. The proposed amendment will not impact pedestrians or bicyclists beyond the existing land
uses as currently designated in the General Plan. The existing land use designations essentiallyallows
the same or similar types of residential development, when compared to the proposed amendment.
14
F. Would the project result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
No Impact. The amendment will not interfere with existing alternative transportation modes and
facilities or create a need for new modes and facilities.
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. There are no navigable rivers or
waterways, or air travel lanes within the City limits. Thus, there will be no impacts upon these issues.
3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Regional Environmental Setting
The City of La Quinta lies within the Colorado Desert. Two ecosystems are found within the City, the
Sonoran Desert Scrub and the Desert Transition. The disturbed environments within the City are
classified as urban or agricultural. A discussion of these ecosystems is found in the LQMEA.
Local Environmental Setting
The subject area is developed with rural ranch housing and estates, with some limited agricultural
activities. The LQMEA does not identify any potential biological resources or habitat in the area.
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)?
No Impact. The LQMEA does not identify any potential biological resources or habitat in the area.
B. Would the project result in impacts to locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
No Impact. The LQMEA does not identify any potential biological resources or habitat in the area.
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 amendment area.
D. Would the project result in impacts to wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian, and vernal
pool)?
No Impact. There are no wetlands, marshes, riparian communities, or vernal pools within the City
(Source: LQMEA).
E. Would the project result in impacts to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
No Impact. There are no known wildlife corridors within the project area (Source: LQMEA).
15
3.8 ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
Regional Environmental Setting
The: City of La Quinta contains both areas of insignificant and significant Mineral Aggregate Resources
Areas (SMARA), as designated by the State Department of Conservation. There are no known oil
resources in the City. Major energy resources used in the City come from the Imperial Irrigation District
(III)), Southern California Gas Company, and gasoline companies.
Local Environmental Setting
There are no oil wells or other fuel or energy producing resources on the proposed project site. The
project area is located within MRZ-1, a designation for areas where adequate information exists to
indicate that no significant mineral deposits are present, or it is determined that there is little likelihood
for their presence (Source: LQMEA).
A. Would the project conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
No Impact. The proposed amendment will not significantly conflict with any such plans, as nothing
has been adopted by the City.
B. Would the project use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner?
No Impact. The proposed amendment will not impact use of non-renewable resources beyond the
existing land uses as currently designated in the General Plan. The existing land use designations
essentially require similar resource needs, when compared to the proposed amendment.
3.9 RISK OF UPSETIHUMAN HEALTH
Regional Environmental Setting
Although large scale, hazardous waste generating employment is not yet located within 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, transportation of such materials out of and through La Quinta takes place.
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 in the past.
A. Would the project involve a risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)?
No Impact. There is no additional risk beyond those associated with existing land uses as currently
designated in the General Plan.
16
B. Would the project involve possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. The amendment would have no impact on emergency response or evacuation.
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 amendment.
D. Would the project involve exposure of people to existing sources of potential health
hazards?
No Impact. There are no existing health hazards in the proposed amendment area. The proposed
amendment is not expected to create any health hazards beyond those associated with existing land uses
as currently designated in the General Plan.
E. Would the proposal involve increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass,
or trees?
No Impact. The proposed amendment will not increase fire hazard in the area.
3.10 NOISE
Regional Environmental Setting
Noise levels in the City are created by a variety of sources in and near the City. The major sources
include vehicular noise on City streets and Highway 111, and temporary construction noises. The
ambient noise levels are dominated by vehicular noise along the highway and major arterials.
Local Environmental Setting
Primary noise sources in the subject area are associated with vehicle traffic.
A. Would the project result in increases in existing noise levels?
Less Than Significant Impact. Any increase in vehicular noise due to additional vehicle traffic
attributable to the amendment is anticipated to be insignificant. Ambient noise levels will increase as
development occurs in the area under the existing land use designations. Increased traffic associated with
a slightly higher density allowance for some of the area properties should not significantly increase the
ambient levels which would occur anyway due to development under the existing General Plan.
B. Would the project result in exposure of people to severe noise levels?
No Impact. Exposure to noise levels associated with the amendment will not occur beyond the existing
land uses as currently designated in the General Plan. The existing land use designations essentially
expose people to similar noise levels as those associated with the proposed amendment.
17
3.11 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.
Fire protection service is provided to the City by Riverside County Fire Department. The Fire
Department administers two stations in the City; Station #32 on Frances Hack Lane, and Station #70,
at the intersection of Madison Street and Avenue 54.
Health care services are provided in the City through JFK Memorial Hospital in Indio, and the
Eisenhower Immediate Care Clinic located in the One -Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center. Paramedic
services are provided by Springs Ambulance Service.
Local Environmental Setting
The nearest fire station to the project is Station #70 located adjacent to the subject area. Governmental
services in La Quinta are provided by City staff at the Civic Center and by County, State, and federal
agency offices in the desert and region .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 contains 2,065 square feet of space and approximately 18,000 volumes.
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 amendment will not impact the current fire protection
services, as the existing land use designations essentially allow similar residential development
intensities, when compared to the proposed amendment. Any development in the area would have to
conform to applicable fire codes, notwithstanding the amendment.
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 It is not anticipated that approval of the amendment would significantly
impact police services in the area, as the existing land use designations essentially allow similar
residential development intensities.
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 Payment of school impact fees to mitigate potential impacts on local
schools would be required for any development in the area. No significant impacts beyond current
conditions are anticipated.
18
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.
No Impact. The existing roadways in and around the amendment area will not be impacted beyond the
currently approved land uses, as the existing land use designations essentially allow similar residential
development intensities contemplated by the amendment.
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?
No Impact. No new impacts are anticipated beyond the current approved land uses.
3.12 UTILITIES
Regional Environmental Setting
The City of La Quinta is served by the Imperial irrigation District (IID) for electrical power supply and
the Southern California Gas Company (SCG) for natural gas service. General Telephone Exchange
(GTE) provides telephone services for the City. Continental Cablevision services the area for cable
television service.
The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) provides water service to the City. CVWD obtains its
water from underground aquifers and from the Colorado River. Potable water is stored in five reservoirs
located in the City.
The City's stormwater drainage system is administered by 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 three landfills within the Coachella Valley.
Local Environmental Setting
The subject area is sparsely developed at present. A Mello -Roos assessment district has been proposed
as part of the approved Vista Santa Rosa specific plan (SP 90-020). Minimal improvements exist in the
area.
A. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to power
and gas services?
No Impact. Power, sewer, and gas lines will need to be brought in to the area for development to occur
under the current land use designations. No substantial alterations to those required facilities are
anticipated due to the amendment, as the existing land use designations essentially allow similar
residential development intensities to those contemplated by the amendment.
B. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to
communication systems?
19
No Impact. Telephone and communication facilities will need to be brought in to the area for
development to occur under the current land use designations. No substantial alterations to any required
facilities are anticipated due to the amendment, as the existing land use designations approved under the
General Plan essentially allow similar residential development intensities to those contemplated by the
amendment.
C. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to local or
regional water treatment or distribution facilities?
No Impact. Water service facilities will need to be brought in to the area for development to occur under
the current land use designations. No substantial alterations to any required facilities are anticipated due
to the amendment, as the existing land use designations approved under the General Plan essentially
allow similar residential development intensities to those contemplated by the amendment.
D. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to sewer
services or septic tanks?
No Impact. Sewage facilities will need to be brought in to the area for development to occur under the
current land use designations. No substantial alterations to any required facilities are anticipated due to
the amendment, as the existing land use designations approved under the General Plan essentially allow
similar residential development intensities to those contemplated by the amendment.
E. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to storm
water drainage?
No Impact. Drainage facilities will need to be brought in to the area for development to occur under the
current land use designations. No substantial alterations to any required facilities are anticipated due to
the amendment, as the existing land use designations approved under the General Plan essentially allow
similar residential development intensities to those contemplated by the amendment.
F. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to solid waste
disposal?
No Impact. The area receives solid waste disposal service from Waste Management of the Desert.
Service needs will significantly increase as the area develops under the existing approved land uses for
the area. No impacts as a result of the amendment are anticipated beyond those identified by the General
Plan EIR for existing approved densities.
3.13 AESTHETICS
Regional Environmental Setting
The City of La Quinta is partially located within a desert valley cove. 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.
20
The project area is a sparsely developed, rural low density section of the City. Views of the Santa Rosa
and Coral Reef Mountains exist to the south and west.
A. Would the project affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
No Impact. The amendment would not affect any existing views or scenic highways.
B. Would the project have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
No Impact. The amendment would not cause any demonstrable negative effects.
C. Would the project create light or glare?
No Impact. The currently anticipated development of the land uses designated for this area will
cumulatively contribute to the existing light and glare emanating from other areas of the City. No
additional impacts beyond those associated with current densities as approved under the General Plan
are anticipated due to the amendment.
3.14 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Regional Environmental Setting
The most likely locations of prehistoric cultural resources in the La Quinta area are along the foothills.
However, many sites have been found on the open desert floor area. Camp and village sites are usually
located near sources of water, food, and shelter. Temporary camp sites have been found near game trails,
springs, mesquite groves, grass stands, bedrock outcrops, marshy areas, or along the ancient lake shore
line. Isolated milling features, sparse lithic scatters, and isolated pottery scatters have been found
throughout the City.
The settling of the La Quinta area has been chronicled by the La Quinta historical Society in several
publications and museum exhibits. There are 13 designated historical structures and sites recorded on
the California Historic Resources Inventory. These resources are listed in the La Quinta General Plan.
Local Environmental Setting
The proposed amendment area is partially within the limits of the ancient lakebed for Lake Cahuilla, and
is located within the lakebed delineation study area for paleontological resources shoreline of ancient
Lake Cahuilla. The shoreline corresponds with the known occurrence of fossil -bearing soil strata.
A. Would the project disturb paleontological resources?
No Impact. The RRO designation does not affect development which would be permissible under the
General Plan. Impacts associated with development will be assessed as projects are submitted. No
additional impacts beyond those associated with current densities as approved under the General Plan
are anticipated due to the amendment.
B. Would the project disturb archaeological resources?
21
No Impact. Refer to 3.14.A.
C. Would the project affect historical resources?
No Impact. No historic resources or structures have been identified in the subject area. The amendment
would not create additional impacts beyond development already permitted by the General Plan.
D. Would the project have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique
cultural values?
Less Than Significant Impact. The amendment will not affect any known ethnic cultural values. The
rural Character of the area could be impacted due to removal or modification of the RROpolicies in the
General Plan. These policies are intended to be incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance revision project,
which is nearing completion.
E. Would the project restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact
area?
No Impact. There are no known religious functions or uses or sacred uses in the subject area, or
adjacent to it. The amendment would not create any impacts beyond existing conditions.
3.15 RECREATION
Regional Environmental Setting
The City of La Quinta has an adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan that assesses the existing
resources and facilities and the future needs of the City. The City contains approximately 28.7 acres of
developed parkland for Quimby Act purposes. The 845.0 acre regional Lake Cahuilla Park is not
included in this count. There are also bike and equestrian pathways and trails within the City and
designated pedestrian hiking trails.
A. Would the project increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other
recreational facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact. The amendment may result in less rural development occurring in the
area, which may impact recreational needs and opportunities in the area, relative primarily to the
potential for more urban low density development. This is not considered a significant impact in light
of property owner support for maintaining the rural character in the area.
B. Would the project affect existing recreational opportunities?
Less Than Significant Impact. The amendment may serve to displace some rural development in favor
of more urban low density development, due to the increase in density. This may reduce opportunities
for equestrian recreational use and other rural recreation in the area. This is not considered a significant
impact i i light of current development patterns and property owner desires in the area, and the current
availability of larger holdings not individually conducive to tract development trends.
22
SECTION 4: MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Initial Study for the proposed general plan amendment did not discover any significant impacts
associated with the project. Development of the subject area will occur irregardless of whether or not
the amendment is carried through. The density increase in the area relates to several projects already
approved and assessed for impacts prior to the RRO designation being applied.
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,
* The proposed project will not have the potential to achieve short term
goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals,
* The proposed project will not have impact which are individually limited
but cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed
development in the immediate vicinity,
* The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will
adversely affect humans, either directly or indirectly.
SECTION 5: EARLIER ANALYSES
A. Earlier Analyses Used.
The following documents were used and/or referred to in the preparation of this assessment:
• La Quinta General Plan Update; October 1992
• La Quinta Housing Element Update, May 1995
• La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment; October 1992
• La Quinta Parks and Recreation Master Plan; April 1993
• USDA Soil Conservation Service - Coachella Valley Soil Survey
These and various other documents on file with the Community Development Department were
used in the preparation of this Initial Study.
B. Impacts Adequately Addressed.
No significant impacts were identified in the Initial Study.
C. Mitigation Measures.
No mitigation measures are identified, therefore none have been required.
23
Prepared by: Date:
Wallace H. Nesbit
Associate Planner
BI #1
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: FEBRUARY 27,1996
CASE: BIKE ROUTE PLAN
APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA
REQUEST: APPROVE THE BIKE ROUTE PLAN TO RAPLEMENT
GENERAL PLAN POLICY AND OBTAIN FUNDING FOR A
GRANT APPLICATION
LOCATION: CITY WIDE
BACKGROUND:
The Bike Route Plan provides recreational and travel opportunities for bicyclists and pedestrians
withii the City while enhancing non -motorized connections between residential, parks, open spaces,
commercial, employment areas and adjacent communities (Attachment 1). The Bike Route Plan
encourages biking as a safe and convenient mode of transportation and recreation.
The La Quinta General Plan, adopted in 1992, consists of eight elements: Land Use, Circulation,
Parks and Recreation, Environmental Conservation, Open Space, Environmental Hazards, Air
Quality, and Infrastructure and Public Service. Identified within the General Plan Circulation
Element, is a Bikeway Corridor Policy Diagram (Pages 3-25). The map identifies conceptual routes
throughout the City, promotes the use of bicycles as a safe and convenient mode of transportation
and recreation, and provides a frame work to build future bicycle facilities. The proposed Bike Route
Plan will implement the General Plan policy in that it designates the specific location of bike paths,
lanes and routes on select City streets and off -road areas. Objective 3-6.1 of the General Plan
Circulation Element states that "The City shall facilitate the use of alternative, non -vehicular modes
of transportation through the identification of conceptual bicycle corridors throughout the City."
The City Council, at its December 19,1995 meeting, approved under Resolution 95-98, an application
for the 1995 Bicycle Lane Account Grant (Attachment 2). The application asks for $77,400 with a
City match of 10% for a total project cost of $86,000 "to construct an under -street bridge crossing
for a bicycle lane at Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Storm Water Channel." To be eligible for this
State grant, the City must have an approved Bicycle Transportation Plan.
Pcfb.1
The proposed Bike Route Plan is consistent with a Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP). A BTP is a
requirement to obtain funding from the Bicycle Lane Account (BLA). These funds are part of the
State. Transportation Fund; monies are limited to $90,000 annually per project for each City and
County. The current City application for BLA monies is to construct a safe crossing bicycle path
under the Highway I I I storm water channel west of Washington street. The path provides a key
connection to a Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) planned east -west regional
route. The application requires approval of the Bike Route Plan.
The Bike Route Plan identifies existing and proposed bike lanes and paths. Bike lanes will be
provided along Major and Primary Arterial such as Jefferson Street and Miles Avenue as a
requirement of new development. Bike paths will require public resources to build; the City built the
Bear Creek Channel and will continue to seek grant funding to complete the planned Bike Routes in
locations that cannot be built as a requirement of new development.
The La Quinta Parks and Recreation Commission, at their meeting of February 12, 1996,
unanimously recommended approval of the Bike Route Plan to the City Council. (Attachment 3)
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution, recommending to the City Council approval of the Bike
Route Plan as an implementation measure of General Plan policies 3-6.1.1 and 3-6.2.5; and to obtain
.grant funding.
Attachments:
1. Proposed Bike Route Plan, City of La Quinta
2. City Council Resolution No.95-98 for Bicycle Lane Account Grant
3. Minutes of the February 12,1996 Parks and Recreation Commission -draft
Prepared by:
,,,FREE BAKER, AIQ, Principal Planner
Submitted by:
CHRISTINE DI IORIO, Planning Manager
Pcfb.I
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF
THE LA QUINTA BIKE ROUTE PLAN
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did on the
27th day of February, 1996, hold a duly noticed Public Meeting to consider the Bike Route Plan for
the City of La Quinta; and,
WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California did on the 12th day of February, 1996, hold a duly noticed Public Meeting to consider the
Bike Route Plan for the City of La Quinta with a recommendation for City Council approval; and,
WHEREAS, a Program EIR has been prepared for the 1992 La Quinta General Plan,
and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15164, it has been determined that no new
effects occur and no new mitigation measures are required as the Bike Route Plan is within the Scope
of the General Plan Program EIR and no new environmental document is required; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Meeting, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find
the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify the recommendation for approval of said Bike
Route Plan.
1. The Proposed Plan will not adversely affect the planned development of the City as specified
by the General Plan for the City of La Quinta because the Bike Route Plan provides
requirements which are consistent with said General Plan.
2. The Proposed Plan would not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the City
because the Plan is designed to insure unsafe conditions do not occur.
3. There will be no significant adverse impacts resulting from the Plan because by its nature,
creates conditions which enhance, control, and are compatible with planned development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City
of La Quinta, California, as follows:
That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission
in this case.
2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the Bike Route Plan for the
reasons set forth in this Resolution and as noted in the attachments.
resope.177
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission held on this 27th Day of February, 1996, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JACQUES ABELS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY BERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta
resopc.177
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT * 1
THE CITY OF LA QUINTA
January,1996
PROPOSED
BIKE ROUTE PLAN
CITY OF LA QUINTA
I. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Goal 1
Establish a bicycle system within the City of La Quinta, consistent with planned
regional routes, to encourage biking as a mode of transportation and recreation.
Goal 2
Establish a system of bicycle lanes and paths to encourage the use of the bicycle as
a safe and convenient mode of transportation and recreation.
Objectives:
a. The City will establish a system of bicycle lanes within the street right-
of-way to meet the needs of both the local and commuter cyclist;
b. All bicycle trip destinations, including schools, public buildings,
shopping areas, and parks should be equipped with bike racks;
C. Include sites that are appropriate for educational or recreational
purposes as part of the bikeway system;
d. Where possible, require provision of designated bikeway segments by
developers, and their connection with the Citywide network;
e. The bicycle system will include a hierarchy of routes, including the
following linkages:
1) Connections to Coachella Valley Association of Governments
(CVAG) regional paths, including paths along the Whitewater
Wash, Highway 111 connecting to Lake Cahuilla via Jefferson
aocfb.201 1
and Madison Streets;
2) Safe paths to schools, including the 50th Avenue school
complex, the La Quinta High School, La Quinta Middle School,
and Adams (currently under construction) and Truman
Elementary Schools.
3) Paths to parks, playgrounds, 50th Avenue Sports Complex, Fritz
Burns Park, La Quinta Community Park, "Palm Royale Park"
and potential park sites along Bear Creek Channel;
f. Off-street bicycle trails should use open space corridors, flood control
and utility easements where possible. Such trails shall minimize
automobile cross traffic.
II. BIKE ROUTE PLAN
1. Background.• La Quinta General Plan, CRAG Regional Plan, Subdivision
and proposed Zoning Ordinance
The La Quinta General Plan, adopted in 1992, consists of eight elements: Land Use,
Circulation, Parks and Recreation, Environmental Conservation, Open Space,
Environmental Hazards, Air Quality, and Infrastructure and Public Services. As part
of the Circulation Element, the City adopted a Bicycle Corridor Policy Map. The
Map identifies conceptual routes throughout the City, promotes the use of bicycles
as a safe and convenient mode of transportation and recreation, and provides a
framework to build future bicycle facilities. The Bike Route Plan implements General
Plan policies. The Bike Route Plan identifies local routes that are consistent with
the Coachella Valley Association of Governments Non -Motorized Transportation
Element.
The La Quinta Subdivision Ordinance (Section 13.24.140 Special Improvements)
requires Bicycle lanes be designed and improved consistent with the General Plan.
The proposed Zoning Ordinance Update requires bicycle parking standards and
bicycle racks for all new nonresidential uses to mitigate motor vehicle pollution and
congestion.
docfb.201 2
Z Bicycle System
The La Quinta Bike Route Plan includes provisions for bicycles and pedestrians
throughout the City. The proposed bicycle network is designed to satisfy current and
future requirements for safe and functional bicycle commuting and recreation in the
City. Many bicycle routes can be implemented by signing and striping in conjunction
with parking prohibitions, thereby causing minimal disruption to existing traffic
patterns. Bicycle lanes will also be included in the construction of new street
facilities or in the scheduled improvements of existing streets.
Three classifications of bicycle facilities are incorporated into the City of La Quinta
street system. The primary hierarchy of pathways includes Class I (off-street)
facilities along selected off-street corridors, Class H (striped on -street) facilities along
Major and Primary Arterials, and Class III (shared on -street or on the sidewalk)
facilities along all other roadways.
These three classifications are consistent with the Caltrans Highway Design Manual,
(Section 7, chapter 1000) and are defined as follows:
a. Class I Bikeways
Class I bikeways (bike paths) are off-street facilities with exclusive right-of-
way, serving the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians. Sidewalk facilities
are not considered Class I bikeways because they are primarily intended to
serve pedestrians. By State law, motorized bicycles are prohibited on bike
paths unless authorized by ordinance or the agency having jurisdiction over the
path. Methods for discouraging the use of off-street bikeways for motorized
vehicle use include removable bollards and prominent signage.
The minimum width for Class I bikeways is eight feet for a two-way path and
five feet for a one-way path. All Class I facilities proposed for the City Bike
Route Plan conform to this standard. Class I facilities are the Bear Creek
Channel, the Whitewater Wash and Lake Cahuilla Park paths.
b. Class H Bikeways
Class II bikeways (bike lanes) for preferential use by bicycles are established
aocfb.ao 1
within the paved area of roadways. Bike lane stripes are intended to promote
an orderly flow of traffic. Bicycles have exclusive use of a bike lane but must
share the facility with motor vehicles and pedestrians crossing it. Bike lane
stripes can increase bicyclists' confidence that motorists will not stray into
their path if they remain within the bike lane. Bike lanes are one-way
facilities. The width for these facilities is five feet.
Class II facilities are included along Primary arterials, including Miles Street,
Adams Street, 48th Avenue, Eisenhower Drive, Calle Tampico, 52nd Avenue,
54th Avenue, Airport Boulevard, 58th Avenue, Jefferson Street, a portion of
Washington Street, and Madison Street. Class II facilities consist of a five-
foot striped bike lane of the roadway with a six-foot pedestrian path adjacent
to the curb. (See attachment, Road Cross Sections).
C. Class III Bike Routes
Class III bike routes are intended to provide continuity to the bikeway system.
Class III facilities are shared facilities with motor vehicles on the street, and
pedestrians and bicycles as a secondary use on the side walk. In the case of
the City of La Quinta Bike Routes, these will consist of those streets identified
on the Bike Route Plan.
III. IMPLEMENTATION
1. Bicycle Lane Account
The Bicycle Lane Account (BLA) is a funding mechanism for bicycle facilities
outlined in Chapter Eight of the State Street and Highway Code. Funds are part of
the State Transportation Fund, and may be allocated to cities and counties for
bikeways and related facilities, planning, and safety and education. To be eligible,
the bikeways must be approximately parallel to State, county, or city roadways where
the separation of bicycle traffic from motor vehicle traffic will increase the traffic
capacity of the roadway. Facilities may include new bikeways to service major
transportation corridors, removal of travel barriers to potential bicycle commuters,
bicycle parking, bicycle carrying facilities on public transit vehicles, installation of
traffic control devices to improve safety, the elimination of hazardous conditions on
existing bikeways, and safety, education, and routing signs.
docfb.201 4
All bikeway projects must comply with minimum safety design criteria established
by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and no funds may be used
for maintenance. Funds are limited to $90,000 per project and $90,000 per agency.
Local agencies must fund 10% of the project cost.
To be eligible for these funds, the City of La Quinta has an approved General
Bikeway Plan (Bikeway Corridor Policy Map), and the project(s) must have the
potential of encouraging motorists to commute by bicycle --this excludes purely
recreational facilities. Design of the project must conform to Caltrans Design Manual
Section 7, Chapter 1000 relating to bikeway planning and design, and the guidelines
of Section 2386 of the Streets and Highways Code for allocating funds. To retain
eligibility for funding, all new bike routes proposed by this Bike Path Route Plan
conform to the minimum Caltrans design standards.
The following is the State of California criteria for a General Bikeway Plan:
a. Route selection includes the commuting needs of employees, business
owners, shoppers, and students.
b. Maps of existing and proposed land use of the areas adjacent to the
bike routes.
C. Population density and settlement patterns of the areas adjacent to the
bike routes.
d. Transportation interface with other modes of transportation so that a
bicyclist may use different types of travel in reaching a destination.
e. Citizen and community involvement.
f Flexibility and coordination with long range transportation planning.
g. Local government involvement in planning.
h. Provisions for rest facilities with restrooms, drinking water, telephones,
and air for bicycle tires, etc.
I. Provision for parking facilities, located at civic and public buildings,
transit stops, business districts, shopping centers, schools, parks,
playgrounds and other places where people congregate.
docfb.201 5
I Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP)
La Quinta's Bike Path Route Plan is consistent with the Bicycle
Transportation Plan as required by S.B. 1095 Chapter 8, Section 891.2, Non -
Motorized Transportation
a. The current estimate of 1,263 existing bicycle users in La Quinta is
based on the General Plan EIR Circulation Element and uses a .007
modal split factor from the total daily traffic trips. The projected 8,396
bicycle users in La Quinta are based on the same modal split for the
build -out scenario used in the General Plan, EIR Circulation Element.
b. Attached is the 1992 La Quinta Existing and General Plan Map.
C. Attached is the 1996 Existing and Proposed Bike Route Plan, and the
CVAG Non -Motorized Transportation Element, map of proposed
facilities.
d. Attached is the 1996 Existing and Proposed Bike Path Route Plan that
identifies current end of trip bicycle parking facilities. Proposed
facilities will be obtained from new development through development
stipulations. The facilities identified below are for employees of that
business. (The Boys and Girls Club facilities are for employees and
patrons.) The existing facilities includes:
1. Boys and Girls Club of Coachella Valley
La Quinta Unit
49-995 Park Avenue
La Quinta CA 92253
Bicycle racks, changing lockers, and showers
2. Ralphs Grocery Company
50-929 Washington Street
La Quinta CA 92253
Bicycle racks and changing lockers
docfb.20 1 6
3. Wal-Mart Discount City
78-950 Highway 111
La Quinta CA 92253
Bicycle racks and changing lockers
4. Vons Grocery
78-271 Highway 111
La Quinta CA 92253
Changing lockers (Note: although not in front of Vons, there is
a bicycle rack in the shopping center that could be used by
employees of Vons)
5. Albertsons Food & Drug Store
78-630 Highway 111
La Quinta CA 92253
Bicycle Racks and changing lockers
6. La Quinta Resort and Club
49-499 Eisenhower Drive
La Quints CA 92253
Bicycle racks, changing lockers and showers
7. La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta CA 92253
Changing lockers and showers
8. Truman Elementary School
78-870 50th Avenue
La Quinta CA 92253
Bicycle racks, changing rooms and showers
aocfb.20t 7
9. La Quinta Middle School
78-900 50th Avenue
La Quinta CA 92253
Bicycle racks, changing rooms and showers
10. La Quinta High School
79-255 Westward Ho Drive
La Quinta CA 92253
Bicycle racks, changing rooms and showers
11. Riverside County Fire Department
78-136 Frances Hack Lane
La Quinta CA 92253
Changing lockers and showers
12. Riverside County Fire Department
54-001 Madison Street
La Quinta CA 92253
Changing lockers and showers
e. Sun Line Transit Agency buses accommodate bicycles on all of their fleet.
f. Future facilities for changing and storing clothing and equipment at bicycle
parking facilities would only be considered by each new private development.
Although no public facilities for changing and storing clothes and equipment
are currently planned, facilities would only be considered along the regional
Whitewater Wash bike route.
g. The Riverside County Sheriff's Department (which provides police services
to La Quinta) conducts bicycle safety programs at the schools in La Quinta.
The programs are typically held at the start of the school year and just prior to
summer. The City is conducting a "Bicycle Safety Day" through the Parks
and Recreation Department in conjunction with the Riverside County Sheriff's
Department and a local bicycle shop. The Sheriff's Department reports that
due to the training and bicycle safety programs, the incidence of vehicle vs.
bicycle accidents are extremely low in La Quinta.
aootb201 8
The Sheriff's Department actively enforces provisions of the Vehicle Code
regarding bicycle operation.
h. Letters of support are attached. The La Quinta Parks and Recreation
Commission and the Planning Commission have approved for adoption the La
Quinta Bike Route Plan. The City Council has adopted the Plan.
I. The plan has been reviewed by the Coachella Valley Association of
Government and found to be consistent with their planning efforts. The Plan
is consistent with all State, regional, and local air quality plans. The Riverside
County Transportation Commission(RCTC)will review and approve the Bike
Route Plan.
j. The attached map identifies project priority for implementation.
k. The City's policy is to obtain future bikeways including lanes and sidewalks
through the development process. There are two bike routes that require future
financial funding: Coral Reef Mountain Bicycle Path estimated at $330,000
to implement; and the completion of the White Water Channel bike path
estimated at $400,000 to implement. The City completed the Bear Creek
Channel Bike Path at cost of $280,000 to implement.
docfb.201 9
• Cathedral City • Indian Wells • Palm Desert
• Coachella • Indio • Palm Springs
• Desert Hot Springs • Le Quinta • Rancho Mirage
CVAG• County of Riverside
COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTE
' 96 FEB 13 PPI 1 15
February 7, 1996
Tom Genovese
City Manager
City of La Quinta
78-495 Cabe Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
CITY OF LA QUINTA
CITY OFFICE
Ili►.
Re: Letter of Support for the La Quinta Bicycle Transportation Plan
Dear Tom,
It is with great pleasure that I support the City of La Quinta's Bicycle Transportation Plan.
This plan is a perfect fit and conforms to the CVAG Regional Non -Motorized Transportation Plan
(August 29, 1995) developed and implemented by the Coachella Valley jurisdictions through CVAG.
The CVAG Non -Motorized Transportation Plan was funded by the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG) and is to be included in SCAG's Regional Mobility Element.
The La Quinta Bicycle Transportation Plan will further strengthen and support the opportunities for
Bicyclists not only in the City but in the entire Coachella Valley.
The La Quinta Plan envisions a network of bicycle corridors throughout the City with
connections to the regional routes. It is my belief that the La Quinta Bicycle Transportation Plan will
help immeasurably in achieving the goals of the Regional Plan. Therefore, I fully endorse your
efforts for implementing your part of the Regional Plan within the City of La Quinta.
Sincerely,
COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
Patricia A. Larson
Executive Director
cc: Juan De Lara, Chair, Coachella Valley Association of Governments
Jeanne Parrish, Chair, Transportation Committee
George Watts, Chair, Technical Advisory Committee
73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 200 - Palm Desert, CA 92260 - (6191 346-1127 - FAX (619) 340-5949
February 9, 1996
',.S Fc5 12 Pi1 1 15
ITY C F LQ�
Mr. Britt W. Wilson
Management Assistant
City of La Quinta
P.O. Box 1504
La Quinta, California 92253
Re: City of La Quinta's Bicycle Transportation Plan
Dear Britt,
We would like to submit our letter of support for the development of a Bicycle
Transportation Plan for the City of La Quints. We are aware of the increased bicycle
usage in the Coachella Valley, and feel it would be very beneficial for the City of La
Quetta to take advantage of the Bicycle Lane Account Grant Program offered by the
State of California. The City's support and promotion of bicycle facilities is
acknowledged, and adopting a Bicycle Transportation Plan is a step in the right
direction.
Sincerely,
Richard and Myra Totten
Owners of La Quints Bike Shop
50-855 Washington, Suite E
La Quinta, Ca. 92253
ATTACHMENT #2
RESOLUTION NO.95-98
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA;
APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR THE BICYCLE LANE ACCOUNT GRANT TO
CONSTRUCT AN UNDER -STREET BRIDGE CROSSING FOR A BICYCLE LANE
AT HIGHWAY 111 AND THE DEEP CANYON STORM WATER CHANNEL
WHEREAS, the people of the State of California enacted Senate Bill No. 1095 adding
Chapter 8 to the Streets and Highways Code which provides for nonmotorized transportation and
to provide funds for the implementation of the nonmotorized transportation; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Transportation shall make available not less than
$360,000 for the construction of nonmotorized transportation facilities to be used in conjunction
with the state highway system; and
WHEREAS, any city within the state may apply for up to $90,000 for a nonmotorized
project; and
WHEREAS, the City of La Quinta wishes to utilize these state funds to further the goals
and objectives of its General Plan regarding a bicycle network; and
WHEREAS, the state will pay 90% of the project costs and the City of La Quinta shall be
responsible for 10% of the project construction costs; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that the identified project is within the scope of the
Program EIR prepared for the La Quinta General Plan Update, which was certified on October 6,
1992, in that the identified project is an implementation measure towards development of a
bikeway system, consistent with the policies set forth in the La Quinta General Plan and the
Bikeways Policy Diagram of the Circulation Element, and that pursuant to Section 15168(c)(2),
CEQA Guidelines, the project is within the scope of the La Quinta General Plan Program EIR,
and no f=her environmental documentation is required.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF LA QUINTA AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City hereby approves the application for the Bicycle Lane Account
program for an under -street bridge crossing for a bicycle lane at Highway 111 and Deep Canyon
Storm Water Channel.
SECTION 2. The City certifies that it will make adequate provisions for operation and
maintenance of the project.
SECTION 3. The City certifies that it will provide 10% of the total construction cost of
the project.
RESOLUTION NO.95-98
SECTION 4. The City appoints the City Manager to be the Administering Agency
Representative as agent of the City of La Quints to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit
all documents, amendments, payment requests and other administrative duties which may be
necessary during the course of the planning, design, construction, operation and maintenance of
the aforementioned project.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta,
California this 19th day of December, 1995 by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Adolph, Henderson, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Bangerter
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
A ST:
AUNDRA L. JUI OLA, City Clerk
City of La Quinta, California
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
DAWN C. HONEYWELL, City Attorney
City of La Quinta, California
0
Submitted to the
California Department of Transportation
by
The City of La Quinta
December, 1995
5
The City of La Quinta is located in eastern Riverside County in the geographic area known as the Coachella
Valley. The cities ofPahn Springs, Palm Desert and Indian Wells, along with La Quinta, are all located in the
Coachella Valley (see regional map). The City of La Quinta is submitting this Bicycle Lane Account grant
request to construct the Deep Canyon Highway 111 under street bridge crossing.
The Deep Canyon ffiighway 111 under -street bridge crossing and bicycle lane (Deep Canyon Project) will be
the first phase of a bicycle network which will serve the northern portion of La Quinta where no bikelanes
currently exist. The Deep Canyon Project will provide a major connection between the bikelanes existing on
Highway 111 in the neighboring city of Indian Wells and the proposed bikelanes in La Quinta. Although
bikelanes are not currently in place in this portion of La Quinta, bicyclists use Highway 111 as a major bicycle
route in the Coachella Valley. Currently, bicyclists must negotiate a busy intersection at ffiighway 111 and
Washington Street which is just east of the proposed Deep Canyon Project. State Highway 111 is a major
transportation and business corridor serving La Quinta and the entire Coachella Valley. The Deep Canyon
Project will provide an alternative -and safer -route for bicyclists using Highway 111. The Deep Canyon Project
will also serve bicyclists using Washington Street which is a major north -south route within the City of La
Quinta. Bicycle lanes are proposed for Washington Street when the street has been widened to its ultimate
width.
The Deep Canyon Project is the initial link that connects surrounding residential neighborhoods and several
large commercial properties which contain stores such as Albertson's and Von's supermarkets and a Wal-Mart,
thereby providing a direct route to activity centers and increasing bicycle commuting in La Quinta and the
surrounding communities.
V-
The Deep Canyon Project will be a Class I bikelane consistent with the design standards for bikeways in
Chapter 1000 of the Highway Design Manual. This project is consistent with both the City's General Plan
policies and the proposed system of the Coachella Valley Association of Governments' Non -motorized
Transportation Element (see project map). The Deep Canyon Project will also provide a connection to the
City of Indian Wells bikelanes in the area and that city's proposed at -grade bridge crossing for the same area.
With the completion of Indian Wells' bridge and La Quinta's under street bridge, bicyclists will have a separate
and safe route to use for commuting. The City of La Quinta is currently updating its Bicycle Transportation
Plan and the Deep Canyon Project is, or will be, consistent with that plan. Photos of the location of the
proposed Deep Canyon Project as well as a cross section of the project are attached to this application.
This is an important project because it will be the first bicycle lane to serve bicycle commuters in the northern
portion of La Quinta (Currently, there is only one bicycle lane in La Quinta-the Bear Creek Bicycle Path in the
southern portion of the City). The City believes this project will be a catalyst to seek other grants and finding
opportunities to continue to implement the bicycle network envisioned in the City's General Plan and Bicycle
Transportation Plan. There are cumztly no fiords budgeted or other grants applied for to pay for this project.
The continuing development pattern of residential and commercial/social activity centers in the area of the
proposed Deep Canyon Project will ensure a steady base of commuters who can utilize the project.
The total estimated cost of the project is $86,000. The City will be responsible for a 10% match or $8,600
.+ • n • M • 7� • in • t0 • • W •
eg
Is
t L`�i,' � � •i.. � � WHIM
t u.
�Lw j i •tie�a � ♦ � i� � S� �w3•;.i����35i"a�.'.j�S���'•1
:i
c •a { ,u+ tl i •b.P l y� +¢p��eCa�,taw}i�*aassi�
.Q ON ���� yid = A • i� q1,1111
i , W
N hill
a Cr
_Z u
� � � • � �.� �\ t �` OC� riw"Sj3=iiaajjiSi�a2 IPilw
LA
Z.
� !a�lt7ryw
• �<, _ 9 .��._._ j ''', ;!' ����Illi''�Ili ill,
--- da� # Z�\ Is' 's-�
• ` ��� j� o� � ilj=:11"fy i�iil- j�llt�.w j
�, �� f fig•, i �..:.� � ; � � =;=ts3r.�:=,"....�
All tip
Lu Ids
fit
•
• al Ell
Q< #
i hr
• W h � 9t �� � � ,�- Y� � � p � Y `7
w • 0� • M • 'r • in •
012
Z C.
saw• � _ .Y:
• 0i
7
T.
T$
WASHINGTON STREET
` = PROPOSER 1995 BICYCLE LANE
ACCOUNT GRANT PROJECT
8,
HIGHWAY 111
EXISTING BIKE PATH
TOP OF CHANNEL LINING
Pf`--
BOTTOM OF CHANNEL LINING
TOP OF CHANNEL LINING
9-FOOT WIDE SHOULDER
EAST BOUND TRAFFIC LANES
HIGHWAY BRIDGE OVER
DEEP CANYON WASH
DEEP CANYON WASH
BIKE PATH PASSES UNDER
BRIDGE AT THIS LOCATION
PROPOSED BIKE PATH
8-FOOT WIDE SHOULDER
WEST BOUND TRAFFIC LANES
10
low
�, _ ♦ — wit• �..—. 'vw
IT1,411,
IV ;wa
.,, • , ' ' - � �, �R � -}� . �. to � ; ",;
TOP PHOTO:
Looking west on Highway 111 at the Deep Canyon Storm Water Channel bridge
crossing. The bicycle lane will be an under -street bridge crossing (oriented in a
north -south direction) located under this bridge and connect to Highway 111 by
a cloverleaf on both sides of the bridge.
BOTTOM PHOTO:
Another view to the west along Highway 111. The under -street bridge crossing
will come out in the lower right hand portion of photo and then connect to
Highway 111 by a cloverleaf
12
ATTACHMENT #3
Excerpts from Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes (Draft)
Dated February 12, 1996
Item VIII. A.:
A. Bikeway Plan
Fred Baker, Associate Planner, Community Development Department, reviewed the Bike Route Plan
and maps with the Commission (copy on file). The Plan has two purposes: it is an implementation
program for the General Plan which implements the Circulation Element, and it has a comprehensive
bicycle transportation plan that is consistent with State law in terms of applying for Bicycle Lane
Account grant money which is distributed annually.
Mr. Baker stated that the Bicycle Lane Account is a 90-10 match grant, which means the City must
contribute 10% of the funds for development of the bicycle lanes. The maximum amount of grant
funds available is $90,000 and the City of La Quinta is asking for $86,000, therefore the City's
portion is not expected to exceed $8,600.
After the Bike Plan was presented and discussed it was moved by Commissioner Ingram/Pedersen
to approve the Bike Route Plan as submitted. Unanimous.
prcmin.016
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
February 13, 1996
CALL TO ORDER
7:00 P.M.
A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:07 P.M. by
Chairman Abels who asked Commissioner Butler to lead the flag salute.
II. ROLL CALL
A. Chairman Abels requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Anderson, Barrows,
Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Tyler, and Chairman Abels.
C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn
Honeywell, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio,
Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planners Greg Trousdell and Wallace Nesbit,
and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
III. PUBLIC COMMENT:
A. Ms. Karen Ralke Kuenzler, 44-450 Camino La Vanda, stated she and her husband
are new property owners at the Rancho Ocotillo development, and her concern that
two story houses could be constructed behind their home (i.e., Quinterra). They
purchased their home, the lot had premium price because of its location and view.
They were told by Century Homes that no two story homes would be built behind
them. Based on their good faith representation, they purchased the home. They
visited the Quinterra models (the tract of homes being constructed behind theirs) and
a two story model was planned for the lot directly behind their house. This would
diminish the value of their home and reduce their outdoor privacy. She would like
to request that the City prohibit the construction of any two story houses adjacent to
the Rancho Ocotillo development. She submitted a petition containing signatures
that she had obtained of those who were in objection to the proposed two story
houses.
B. Ms. Barbara Irwin, 44-065 Camino La Cresta, stated she supported the petition. She
was concerned that the present builder was not building within the 5% rule of the
Compatibility Ordinance. It would be detrimental if two story houses were built on
the perimeter of their tract. She thought that Ordinance 242 should be interpreted to
maintain the integrity of the tract.
PC2-] 3 1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 13, 1996
C. Karen Ralke Kuenzler, 44-450 Camino Lavanda, stated she had a problem with the
La Quinta Palms development as they had a raised parkway on their side of the wall
behind her house. A resident of the La Quinta Palms could stand on the parkway and
have a direct view into their backyard. The wall is easily climbed making their yard
a thoroughfare to the local school children. Their pool had even been used while
they were not home. The wall height has created security and liability problems
because they own a pool. They had requested Century Homes to raise the wall, but
Century denied the request as the wall belonged to La Quinta Palms. Both Century
Homes and La Quinta Palms share this responsibility. She was requesting guidance
from the Planning Commission to solve this problem. Chairman Abels informed Ms.
Kuenzler that the Planning Commission had no authority to render any comment.
It was the responsibility of the Code Compliance Department and referred the matter
to staff.
D. Mr. Craig M. Wright, 44-420 Camino La Vanda, stated he too was concerned about
the height of the existing block wall. The fence height is inadequate and with the
construction of a pool, accidents could be a problem. Chairman Abels again referred
the matter to staff.
WORKSHOP:
A. Zoning Code Revision for Incorporation into Zoning Code Amendment 96-050 - Re-
evaluation of Chapter 9 117• Equestrian OvgrlaYZone .
1. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit presented the information contained in the
staff report a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department. Staff stated this was not a public hearing and no action would
be taken by the Commission.
2. Chairman Abels opened the matter for public discussion.
3. Mr. John Benoit, 39-740 St. Michael Place, Palm Desert, stating he was
speaking as an individual in support of the Reese/Reeske Ranch. He was not
aware of all the allegations that had been made, but his daughter has ridden
at the ranch for five years and on every visit he found it to be a very
wholesome and positive environment for the kids. The site is well
maintained and a positive influence for the kids and he would like to see this
operation continue.
4. Ms. Sarah Benoit, 39-740 St. Michaels Place, Palm Desert, stated she had
been riding at Rancho del Sol for five years. It has been a positive
experience. She strives to keep her grade point average up in order to
continue this sport. She has only ridden on the Reese property and has never
seen anyone leave the property or do any damage.
PC;2-13 2
Planning Commission Meeting
February 13, 1996
5. Mrs. Sharon Garcia, employee of the Desert Feed Bag, stated she has known
the Reese family for the last fourteen years and found them to be very
responsible business people. The Reeses have put a lot of time and effort into
the ranch. The horses are cleaned twice a day and fed three times a day. It
is a positive environment for the kids and the landscaping has been increased
to enhance the beauty of this equestrian center. There are so very few
equestrian centers at this end of the Valley for children. Her children have
maintained straight A's and high scholastic goals and would never vandalize.
In addition, the children are always supervised. The equestrian environment
is decreasing due to the development of the area. To rezone this area for
more tract homes is discouraging. As to the complaints about the manure, it
is chopped up and worked into the soil and is therefore good for the
environment. As a special feature, this year a Christmas Party was given to
show the parents what had been accomplished by their children. A
demonstration was given for the parents and a public address system was
used for this occasion.
6. Mr. Michael Neatherton, 44-060 Dalae Circle, Cactus Flower, Administrator
of Betty Ford Center, stated he was here in support of Rancho Del Sol and
the only complaints he knew about were those that had been stated. His
oldest daughter was involved in riding lessons and in the year she has been
taking lessons, everything he has seen is evidence that this is a well run
operation. He stated this was the exact type of operation needed in this
community. The impact on his daughter has created a greater respect for the
environment, animals, and authority. As a community, the City should be
doing anything and everything possible to retain these types of operations.
The City has talked about ways to make it more livable and inviting to those
with young families, and this is what is being offered. He would oppose
anything that will change this operation.
7. Mr. Bo Ford, 78-659 Avenida La Fonda, stated he was uncertain as to the
affect of the ordinance on Rancho Del Sol, but if it affects the operation of
the ranch, it would be to the detriment of the community. Rancho Del Sol is
well kept and is a positive influence for his daughter. It is a safe activity and
something she can do that is a positive influence on her life. He has always
found the ranch to be clean and well maintained.
8. Ms. DeeDee Vicknair, speaking on behalf of Southwest Landscape, 79-900
Horseshoe Road, La Quinta, stated her purpose for attending this meeting
was to support Rancho Del Sol, as they have purchased large amounts of
supplies to control the dust and beautify the property. The property to the
rear of the Reeses' has not been maintained and is overgrown with weeds;
PC2-13 3
Planning Commission Meeting
February 13, 1996
fencing material to the rear is not in accordance with the City's standards.
The Reese's and Reeskes are meeting all the Municipal Code requirements
of the City.
9. Mr. Mike Reeske, 54-415 Avenida Vallejo, stated he was here to support his
in-laws and wife. He has spent three or four years before the Planning
Commission and City Council regarding this same issue. They have met all
requirements placed on them by the City Council and he is concerned that
these issues are being repeated over and over again. Code enforcement has
had to send out their officers numerous times and never has the ranch been
cited. All accusations have never been substantiated and it is difficult to hear
such things stated in an open forum especially when they have invested so
much work into this ranch. He and his wife have bought a new home in La
Quinta, and have been recognized twice by the La Quinta Chamber for their
home. Property values have decreased due to the economy not because of
anything caused by local people. Rancho Del Sol is a positive influence on
the community and it would be a detriment to make any changes in the
operation. Changes would be a punishment for abiding by the rules to date.
10. Ms. Peg Ray, 78-441 Orcabessa Drive, Bermuda Dunes, sent a letter to the
Council and Mayor and would like to read a portion of that letter. She was
here on behalf of Rancho del Sol as her daughter was taking lessons. She and
other parents were outraged that these things were happening to this Ranch.
The horses are always maintained and cared for. This gives the City of La
Quinta a good reputation due to its look and gives nothing but good values
to the children attending. Their daughter too has been taking lessons for one
year. This has been the niche their daughter has needed and she has learned
the value of a hard work. It is a detriment to see the Ranch threatened for any
reason.
11. Ms. Lora Cathcart, 78-947 Darby Road, Bermuda Dunes, stated she was here
as a teacher speaking on behalf of her students. Many students ride at the
ranch and it is a positive influence on them. It is a wonderful experience for
her daughter. They live on the border of La Quinta and have been considered
for incorporation by the City. She and her family have always considered
having horses and, if they were annexed into La Quinta theses new
regulations and setbacks suggested, if adopted, she would not be allowed to
have horses. Their daughter has stated she likes the facility and it means a lot
to her. It is making an outstanding impact on her life. As the Planning
Commission is making a decision, they should consider the entire Overlay
District and the impact the change will have on the entire zone
PC2-13 4
Planning Commission Meeting
February 13,1996
12. Mrs. Wanda Reese, 80-209 Avenue 50, La Quinta, stated that their students
and customers have stated all that is needed to be said. She was concerned
that she has never been cited for any violations, nothing has every been found
wrong, and she resents what has been stated about her. They have invested
a lot of money in the horses and the facility and they would never jeopardize
the operation by allowing insects that cause diseases or smells to jeopardize
this facility. She thought she was being penalized for doing the right thing.
This should not have to be gone over again and again. She did not
understand why this has to be repeatedly brought back to the Planning
Commission and City Council. This is all being caused by one person.
13. Ms. Kathy Cole, 80-041 Avenue 50, lives next door to the Reese ranch and
they purchased their home here to keep the lifestyle the area provided. The
lifestyle is the best thing for their family. To have someone question what
you believe is right for your family, is not right. They were all striving to
keep this lifestyle going.
14. Mrs. Julie Reeske, 54-415 Avenida Vallejo, speaking on behalf of the ranch
stated she was not sure why it has to be addressed again. They have been in
accord with all the zoning regulations since the Overlay has been in place.
It has been working for all ranches since it was adopted. She would like to
enlighten the Commission about their facility and its use. They provide a
number of services to the public including a riding school for children,
teenagers, and adults. It is clean and immaculate. They have gone to a great
expense to upgrade the ranch to please the City and Mr. Kanlian. To explain
what is involved in training the children and horses would take too much
time. They currently have the number one Hunter Hack horse in the nation,
boarding at their facility. Students that are talented are focused to become
world competitors. Olympic horse have been kept at this facility as well.
They have achieved the requirements to maintain a horse of this quality to
meet national requirements. They have been falsely accused by one neighbor
and the only thing that will change is if the zone is removed. This is the
lifestyle most people dream of, having horses, and that is what unique about
this area. Please consider the request of the people this will directly effect.
15. Ms. Kay Menefee, 45-525 Aladdin, Indio, was there speaking on behalf of
the Reeses and the Equestrian Overlay District. She attended the Council
meeting three years ago when this Overlay was first adopted and the ranch
has continued to be well maintained in a manner that is well kept. Her horse
is in training at this ranch and it is the number one Hunter Hack in the nation
and this id due to the hard work of Wanda Reese and Julie Reeske.
PC2-13 5
Planning Commission Meeting
February 13, 1996
16. Mrs. Sharon Kanlian, 50-400 Jefferson Street, La Quinta, stated they have
been here for 30 years and are here regarding the Equestrian Overlay. The
City approved these four parcels for the Overlay in 1993, and this mixed
planning should not be considered, but segregated. The City approved the
Overlay as a whole, and the surrounding property owners were concerned
that horses could not be accommodated on this small of a parcel. The
surrounding property owners are now suffering liability concerns because of
the horses riding on their property. They can't ride anywhere without
impacting the surrounding property owners. The recommendations being
requested are similar to those used by the City of Indio. The Conditional Use
Permit, however does not address the use of lights and/or a public address
system. These directly affect the surrounding neighbors. These must not be
permitted. She also spoke regarding the manure as it pertains to small parcels
and stated it must be removed from the premise. The commercial benefit of
the ranch must submit to the same standards as all other businesses. She
went on to list the studies that should be conducted before this type of
business should be allowed. They are subject to farming inspections
regularly. Testimony from boarders should not affect the development rule
of the taxpayers of the City of La Quinta. Rancho Del Sol is not a
community activity, but a private business operated for private benefit. Equal
rights and good planning should make sense for the City. You have to have
laws that regulate the development of the City. The investment they have in
their home is jeopardized if the current rules are not maintained. The
proposed recommendations need to be adopted and you must consider what
is best for all property owners in the City. Mixed uses must have strict laws
to maintain the whole area.
17. Mr. Walter Hansch, adjacent property owners to the Kanlians, stated he was
against the Overlay at its inception. If you put two dozen horses together you
will have a ton of manure and you have to find some way to get rid of it.
There needs to be a method of removing the manure on a regular basis and
reducing the smell.
18. Mr. Sonny Kanlian, 50-400 Jefferson Street, La Quinta, stated he had given
considerable time to making a recommendation for things he felt might be a
solution to the problem. He went over the items he had proposed (on file in
the Community Development Department). He too was against the Overlay
Zone from its inception. A zone change must be made and the City needs to
have an area for equestrian uses, but you need a larger area. This is a special
case and it needs special zoning. Indio faced opposition to a five acre
development as it was too small an area for equestrian uses. This ranch has
too many horses for the size of the land. The Reese's now have 13 acres and,
PCz-13 6
Planning Commission Meeting
February 13, 1996
with the current zoning, they could accommodate 65 horses. Additionally,
there is the problem of removing the manure. Thatching it into the ground
does mix and separate it. He has no problem with the manure on the pasture,
but the barns and stalls accumulate manure and urine. When water is applied
to the manure and mixed with the straw material after it is removed, it
increases the smell as the sawdust holds the smell in. The manure needs to
be removed weekly. Before the Equestrian Overlay Zone was implemented,
it was a small breeding and riding ranch. With the school and added
activities, the dust, smells, etc., have increased. The use of lights and loud
speaker would have to be eliminated as they are a nuisance. There should
be an inner fence holding animals apart from his fence. He would hate to see
a rider bucked off and land on his pasture fence. Sprinklers should be
adjusted to keep water off adjoining properties.
19. Mr. Robert Kuhl, 54-721 Monroe Street, La Quinta, stated he also has a horse
operation similar to Rancho Del Sol and raises Hunter Jumper horses. He
was not aware of this meeting and he hoped no decision would be made
tonight. He gets along well with his neighbors and they use his place as a
sales tool. These changes need to be considered further before making a
decision.
20. Mrs. Julie Reeske, clarified her opinion as to Mr. Kanlian's suggestions. The
Polo fields disposal of manure is the same as theirs and the smell is not that
intense after it is dried. In summer months when it is so hot, the only time
to ride is at night. Mr. Kanlian's fence is not legal because it is made of hog
wire and not allowed in the Residential Zone. If he is concerned about the
danger that could be caused by his fence, he needs to change it. Of great
concern to her family was what they could do with the land created by the
proposed 50-feet setback, if these requirements are put into place. The turn
out of horses is a practice by all horse owners. The arena is not used as a
corral, it is a turn out area used to exercise the horses. All horses need to be
turned out before riding if they have been in a corral for a week. She did not
see any reason for the suggestions made by Mr. Kanlian.
21. Mrs. Cole stated she drove by the properties in question and she believes they
are doing what is right and the surrounding properties landscaping is all dead
and dying and the owners are not maintaining them. She asked if the
Commission was aware of other areas where equestrian uses are mixed with
residential uses. This is not uncommon. Other cities tell them horse property
is a sales tool used to sell their homes.
PC2-13 7
Planning Commission Meeting
February 13, 1996
22. There being no further discussion, Chairman Abels stated the Commission
would be making no decision on this issue but would refer the matter back
to staff for 30-days to study and bring back to the Commission for a decision.
23. Commissioner Newkirk agreed that the Commission was not ready to make
a recommendation at this time. They will need to review both sides and
make a recommendation to the City Council.
24. Commissioner Barrows stated the Commission had received new information
and she would not like to make any decision until this has been thought
through.
25. Chairman Abels asked staff to research this fizrther and return to the Planning
Commission in 30-days, March 12th. He thanked everyone for their
comments and hopefully they would reach a solution to the benefit of
everyone.
Chairman Abels recessed the meeting at 8:24 P.M. and reconvened at 8:30 P.M.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Continued - Tentative Tract 24890; a request of KSL Recreation Corporation, Inc.
for approval of a third one year time extension for Phase 9 to create 37 lots consisting
of three single family, 37 duplexes, and five lettered lots on ten acres within Specific
Plan 85-006.
Commissioners Anderson and Gardner excused themselves due to a possible conflict of interest.
1. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that the City had been contacted by
the applicant's attorney to continue this item to the meeting of February 27,
1996. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Butler to
continue Tentative Tract 24890 to February 27, 1996. Unanimously
approved.
Commissioners Gardner and Anderson rejoined the meeting.
B. Plot Plan 95-558 Amendment #1 (Compatibility Review); a request of Landau
Development Company for approval to add a new single family housing prototype.
1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff
report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
PC2-13 8
Planning Commission Meeting
February 13, 1996
2. Commissioner Gardner asked what affect the needed lot line adjustment
would have on the other lots. Staff stated the adjustment would only impact
one lot to the south. There would be no problem with constructing on either
lot with the lot line adjustment. Staff stated it would depend on what they
build. Staff clarified that a lot line adjustment is only allowed when both
resulting lots are buildable.
3. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Abels opened the public
hearing. Mr. Wendell Veith, architect for the project presented drawings
showing the back of the house with metal awnings added. He stated this
prototype with metal awnings, has been built in other areas of the United
States. He went on to explain the proposed changes and stated they agreed
with the conditions imposed and requests they be able to work out the
location and design of the awnings with staff.
4. Commissioner Anderson asked if the metal awning would be painted white
or a contrasting color. Mr. Veith stated it would be as compatible with the
house color so as not to draw attention to the secondary feature.
Commissioner Anderson asked if the CC & R's for the other developments
on the lake would prohibit awnings. Mr. Veith stated there are retractable
awnings on existing homes. They could consider using vinyl, but would
prefer to use the metal awnings as proposed. Commissioner Anderson stated
that as long as the CC & R's do not prohibit awnings, he would agree to this
design solution.
5. Chairman Abels asked if the other properties in Lake La Quinta were in
agreement. Mr. Veith stated Mr. Loggia, representative for Lake La Quinta,
was in agreement with their design.
6. Commissioner Tyler asked that the awnings not block the mountain view.
Mr. Veith stated the awnings would be 76" to 9'6" high to the bottom of the
awnings.
7. Commissioner Gardner stated that he agreed that the wood trellis would
detract from the look of the houses and he had no problem with the metal
awnings. He was concerned with the lot line adjustments and stated the lots
should be split before the homes were purchased. Mr. Veith stated the lot
line adjustments would be completed before any sales took place. There
would be no surprises for the buyers.
PC2-13 9
Planning Commission Meeting
February 13, 1996
8. Mr. Iry Green, President of Landau Development Company, showed a picture
of the vinyl awning that could be used on the houses. Commissioner
Anderson asked if the product would bleach out over time in the desert heat.
Mr. Green, stated they received a limited five year warranty and they could
use a blue anodized aluminum awning or the vinyl. Commissioner Anderson
suggested that the metal product would give a long term maintenance free
solution.
10. There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed. There
being no further discussion by the Commission, it was moved and seconded
by Commissioners Anderson/Tyler to adopt Minute Motion 96-004,
approving Plot Plan 95-558, Amendment #1, subject to conditions as revised
to require the shading of the west side of the project with a metal awning as
presented by the architect and approved by staff. Commissioner Gardner
asked for clarification on Condition #2. Staff revised the last sentence and
changed the wording "trellis or patio cover" to "metal awning". Staff asked
for clarification on the eave overhang over the living room that should used
on the back of the house. Six feet was determined. The motion was
unanimously approved.
C. Zoning_ Ordinance Amendment 96-049; a request of the City for consideration of a
recommendation to the City Council for approval of the Sign Ordinance pertaining
to sign regulations throughout the City.
1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff
report a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department.
2. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Abels opened the public hearing.
Mr. Greg Shannon, speaking on behalf of the La Quinta Chamber, presented
their proposed changes to the Village Sign Program. He went over each of
his concerns regarding the Village directional sign program.
3. Commissioner Butler stated his concern that the corner of Calle Tampico and
Washington Street would be overcrowded with signs. Mr. Shannon stated
this was a big corner and a major corner for identification. Commissioner
Butler stated there had been no discussion of what the cost would be and
whether or not the Chamber would be maintaining the signs.
4. Staff clarified for Commissioner Anderson that the ordinance stipulates a
non-profit organization would have jurisdiction over the signs. If it was the
Chamber, the Planning Commission could grant the Chamber's request.
PC2-13 10
Planning Commission Meeting
February 13, 1996
5. Commissioner Barrows asked if this was something the Planning
Commission should be addressing. Staff stated the final decision was up to
the Council and went on to explain the procedure for adoption.
6. Commissioner Anderson stated that since the Chamber has spearheaded this
section, they should be given some leeway.
7. Community Development Director Jerry Herman asked for clarification as
to why the Chamber wanted a two-sided sign on Calle Tampico at
Washington Street. Mr. Featheringill stated they were asking the sign be
placed on Washington Street for people driving north from 50th Street.
Discussion followed as to the location of the sign.
8. Community Development Director Jerry Herman asked for clarification on
where the sign would be placed. Staff suggested the Chamber wait till the
sign locations are identified, then decide whether or not it should be two-
sided. Commissioner Anderson suggested that the locations be discussed
when a final design was presented. Staff stated the section would be
rewritten; 'T. The five structures shall be allowed at locations to be
determined by the Planning Commission."
9. Commissioner Anderson asked about Item C., Maximum Time Periods. All
businesses would be on a rotation system and he has no idea about the length
of time for the sign. Mr. Featheringill stated multiple applications would be
all right with a rotation method. Community Development Director Jerry
Herman stated rotation was required to keep it from being a permanent sign
which is not allowed. This is a temporary sign program to stimulate
business. The one month of vacancy keeps it from being permanent.
10. Commissioner Anderson asked if the businesses were requesting specific
signs in specific locations. Mr. Featheringill stated the owners want the sign
that will direct people to their business. Staff stated the concern of the City
Attorney was that a specific business would not be frozen out of the program.
Staff did not address whether the entity on the sign would be on all five signs
thus having a monopoly. This would need to be addressed by the sign
operator who would need to create their own policies.
11. Chairman Abels stated that the businesses in the Ralph's center were not
included. Staff stated the Center was not a part of the Specific Plan area.
Discussion followed regarding the location of generic signs directing traffic
to local restaurants.
PC2-13 11
Planning Commission Meeting
February 13, 1996
12. Commissioner Anderson stated he felt the rotation was good and agreed with
the staff s recommendation.
13. Commissioner Anderson asked that the sign be more substantial than the BIA
signs. It should not be in the right-of-way and the image should have a solid
base that would be an enhancement to the businesses.
14. Commissioner Tyler asked about the longevity of the BIA signs. Staff stated
that the signs do sometimes get hit. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio
stated that requiring a solid monument base is consistent with the revised
Sign Ordinance.
15. Community Development Director Jerry Herman questioned Item D.4. and
stated that if the Chamber is given the flexibility, the Planning Commission
should be allow the latitude. Commissioner Gardner stated it should read
"City of La Quinta" somewhere on the sign. Commissioner Barrows stated
that the sign copy would come back to the Planning Commission for
consideration.
16. Commissioner Anderson stated he was in agreement with the staff s
recommendation and the only change needed was that the locations be
finalized at the time of implementation.
17. Community Development Director Jerry Herman questioned Item D.4. The
last sentence should be deleted and add the word "text" to Item D6.
18. Commissioner Butler stated the process needed to be put on a fast track. Mr.
Featheringill stated that the monument bases could put it out of the
Chamber's price range. Mr. Shannon stated their initial bids were $5,000 for
the initial outlay. Mr. Featheringill asked that the copy be stricken as it
would be brought back.
19. The Commission consensus was to add wood to the materials that could be
used for the base. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated this needed to be
defined in the Ordinance. Discussion continued.
20. Commissioner Tyler stated his concern about the black and white colors
chosen by the Chamber. Discussion followed regarding the colors.
Commissioners decided they would like uniformity with the BIA signs.
21. Commissioner Barrows questioned the exclusion of the businesses in the La
Quinta Village Shopping Center. Staff stated the intent of this sign program
was to get traffic directed to the downtown Village area due to their unique
location problems.
PC2- 1 _, 12
Planning Commission Meeting
February 13, 1996
22. Mr. Feathingill asked about businesses that are on the perimeter of the
Village that would not be included in the sign program. Commissioner
Anderson pointed out that businesses located on Eisenhower were on a very
busy thoroughfare and did not suffer the same unique circumstances.
23. Staff asked about the signs being exempt from encroachment permits and
stated they would check with the Public Works Department to see if the fees
could be waived.
24. Ms. Michelle Dallas, Executive Director, La Quinta Chamber of Commerce,
78-371 Highway 111, La Quinta, informed the Commission that the
Chambers's second office had been opened at the Von's Center on Highway
111 frontage to facilitate prospective businesses and residents. She indicated
a need for directional sign to help people find the new Chamber location.
Discussion followed regarding the size of the signs and the maximum number
of signs.
25. Commissioner Tyler asked about the location of the signs. Mr. Featheringill
showed a map of the proposed signs on Highway 111 and Washington Street
and discussion followed.
26. Chairman Abels asked if the Planning Commission was to approve the Sign
Ordinance as drafted. Staff clarified that the Planing Commission was to
approve the drafted Sign Ordinance, but clarified that the Chamber is
requesting six signs and the way the ordinance is written if the Chamber does
not agree with staff, they would have to appeal to the Planning Commission.
Commissioners stated they had no problem with this.
27. Staff stated that if they have to appeal, the ordinance could be changed to
take the issue directly to the Planning Commission to eliminate the cost of
the appeal. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that "non-public" needs
to be added to eliminate this problem. Discussion followed.
28. Commissioners asked for clarification on Table 9:1, #16 in that 25% may be
too much for temporary window signs. Discussion followed as to the amount
that should be allowed.
29. Commissioner Tyler asked about Table 9-3 regarding the number of free-
standing signs for shopping centers with wide long frontages. Staff clarified
that review of sign programs would allow the Commission the latitude of the
number allowed. Following discussion, it was determined that the ordinance
should allow applicants flexibility to come to the Commission with
justification for wanting a deviation from the ordinance regarding the number
of monument signs.
PC2-1 13
Planning; Commission Meeting
February 13,1996
20. Commissioner Tyler questioned whether a tenant could have a sign facing the
parking lot and Highway 111. Staff stated they would reword this to make
it clear. Commissioner Tyler asked for clarification on Page 23, Item #13.
Staff stated they would change the wording from "radio equipment vehicle"
to "emergency vehicle" only.
21. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public
hearing.
22. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Butler/Gardner to adopt Planning Commission Resolution
96-002 recommending approval to the City Council of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration and approval of Zoning Ordinance 96-049 for Sign Regulations.
ROLL CALL AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Barrows, Butler, Gardner, Newkirk,
Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
Chairman Abels recessed for a break at 10:04 P.M. and reconvened at 10:09 P.M.
D. Tentative Tract 26148 (2nd Time Extensionl; a request of Mainiero, Smith and
Associates, Inc. for approval of a second one year time extension for the subdivision
of 14 acres into 54 single family lots with a retention basin.
Commissioner Gardner withdrew due to a possible conflict of interest.
1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the
staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
2. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and Mr. Bob Mainiero spoke on
behalf of the applicant indicating concurrence with the recommendation.
There being no further comment, the public hearing was closed.
3. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Barrows/Anderson to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 96-003 recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative
Tract 26148 (2nd Time Extension).
ROLL CALL AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Barrows, Butler, Gardner, Newkirk,
Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner
Gardner. ABSTAIN: None.
PC2-13 14
Planning Commission Meeting
February 13, 1996
Commissioner Gardner rejoined the Commission.
E. Environmental Assessment 96-311 Conditional Use Permit 96-023 and Plot Plan
96-571; a request of Keith International, Inc. for certification of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact; approval of the development of a 116 unit
affordable apartment complex on 11.6 acres of property in an R-2 zoned area;
approval of a deviation from the development standards to reduce the gross livable
area from 1,400 square feet to a minimum of 750 square feet and larger; approval of
a 25% density bonus to allow ten units per acre where eight units per acre are
allowed in the medium density residential General Plan designation.
Commissioner Butler excused himself due to a possible conflict of interest.
1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the
staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department. Staff stated they are recommending Conditions #6, # 14, and
#65 of the Plot Plan be modified.
2. Commissioner Anderson asked about the density and stated it was not in the
conditions for the Plot Plan. Staff stated it was contained in Conditions #42
and #53.
3. Commissioner Tyler asked about Condition #2 (bedroom size) regarding the
Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Staff stated it needed to be clarified that this
is the minimum bedroom size allowed but that this provision could be
exceeded.
4. Commissioner Gardner asked for clarification on the time line for the CUP,
specifically Condition #4 of the CUP. Staff clarified when the CUP would
have to come back to the Planning Commission for review/extension in the
year if the project is not under construction.
5. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Abels opened the public
hearing. Ms. Emily Hemphill, attorney for the project, asked that the
approval period be for a period of more than one year. She also stated the
project size was reduced from 128 to 116 which meets the State requirements
for affordable housing. They had reduced the density as requested by the
Commission. She then addressed the Commission's concern about the mixed
uses, the parking requirements, and stated this project not only meets, but
exceeds the City's parking requirements. The applicant is asking for the
density bonus, but not any financial assistance from the City Redevelopment
PC'2-13 15
Planning Commission Meeting
February 13, 1996
Agency. The developer is financing the project with private money and the
Tax Credit Program which requires a long term investment by their investors.
The noise study has addressed traffic noise from Washington Street. The
changes proposed reflect what is drawn on the plan.
6. Commissioner Gardner stated his concern about the Washington Street traffic
signal. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that this traffic signal will be
installed when it is warranted. The traffic engineer who completed the traffic
study stated in the report, that a signal may never be warranted.
Commissioner Gardner asked staff to further explain this provision and asked
what factors determine if a signal should be installed. Staff explained.
Commissioner Gardner expressed his concern that without the signal there
isn't ample space for people to stop to enter the project. Mr. Rowe, Keith
International, stated that they will be bonding for the traffic signal.
7. Commissioner Gardner asked, if the developer would cease to exist, is there
any type of bonding to require anyone to take over the project. Ms. Hemphill
stated it was a valid concern and that the debt to equity ratio is 50 to 50. In
the unlikely event something should happen to the developer, the investors
will have the first trust deed on the property and if the developer does not
meet the debt, they can foreclose on the first trustee and they will still be
under all the requirements placed on the developer by the City and the State.
8. Commissioner Tyler asked Mr. Bob Kahn, Kahn and Associates, if the slope
of Washington Street helps the acoustical analysis. Mr. Kahn stated it would
and went on to explain what was considered in the calculations for the study.
Commissioner Tyler asked if five foot barriers would be placed on the
balconies facing Washington Street. Mr. Kahn stated that the buildings are
reoriented so the balconies would be shielded. Commissioner Tyler asked if
the windows facing Washington Street would be fixed. Mr. Kahn stated they
could be opened and explained the Uniform Building Code requires this type
of window for residential units. Commissioner Tyler asked about the height
of the wall reducing the noise on Washington Street. Mr. Kahn stated it was
six feet and would meet the requirements of the noise study.
9. Chairman Abels asked Mr. Mike Rowe about his prior statement that if this
project was not approved, the project would be dead. Mr. Rowe explained
they had hoped to have an approval before the end of 1995. Since this did
not occur, the applicant purchased the site. Chairman Abels asked if the day
care was eliminated. Mr. Rowe stated it would not be included.
PC2-13 16
Planning Commission Meeting
February 13, 1996
10. Chairman Abels stated his concern about not having a mixed use project. Mr.
Rowe stated that originally the commercial element was moving forward
with the residential element. However, the commercial area was developed
and the proposed residential project was sold.
11. Commissioner Tyler asked if any attempt had been made along the west wall
to reduce the houses to single story so they would not be looking into the
back yards of the Season's houses. Mr. Rowe stated they had all been
reduced to single story buildings.
12. Commissioner Anderson stated his original concerns were density, site
excavation, fill dirt, and the limited amount of open space between the
buildings. His concerns had now been addressed and stated how this was
accomplished. However, a shared driveway does not make this project a
mixed use development.
13. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Anderson/Gardner to adopt Planning Commission Resolution
96-004 approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact
(EA 96-311) according to the findings set forth in the Resolution.
ROLL CALL AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Barrows, Gardner, and Tyler. NOES:
Commissioners Newkirk and Chairman Abels. ABSENT: Commissioner
Butler. ABSTAIN: None.
14. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Anderson/Gardner to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 96-005 recommending approval of
Conditional Use Permit 96-023 and Plot Plan 96-571 to allow a 116-unit
affordable apartment complex with a 25% density bonus and to allow a
reduction in the gross livable area to permit units less than 1,400 square feet,
subject to the Conditions of Approval.
ROLL CALL AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Barrows, Gardner. NOES:
Commissioners Newkirk, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. ABSENT:
Commissioner Butler. ABSTAIN: None. MOTION FAILED.
15. Commissioner Barrows stated a new motion would be needed to address the
concerns of those voting no. Chairman Abels asked if the Commission
wanted to let the vote stand and let the applicant appeal to the City Council.
There was no response from the Commission.
PC2- l 3 17
Planning Commission Meeting
February 13, 1996
16. Mr. Mike Rowe stated he would like to believe that whatever concerns the
Commission has, they could be worked out.
17. Commissioner Newkirk stated his concern that no garages were proposed and
even though there was covered parking, there was no place for storage. Mr.
Rowe stated that there is storage on all the balconies as a three by five foot
cube locked storage cabinet would be installed. Mr. Rowe stated they would
agree to a certain percentage of the parking spaces being garages. Discussion
followed regarding on -site storage facilities.
18. Commissioner Tyler stated his concern was the number of parking spaces.
Mr. Rowe stated that if there was a party, this being a rarity, cars could
possibly spill over into the Center's parking lot, but this was not the norm.
If the Planning Commission wanted more parking, they could reduce the
amount of open space and provide additional parking areas. Discussion
followed regarding where additional parking could be added.
19. Commissioner Gardner clarified that in the rental agreement it would
stipulate no boats could be stored on the premises. Mr. Rowe stated that all
tenants would have to register vehicles they would be parking on site and that
they could be restricted.
20. Chairman Abels asked if Mr. Rowe could convince him that this is a mixed
use development. Ms. Hemphill stated that this property and the adjoining
property were originally proposed to be developed at the same time. Because
of financial considerations, the residential units were not built. It was
proposed and designed as a singular project with one single access on
Washington Street. The financing caused the project to change hands several
times, but the design elements have not changed. To utilize the inability of
an individual to complete his project is a mistake to prohibit this type of
housing. The State demands that the cities do their best to provide affordable
housing. Chairman Abels stated he did feel the Seasons project was a mixed
use development. Mr. Rowe went on to explain further how the joint access
was developed.
21. Commissioner Anderson clarified that a mixed use development is a blending
of two different uses rather than two like uses. He went on to explain the
project is not the optimum blending of uses, but it is not possible to have the
different solution based on the past history of this site.
PC2-13 18
Planning Commission Meeting
February 13, 1996
22. Commissioner Tyler asked for clarification on the original map submitted if
it called for the same number of units. Mr. Rowe stated it was the same.
23. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio asked if the Planning Commission
wanted to add any conditions requiring storage and parking. It was
determined that 20 additional storage spaces shall be provided for the use of
the tenants and shall be reviewed at the same time the landscaping plans are
reviewed.
24. Commissioner Gardner stated this project does not specify any age
restrictions. Mr. Rowe stated that was true.
25. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that Condition #68
would be modified to add: "additional storage units shall be provided and
reviewed at the time of landscaping review"; and "if parking spaces are
removed to accommodate storage, the parking spaces must be replaced on a
one for one basis plus an additional ten spaces.
26. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Anderson/Gardner to adopt Planing Commission Resolution
96-005, recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit 96-023 and Plot
Plan 96-571 to the City Council, subject to the attached conditions as
modified by staff, and with the additional language added to Condition #68
regarding additional storage and parking spaces.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Barrows, Gardner, Newkirk, and Tyler.
NOES: Chairman Abels. ABSENT: Commissioner Butler. ABSTAIN:
None.
Commissioner Butler rejoined the Commission.
V. BUSINESS ITEMS
A. Sign Application 95-306; a request of The Lube Shop -Imperial Sign Company for
approval to increase the sign size from eight square feet to 18 square feet and change
the non -illuminated individual letters to internally illuminated individually mounted
channel letters on the east elevation.
1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff
report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
PC2-13 19
Planning Commission Meeting
February 13, 1996
2. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Gardner/Barrows to adopt Minute Motion 96-005 approving Sign
Application 95-306, subject to conditions. Unanimously approved.
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Chairman Abels asked that the Minutes of January 23, 1996, be amended to show the
Commissioners attended the Conference in Long Beach not in Redlands.
Commissioner Anderson stated he had not made the motion pertaining to the
continuance of Tentative Tract 24890. There being no further corrections, it was
moved and seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Barrows to approve the Minutes
as corrected. Unanimously approved.
VII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS
A. Building Industry Association of Southern California -Desert Chapter - discussion
pertaining to the Public Officials Luncheon. The Commission determined that they
did not want to attend the luncheon as it could be perceived as giving special interest
to one group. Staff would address a letter stating their concern.
B. Commissioner Abels gave a report of the City Council meeting of February 6, 1996.
C. Department update - staff stated there was nothing new to report.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Anderson
to adjourn this meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting on February 27, 1996.
This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 11:20 P.M. Unanimously approved.
PC2-1 3 20