1993 10 12 PCPLAAWXNG COMMISSXON
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall Council Chambers
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California
October 12, 1993
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 93-035
Beginning Minute Motion 93-046
CALL TO ORDER - Flag Salute
ROLL CALL
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Item ............... CONTINUED -CHANGE OF ZONE 91-066, SPECIFIC
PLAN 93-023, TENTATIVE TRACT 27854, AND PLOT
PLAN 93-022
Applicant .......... JASCORP
Location ........... ±700 feet north of Calle Tampico on the west side of
Washington Street.
Request ............ Approval of a change of zone designation for from R-1, R-
2 8,000, and C-P to R-2; a specifc plan to develop design
and architectural standards for a 1!24 unit planned unit
development project; a tentative tract map to subdivide 12±
acres into 124 single family lots; and a plot plan to develop
a low and moderate income zero lot line single family home
project.
Action ............. Resolution 93- Resolution 93- , Resolution 93-
and Minut—elGfotion 93-
PC/AGENDA
PUBLIC COMMENT
This is the time set aside for citizens to address the Planning Commission on matters
relating to City planning and zoning which are not Agenda items. When addressing the
Planning Commission, please state your name and address.
BUSINESS SESSION
1. Item ............... MINOR TEMPORARY OUTDOOR EVENT 93-057
Applicant .......... Thunderbird Artists (Judi Combs)
Location ........... Southwest corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street.
Request ............ Approval of fine art shows at Plaza La Quinta from
November 6, 1993 through April, 1994.
Action ............. Minute Motion 93-
2. Item ............... PALM ROYALE PARK DESIGN
Applicant .......... City of La Quinta
Location ........... West side of Adams Street between Fred Waring Drive and
Miles Avenue.
Request ............ Approval of the park design.
Action ............. Minute Motion 93-
3. Item .............
Applicant ..........
Location ......... , . .
Request ............
Action .............
CONSENT CALENDAR
DISCUSSION OF R-1 STANDARDS
City of La Quinta
City-wide
Discussion only
None
Approval of the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of September 28, 1993.
OTHER
ADJOURNMENT
STUDY SESSION
MONDAY, October 11, 1993
4:00 P.M.
1. All Agenda items.
PC/AGENDA 2
DATE:
PROJECT:
APPLICANT:
ARCHITECT:
PROJECT
ENGINEER:
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT:
OWNER:
ORIGINAL
REQUEST:
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 12, 1993 (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 28, 1993)
CHANGE OF ZONE 91-066, SPECIFIC PLAN 93-023, TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP 27854 & PLOT PLAN 93-502; LA QUINTA VILLAGE
JASCORP (MR. JOSEPH A. SWAIN, PRESIDENT)
STOFFREGEN FULLER & ASSOCIATES; MR. JOE DE COSTER
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES;
MR. BRUCE HUNSAKER & MR. STEPHEN MC CUTCHAN, AICP
HORTON SHEPARDSON & ASSOCIATES (JOHN COSTANZA)
AMCOR CAPITAL INC. (MR. ROBERT WRIGHT)
CHANGE OF ZONE: THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A
CHANGE IN THE ZONING DESIGNATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 12
ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM R-1 (ONE FAMILY DWELLING), R-2
*8,000 (MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS), AND C-P (GENERAL
COMMERCIAL) TO R-2 (MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS) FOR
PROPERTY ON APPROXIMATELY 12 ACRES OF LAND ON THE WEST
SIDE OF WASHINGTON STREET, JUST SOUTH OF THE LA QUINTA
STORM CHANNEL/WASHINGTON STREET BRIDGE AND 700 FEET
NORTH OF CALLE TAMPICO.
SPECIFIC PLAN: TO DEVELOP DESIGN AND ARCHITECTURAL
STANDARDS FOR A 124 UNIT (SINGLE FAMILY) PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP: TO SUBDIVIDE APPROXIMATELY 12
ACRES INTO 124 DEVELOPABLE LOTS FOR FUTURE ATTACHED
SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING AND OTHER COMMON LOTS FOR
STREETS, RECREATION OR LANDSCAPING PURPOSES. THE
REMAINDER PARCEL IS PROPOSED.
PLOT PLAN: TO DEVELOP 124 LOW AND MODERATE INCOME
ZERO LOT LINE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
BONUS
DENSITY: THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A DENSITY BONUS FOR THEIR
PROJECT BASED ON GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65915 BECAUSE
THE PROJECT WILL INCLUDE PROVISIONS FOR AFFORDABLI
HOUSING UNITS.
EXISTING ZONING: (MULTONE IPLEFAMILY FAMILYDDWELLIi8
,000
DWELLINGS) & C-P(GENERAL
COMMERCIAL)
STAFFRPT.006/CS -1
BACKGROUND:
Planning Commission Discussion of September 28, 1993
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed 124 unit project on
September 28, 1993. A copy of the draft Planning Commission Minutes
is in the Planning Commission packet. The Planning Commission
discussed numerous features of the project, such as density, parking,
pedestrian access, clubhouse facilities, and other related topics. A
summary of those topics are noted below:
1. Parking - The Planning Commission felt the parking ratio of
three spaces per unit was not adequate for owners and guests. They
thought the project should maintain four spaces per unit, and any
on -street parking should be in addition to the required per unit
parking space requirements.
2. Project Density - The Planning Commission debated whether or not
the developer should be allowed a bonus density of 25% per the State
statutes and whether or not an additional 10% density bonus should be
allowed based on the architectural characteristics of the proposed
units per the policies of the existing General Plan. The Commission
requested that the developer redesign the project without the
additional 10% bonus density (or approximately 116 units) incentive.
3. Clubhouse Facilities-- The Planning Commission asked that the
developer examine the outdoor recreation amenities which are proposed
at the clubhouse. The Commission questioned whether or not the
community pool was adequately sized for the project. The current
size of the pool .is 20-feet by 40-feet.
4. Pedestrian Access - The Planning Commission discussed
eliminating the central open space strip to the west of the clubhouse
because the area would become a security problem. The Commission
thought the area should be given to the abutting single family lots.
The revision would allow a pedestrian sidewalk along the private
streets abutting the clubhouse area if the open space paseo was
eliminated. The Commission also requested that a "pedestrian gate"
be provided at the Washington Street entry so that residents could
easily get to the future Ralph's shopping center.
5. Washington Street Bridge Widening - The Engineering Department
explained that the existing bridge would probably be widened in the
next 10 years. The Commission thought the homes abutting the bridge
would be impacted by the future acoustic (retaining) wall and by the
future bridge widening improvements. They requested that the future
owners be notified during their purchase that the bridge will be
widened in the future. It might be appropriate to have a common
parking lot in this area to mitigate this future problem.
6. Landscaping - The Planning Commission thought the developer
should landscape the front, side and rear yards of all the units
prior to building occupancy. However, after discussion with the
developer the Commission thought it was more appropriate to fully
landscape the affordable units because these owners would not likely
have the means to perform this task unless it was part of their
mortgage payment.
STAFFRPT.006/CS -2-
The developer said he would landscape the front yards, common lots,
and perimeter on all other areas.
7. Private Streets - The Planning Commission questioned whether or
not the City should permit 32-foot wide streets within the project.
Some members felt a greater width was necessary (i.e. 36-feet). No
consensus was reached but the issue might not be as important if the
project density is reduced and additional off-street parking is
provided.
8. Traffic Queinq at the Main Gate - The Planning Commission
questioned whether or not the 3-lane system would function
effectively and whether or not stacked traffic would impact the main
entry driveway into the development. Mr. Joe De Coster of
Stoffregren Fuller_ and Associates presented an 8 1/2" x 11" exhibit
of the entry design to the Planning Commission. Mr. Steve Speer,
Assistant City Engineer, stated the design would work, however, a
54-foot wide lane was necessary leading from Washington Street to
allow four lanes of travel (two in and two out). The Commission felt
the design could work but they instructed the developer to work with
staff on this issue.
9. Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&R's) - The Planning
Commission wanted to be assured that the developer would customize
the CC&R's to the future needs of the residents since this project
will include both affordable units and market rate units. They
questioned how the developer would manage the future homeowner's
association and whether or not an on -site management firm would be
needed.
Developer Response
The developer stated he was will to examine the issues of the
Planning Commission since their concerns were his concerns too. He
said he would evaluate their comments and he would try to incorporate
them into a revised document plan (e.g. 116 units). Mr. Swain stated
that he is trying to develop a project that the City will be proud of
and he believes the units are designed to be compatible with
surrounding single family homes even though the unit sizes and lot
sizes are smaller. He stated that his marketing plan was to keep the
Homeowner's Association fees at a reasonable level so that the buyers
are not saddled with additional monthly costs. He thought his design
team had done a good job trying to meet the R-2 standards and the
City's General Plan policies.
Neighborhood Input
A few neighbors spoke in opposition to the project because they felt
it was not compatible with the area. They felt the project contains
too many units and parking would be a problem. A few other
individuals spoke in favor of the project.
STAFFRPT.006/CS -3-
Planning Commission Action
The Planning Commission voted 4-1 to have the developer revise the
124 unit project by reducing the number of units to approximately 116
units. The Commission stated they generally agreed that an
affordable project is appropriate for this area because it is
immediately adjacent to public transportation, a future commercial
shopping center and near the City's Civic Center complex.
Revised Submittal
On October 7, 1993, the developer submitted a new site plan, specific
plan text, and tentative tract map exhibit for the project pursuant
to the request of the Planning Commission of September 28, 1993. The
revised plan has 116 units plotted on 32-foot and 36-foot wide
streets. Additional parking spaces have been provided. The plans
are consistent with the discussions of September 28, 1993 except the
developer has chosen to retain the single story units abutting the
Washington Street bridge. However, Mr. Swain has stated to staff
that he will examine this matter further, and quite possibly, he will
present an alternative plan to the Commission on October llth or 12th
depending on whether he can adjust the units to other on -site areas.
CONCLUSION:
The resolution headings attached reflect the way the case was
advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper but depending on the actions
of the Planning Commission on October 12, 1993, staff will revise the
reports, Resolution and notices which would be transmitted to the
City Council for final approval (e.g. 116 units).
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 93- recommending
to City Council approval of Change of Zone 91-066 from R-1 (One
Family Dwelling), R-2 *8,000 (Multiple Family Dwellings) and C-P
(General Commercial) to R-2 (Multiple Family Dwellings) and
recommending to the City Council concurrence with the proposed
Negative Declaration.
2. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 93- , and
Resolution 93- recommending to City Council approval of
Specific Plan 93-023 and Tentative Tract Map 27854 and
recommending to the the City Council concurrence with the
approval of the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact
subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
3. Staff also recommends that the Planning Commission approve Plot
Plan 93-502, by Minute Motion 93- , subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval.
STAFFRPT.006/CS -4-
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Planning Commission Report of September 28, 1993
3. Revised Exhibits dated October 7, 1993 (large)
4. Draft PC Resolutions for CZ 91-066, SP 93-023, TTM 27854
5. Draft Conditions of Approval for PP 93-502
STAFFRPT.006/CS -5-
av -
ATTACHMENT
pina�aoa Doo o
�oo�00000000
F-1 AV
inFinnInFo
LA QUINTA COVE -
UUuUuujUU1CALLE
�nnnn nnfinn
CITY OF LA QUINTA
��eJL�JL�
f�—
Site
[za
LLLE TAM%CO
City Hall jr
�ooao�oo�
FRITZ BURNS (----
ORTH
SCALE.:1%1000'
Plot Plan 93-502 , Change of Zone 01-066, Tentative
Tract Map 27854, and Specific Plan 93-023
ATTACHMENT 2
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: SEPTEMBER 28, 1993 (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 14, 1993)
PROJECT: CHANGE OF ZONE 91-066, SPECIFIC PLAN 93-023, TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP 27854 & PLOT PLAN 93-502; (LA QUINTA VILLAGE)
APPLICANT: JASCORP (MR. JOSEPH A. SWAIN, PRESIDENT)
ARCHITECT: STOFFREGEN FULLER & ASSOCIATES; MR. ROGER DE COSTER
PROJECT
ENGINEER: HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES;
MR. BRUCE HUNSAKER & MR. STEPHEN MC CUTCHAN, AICP
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT: HORTON SHEPARDSON & ASSOCIATES (JOHN COSTANZA)
OWNER: AMCOR CAPITAL INC. (MR. ROBERT WRIGHT)
REQUEST: CHANGE OF ZONE: THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A
CHANGE IN THE ZONING DESIGNATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 12
ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM R-1 (ONE FAMILY DWELLING), R-2
*8,000 (MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS), AND C-P (GENERAL
COMMERCIAL) TO R-2 (MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS) FOR
PROPERTY ON APPROXIMATELY 12 ACRES OF LAND ON THE WEST
SIDE OF WASHINGTON STREET, JUST SOUTH OF THE LA QUINTA
STORM CHANNEL/WASHINGTON STREET BRIDGE AND 700 FEET
NORTH OF CALLE TAMPICO.
SPECIFIC PLAN: TO DEVELOP DESIGN AND ARCHITECTURAL
STANDARDS FOR A 124 UNIT (SINGLE FAMILY) PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP: TO SUBDIVIDE APPROXIMATELY 12
ACRES INTO 124 DEVELOPABLE LOTS FOR FUTURE ATTACHED
SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING AND OTHER COMMON LOTS FOR
STREETS, RECREATION OR LANDSCAPING PURPOSES. THE
REMAINDER PARCEL IS PROPOSED.
PLOT PLAN: TO DEVELOP A 124 LOW AND MODERATE INCOME
ZERO LOT LINE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
BONUS
DENSITY: THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A DENSITY BONUS FOR THEIR
PROJECT BASED ON GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65915 BECAUSE
THE PROJECT WILL INCLUDE PROVISIONS FOR AFFORDABLE
HOUSING UNITS.
EXISTING ZONING: R-1 (ONE FAMILY DWELLING) & R-2 *8,000
(MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS) & C-P (GENERAL
COMMERCIAL)
STAFFRPT.113/CS -1-
SURROUNDING ZONING
& LAND USE: NORTH: R-3/R-2 8,000 MULTI-FAMILY/R1 SINGLE
FAMILY; LA QUINTA COUNTRY CLUB
(TENNIS RESORT)
SOUTH: C-P GENERAL COMMERCIAL; VACANT
(FUTURE RALPH'S SHOPPING CENTER)
EAST: SR SPECIAL RESIDENTIAL; SCATTERED
SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
WEST: R-3 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; VACANT
DESCRIPTION
OF SITE: THE PROPOSED +12 ACRE SITE IS THE NORTHERLY HALF
OF A PORTION OF A 17.6 ACRE SITE (2 TAX LOTS). THE LOT
IS FLAT AND UNDEVELOPED AT THIS TIME. THE PROPERTY
HAS +680 FEET OF FRONTAGE ALONG WASHINGTON STREET AND
IS 740 FEET IN DEPTH. THE SITE ELEVATION ALONG
WASHINGTON STREET IS APPROXIMATELY 60 FEET ABOVE SEA
LEVEL.
LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF WASHINGTON STREET AND SOUTH OF THE LA
QUINTA STORM CHANNEL AND APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET NORTH
OF CALLE TAMPICO
ON -SITE PARKING: PROVIDED (124 COVERED/258 UNCOVERED) = 382
REQUIRED (2 GARAGE SPACES/UNIT) + 2 DRIVEWAY
SPACES + ACCESSORY SPACES FOR THE CLUBHOUSE) = 508
BACKGROUND:
In 1991, the Planning Commission reviewed a low and moderate income
senior citizen apartment complex for this site (Plot Plan 91-467).
The developer proposed approximately 550 square feet to 1,550 square
feet one story units. The original Applicant proposed 109 units on
approximately 9 acres. The developer had requested Redevelopment
Agency assistance, but an agreement could not be secured. On
November 19, 1991, the City Council tabled the case until later for
further review and consideration. No action has occurred on this
case since 1991.
On September 14, 1993, the Planning Commission continued JASCORP's
request to develop a 124 unit apartment complex at the site because
the Applicant was in the process of submitting a subdivision map and
specific plan for the project so the dwelling units could be sold
instead of rented. The Planning Commission continued the Change of
Zone and Plot Plan applications to September 28, 1993.
SITE BACKGROUND
The site is improved with street improvements along.Washington Street
but the site does not have permanent curb, gutter, and sidewalk
improvements at this time. The improvements along the frontage of
the site were installed by the City in 1992. The site will be
allowed access onto Washington Street pursuant to the past
review/approval of the Ralph's Shopping Center project. This common
driveway will be signalized.
STAFFRPT.113/CS -2-
A secondary access point is proposed into the shopping center at the
southwest corner of the site at the cul-de-sac bulb.
SITE DESIGN
The design concept uses a mixture of one and two story (duplex style)
residential units around a 32 foot wide private street. The front
yards and the back yards will be for private recreation. A community
building and swimming pool and spa has been proposed at the main
gated entry.
MARKET CONCEPT
Approximately 40 units are planned for very low, low, and moderate
income families and the Developer is presently working with the
City's Redevelopment Agency on this matter as of the writing of this
report. The remaining units will be market rate units. The
developer will explain the marketing concept at the meeting.
CIRCULATION/PARKING
As mentioned above, the site has one point of access onto Washington
Street which is a divided major arterial (120-foot right-of-way).
The entry into the site is located at the southeast corner of the
property. The entry is to be signalized and shared with the future
Ralph's Shopping Center to the south. The project will be a gated
community. The private streets will be 32-feet wide and will permit
parking on one side of the street plus two-way travel.
SECONDARY ACCESS
The Riverside County Fire Marshal has requested that the project have
two points of access into the site. To accommodate the Fire
Department's request an emergency access gate will be provided at the
southwest corner of the residential complex at the terminus of the
cul-de-sac bulb. The access point can be for either emergency
purposes or for on -site resident usage. The number of parking spaces
on the Ralph's site will be reduced by 2 or 3 spaces to provide this
access. The design solution should be reviewed by Staff and the
Riverside County Fire Marshal either prior to or during plan check.
LANDSCAPING/SCREENING
The landscape setback along the frontage of the site is approximately
20 feet (excluding the parkway right-of-way), and a meandering
sidewalk is shown along Washington Street. This sidewalk should be
eight feet wide to allow pedestrian and bikeway travel. Landscaping
will be interspersed throughout the site and a six foot wall will be
installed around the perimeter of the site for security purposes.
Decorative wall features are located at the main gated entry.
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
The proposed single and two story Mediterranean design of the
residential units and clubhouse is consistent with the City's design
guidelines (e.g. the roof, rough stucco exterior, and consistent
with the design standards of a low density condominium project,
etc.). The duplex units include a variation in architectural
elements and color schemes.
STAFFRPT.113/CS -3-
The project architect has proposed four architectural styles for the
two story plan and two for the one story plan. The plans vary the
roof design style by using a combination of hip roofs and gable
roofs. Additional embellishments include changes in textures, window
treatments, wing walls, column supports and other slight
architectural changes. The seven color schemes use a collection of
light desert color tones to accent each building type. However, the
concrete roofing material will be the same for each building (Espanz
Mission #108).
A one story clubhouse (approximately 1,436 square feet) for the
residents is also proposed. The design is consistent with the
overall design theme for the project.
UNIT SIZES
The Developer has proposed units which range in size from 1,109 to
1,232 square feet which is larger than the minimum 750 square foot
size required. These size units are consistent with the normal size
of a small single family home. All units will be two and three
bedroom units, therefore, staff believes the project will be geared
for small families, singles or senior citizens_.
BUILDING HEIGHTS
One story buildings (approximately 18 1/2 feet high) have been
proposed along Washington Street because of the "low density" height
policy in the City's General Plan. The City's policy has been to
require one story units within 150-feet of a major thoroughfare for
aesthetic purposes. The Applicant's plan meets this requirement. A
two story design has been used for a majority of the units
independent of the one story units along Washington Street. The two
story units are approximately 24-feet in overall height. The R-2
Zone code standards permit 28-feet.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
A planned unit development (PUD) usually involves a mixture of
single-family residences, town houses, apartments, some commercial or
industrial uses. However, not all PUD's include nonresidential uses,
nor do all PUD's contain clustered housing, but PUD's do involve
variation in building architectural styles and other design
standards. Planned unit development controls are usually implemented
as part of a zoning ordinance, overlay zone, or specific plan. This
project outlines the general parameters of the PUD in the proposed
Specific Plan.
DESCRIPTION OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 27854
The Tract Map request was submitted to staff on September 10, 1993,
in order to change the project from a multiple family apartment
complex into a zero -lot line planned unit development (attached
single family condominiums). The map proposes approximately 2,500
square foot lots or larger for each home on a private street
circulation system. The streets are 32-feet wide. A remainder
parcel is shown but it will be used in the future Ralph's Shopping
Center (PP 91-456), which was approved by the City in 1991 and
amended in 1992.
STAFFRPT.113/CS -4-
The PUD project will provide single -deed ownership (fee simple) to
each home to the boundaries of each lot. Each owner will be a member
of the incorporated homeowner's association to manage the common
lots, clubhouse, or other common facilities.
DESCRIPTION OF SPECIFIC PLAN 93-023
The Specific Plan has been submitted because the developer would like
to develop and sell single family (zero -lot line) homes. The R-2
Zoning Code does not specifically address this type of housing,
therefore, the Specific Plan document will guide development of the
site. It implements the local general plan by creating a bridge
between General Plan policies and individual development proposals.
It contains the locations and standards for land use densities,
streets, and other public facilities in greater detail than the
General Plan. The Specific Plan can supersede the provisions of the
Zoning Code as long as the standards do not run contrary to the
general plan.
The developer requests the following features or adjustments:
1) Lot Size: The minimum lot size is 7,200 square feet for this
property. The Specific Plan proposes approximately 2,500 square
foot lots or larger because the homes will be sharing a common
property line (zero -lot line). Each private lot will be required
to meet the normal, setback requirements for the other three sides
of the lot.
Staff Comments:
Zero -lot line projects help create interest in a project by
creating a larger building mass and eliminating one small side
yard which is common standard in detached single family housing.
The common property line building wall design has a number of
advantages both to the owner and builder. The owner's savings
are during the construction process and the future owner saves
money in monthly energy costs. Further, the State encourages
cities to provide incentives to the developer to assist in the
construction of affordable projects. A smaller lot size is one
way to reduce the overall cost of the project. Large lot sizes
impede construction of smaller single family homes. Smaller lots
allow a higher net density to be achieved. Staff is more
receptive to this type of concession than reducing the City's
architectural standards to accommodate the proposed project.
STAFFRPT.113/CS -5-
2) Private Streets: The developer is proposing private streets
for the project which will be maintained by the future
Homeowner's Association. The streets are 32 feet wide and all
homes have either direct or indirect access to the circulation
system. Planned residential projects are permitted 32 foot wide
private streets.
However, items which can be discussed in the Specific Plan are:
1) whether the cul-de-sac bulbs need to be 90-feet in diameter,
2) whether the lot frontages should be 60-feet unless on a
cul-de-sac which is 35-feet, 3) whether street sidewalks are
necessary, and 4) whether or not the minimum return radius of
25-feet should be maintained.
Staff Comments:
The street design standards for the tract are not unusual for
condominium style projects since the focus is on creating common
recreation areas and private facilities with limited maintenance
for roadway areas. The 32-foot wide streets will allow on -street
parking on one side of the street. Thirty-two foot wide streets
have been allowed by the City in the past and they were permitted
in portions of the Tradition and Rancho La Quinta tracts. The
City would prefer 36-foot wide streets because it adds some
additional space for two-way traffic movement, but the proposed
streets will provide adequate space for vehicular circulation.
Smaller street widths reduce direct capital costs for pavement
and cut and fill. It also reduces incidental costs associated
with utility installation and maintenance. These future cost
savings will be conveyed to the future buyers.
3) Architectural Character & Guidelines: The Specific Plan
proposes that all of the units of the project will be
architectural compatible. The project architecture is
representative of a California Mediterranean architecture (e.g.
tile roofing, heavy stucco, etc.), and included in the Specific
Plan text are examples of the proposed units.
Staff Comments:
The architectural characteristics of the one and two story units
is consistent with the existing single family homes in the
general area. The only difference is the project contains two
story units which are allowed in the R-2 Zone District but not
allowed in the SR zoned properties to the east. Staff supports
the two story units because they are not located on Washington
Street and they will assist in providing additional outdoor
recreation spaces for each home since the lots are smaller than
average for this area of the City.
4) Phasing: The Tract Map will not be phased, but the developer
might choose to phase the development during the building permit
process. Any phasing plans should be reviewed by the Director of
Planning and Development.
STAFFRPT.113/CS -6-
5) On -Site Parking: The developer has requested that the City
permit single one car garages for the project instead of two -car
garages. The developer would like to substitute open parking
spaces in -lieu of the required second garage space.
Staff Comments:
Each unit will have three on -site parking spaces versus four, but
on -street parking is also proposed to make up for this
deficiency. The Specific Plan can provide for this adjustment
because the State Code encourages cities to permit parking
deviations to assist affordable projects. The parking
modification will reduce capital costs and avoid over consumption
of land otherwise available for housing. As referenced earlier,
on -street parking will supplement the on -site parking program.
Staff is not opposed to the Applicant's parking program since the
project is a private, gated facility.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
The Design Review Board met on August 4, 1993, to discuss this
application request. The Applicant's representative, Mr. Joe De
Coster, presented both the Applicant's marketing strategy and the
design program. Mr. De Coster stated that his client would like to
build an affordable project for empty -nesters, single parents, or
senior citizens and they anticipate a large portion of the project
will be first time home buyers.
The Board discussed initially the security features of the project
and some of the members felt the perimeter fencing should be
masonry. They thought a masonry wall would be more appropriate
because it would last longer than wood fencing and although it would
cost more, it would benefit the future residents both in security and
durability. The Board also discussed the pros and cons of masonry
fencing within the project for each respective unit.
Mr. De Coster stated that his client has proposed painted wood
fencing for the interior areas because they believe it will reduce
the development costs and will withstand the desert climate because
they are using clear heart redwood or cedar lumber. The Board
discussed whether or not the interior fencing should be masonry or
wood and whether the rear yard fencing abutting the passive greenbelt
recreation areas should be wrought iron (e.g. 2-foot block with
wrought iron). Mr. De Coster stated that the fencing will be used
for both the confinement of animals or children.
The Board also discussed whether or not metal garage doors (sectional
or otherwise) should be considered in -lieu of wooden doors. The
Design Review Board thought that the doors would last longer than
wood, however, they recognized the possibility that if the doors were
hit the metal would be permanently dented. The applicant would
prefer the wood doors because they are less expensive and can
withstand bumps better than metal doors. The Board debated whether
or not the future Homeowner's Association should maintain the doors
so that they are kept nice if the project should become an ownership
development.
STAFFRPT.113/CS
-7-
The Board thought the one and two story units were attractive and
that the exterior colors and materials were consistent with the
desert environment. The Board did debate whether or not one story
units should be used along the entry driveway into the project to
reduce the "tunnel" effect created by the two story units on the west
side of the private drive. Mr. De Coster stated that the two story
units along the first north/south (east side) are stepped and do
create a pleasing exterior elevation in conjunction with the one
story units along Washington Street. He said he would be opposed to
this change.
The Washington Street wall was discussed because staff proposed that
the applicant duplicate the six foot wall design on the east side of
the street which was installed by the City last year. The
applicant's representative stated that they would like to build a
stuccoed masonry wall along their frontage but they did not feel that
they should be responsible for the green ceramic tile band along the
top portion of the wall. This would be an added expense to their
project and their wall is approximately 32 feet from the future
Washington Street curbing versus the 12-feet wall to the east.
Mr. De Coster stated their project landscaping would conceal a large
portion of the wall; therefore, the tile would not.be necessary. He
said he would work with staff to insure that the wall is "compatible"
with the wall across the street.
The Design Review Board also discussed the two-way access into the
development on Washington Street. The Board felt the existing plan
was not adequate because the signalized access would not allow
vehicle stacking at the card gate, and without this area future
traffic would be blocked either into the 124 unit project or the
Ralph's Shopping Center.
The members discussed a three lane access program for the site (e.g.
two lanes in with one lane out). Mr. De Coster stated he could meet
this requirement if the building along Washington Street were moved
closer together.
The Design Review Board voted to approve the project subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval enclosed herein. The vote was 5-1
with Planning Commissioner Marion Ellson voting no because she felt
additional landscaping should be incorporated and the number of units
should be reduced (Boardmember Rice was absent).
BONUS DENSITY
The Developer has requested additional units over and above the
General Plan density standards. The maximum yield under the R-2
provisions would be 93 units, but the Applicant is desirous to have
23 extra units for this project because the project will have
affordable units. State Government Code (Section 65915) requires
local governments to exceed the density provision standards if the
project is restricted to persons for families with incomes below the
median for this area and the units shall remain affordable for a
specified time frame (e.g. 30 years). If these provisions can be
met, the City must grant a density increase, which shall be at least
25%.
STAFFRPT.113/CS -8-
The Applicant is requesting the maximum allowed plus an additional
10% increase based on their overall design and amenity package
(General Plan Policy 2-1.1.3.). The Applicant is currently
negotiating with the Redevelopment Agency for affordable housing
assistance.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
A Medium Density Residential (MDR) category is established on the
Land Use Policy Diagram. The density standard for this category
ranges from 4-8 DU/AC. The maximum density is 8 DU/AC. The general
residential product type is characterized by one to two-story, single
family detached homes on medium and small lots and/or one to
two-story, single family attached units in projects with open space,
subject to the conditions for varying residential use guidelines as
specified in Policy 2-1.1.9. Appropriate locations of MDR uses
include the Cove area, near transportation arteries and in planned
communities. The general residential product type allowed within the
Cove is one-story single family detached homes. (Policy 2-1.1.6)
CONCLUSION
The project has been designed to encourage first time homeownership
by providing a smaller than average single family home on a small
lot. The outdoor spaces will be comparable to the homes being built
in the Cove except the project will have private streets and a
Homeowner's Association to maintain the common landscaping and
clubhouse building. The project will include both affordable units
and market rate units as determined by the City Council and State
Government Code 65915.
To keep the units more affordable, the developer proposes creative
site planning, and since the units share a common side lot line, this
facilitates unit density and allows for efficient use of the narrow
lots. To offset some of the disadvantages of higher density, the
development offers many site amenities, including common open space
and recreational facilities. The overall density will not create an
adverse impact on the area since the immediate area is planned for
medium density residential uses, neighborhood commercial uses, and
major community facilities (i.e. Civic Center Complex). Further, the
project has been conditioned to meet the architectural requirements
of the City.
The Change of Zone request is consistent with the City's long range
General Plan document which depicts this area as an area Medium
Density (4-8 Dwelling Units/Acre). Another reason to approve the
change is: 1) the development is in the downtown area and medium
density projects should be encouraged to provide housing for this
future employment area, 2) the property is serviced by public
transportation, and 3) the goals of the City's General Plan Housing
Element will be met (Implementation Policy 8.06).
STAFFRPT.113/CS -9-
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 93- recommending
to City Council approval of Change of Zone 91-066 from R-1 (One
Family Dwelling), R-2 *8,000 (Multiple Family Dwellings) and C-P
(General Commercial) to R-2 (Multiple Family Dwellings) and
recommending to the City Council concurrence with the proposed
Negative Declaration.
2. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 93- and
Resolution 93- recommending to City Council approval of
Specific Plan 93-023 and Tentative Tract Map 27854 and
recommending to the the City Council concurrence with the
approval of the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact
subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
3. Staff also recommends that the Planning Commission approve Plot
Plan 93-502, by Minute Motion 93- , subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval.
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Environmental Assessment 93-267
3. Agency comments
4. Additional letters
5. Plan Exhibits (large)
6. Specific Plan Document
7. Design Review Board Minutes
8. Draft PC Resolutions for CZ 91-066, SP 93-023, TTM 27853
9. Draft Conditions of Approval for PP 93-502
STAFFRPT.113/CS • -10-
I I II. sx. 6 •• 6s I . TE. Tiff ~ I M0
North tO'�� o •
�d X �.
' V
. � o
h t
6
Existing Vacant PROPERTY IN QUESTION ,,r -.-
Property 4 z
i r
PAR.3 i E
to
2 WACIff
AC SR ® �
7 1. V^•
Future Shopping Center A0°♦� `�'
15
O H.
.r.
X
W
All! ss er
r rRa aPo-Ml .w:, ..►, 2 OT
M.A.0Y0-"
�. Mr
Vacant Parcel • O
,Z
Q
TAMPICO
'c
eu o n_ I rer ro
t N a, z
New City Hall Site
Pal. I22/89 - 90 Pwre/ #%p 19730
P.RAI 17511-2 • " 27109 tp BK 769 AS All
S Ai
RIMS/OIE--A MM, CALlf.
��71
EA 93-267
,�• CITY Of U QMNA
o ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. BACKGRWO
1. Name of Proponent: Joseph A. Swain, Pres. -
Jascorp
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 79-911 rnuntry
rliih nriva
Bermuda Dunes CA 9220
— —
3. Date of Checklist: Aug.24, 1993
4. Agency Requiring Checklist: City of La Quinta
S. Name of Proposal, if applicable: I a Quinta Village
—
II. ENVIRONKNTAL IMPACTS
(Explanation of all "Yes" and "Maybe" answers Is required
-
on attached sheets.)
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
Yes Maybe No
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in
geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or
Jeo
overcovering of the soil?
c. Change in topography or ground surface
✓
relief features?--
d. The destruction, covering or modification of
any unique geologic or physical features?
e. Any increases in wind or water erosion of soils,
either on or off the site?
--—
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach, sands,
or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a river or
stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay,
inlet or lake?
_
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud-
slides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
_ —
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterior&tion of
ambient air quality?
_ _ --
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally?
--
3. hater. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements, in either marine or fresh
waters?
— —
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface water runoff?
c. Alterations to the course of flow of flood
waters?
— —
d. Change in the amount of surface water in any
water body?
— —
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality, in-
cluding but not limited to temperature,
t�
dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
_ —
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow
of ground waters?
—. -�
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or with-
drawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations?
—
(3)
Yes Maybe No
h. Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies?
i. Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding or
tidal waves?
4.
Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or number
of any species of plants (including trees,
shrubs, grass, crops, microfiora and aquatic
plants)?
_,.._,
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare c: endangered species of plants?
_
c. Introd7iction of new species of plants into
an are8, or result in a barrier to the
norma; replenishment of existing species?
— V
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural
crop.?
_
S.
Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
,
a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers
of any species of animals (birds, land animals,
incluZing reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms, insects or microfauna)?
_ ✓
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare,
or encangered species of animals?
—
c. Intrc,;:�jction of new species of animals into an
area, or result in a barrier to the migration
or no -cement of animals?
_ V
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
(/
habitat?
_
6.
Noise. W:11 the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
7.
Li t and Glare. Will the proposal produce new
light or glare?
✓ _
S.
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial
alteratioc of the present or planned land use of an
area?
9.
Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of any use of any natural
resou: ces?
_
b. Substantial depletion of any renewable
natural resource?
10.
Risk of set. Does the proposal involve a risk
of exp.osion or the release of hazardous sub-
stances (including, but not limited to, oil.
pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
11.
Will the proposal alter the location,
_Population;_
id stri ution, density, or growth rate of the
human population of an area?
✓ _.
12.
Housin . hill the proposal affect existing housing,
/
or create a demand for additional housing?
_ _
13.
Transportation./Circulation. Will the proposal
—
result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
OO
vehicmlar movement?
_
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking?
le000
_
(4)
J
c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation
systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation
or movement of people and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to mct= vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrians?
14. Public Services. Will the proposal Lore an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or a::ered govern-
mental services in any of the follow--.; areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational faci:ities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities, eluding
roads?
f. Other governmental services?
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in.
a. Use of substantial amounts of fur: cr energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand open existing
sources of energy, or require the :avelopment
of new sources of energy?
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result �_-. a need
Tor new systems, or substantial alterti:)ns to
the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
17. Human Health. Will the proposal resu:t in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)?
b. Exposure of people to potential `:ea::.h hazards?
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result : the
obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to
the public, or will the proposal resu:: in the
creation of an aesthetically offensive site open
to public view?
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact
upon the quality or quantity of exist:_g recrea-
tional opportunities?
20. Archeological/Historical. Will the pr:pcsal result
in an alteration of a significant archeological
or historical site, structure, object ar wilding?
21. Mandatory Finding of Significance.
a. Does the project have the potentia: to degrade
the quality of the environment, substm ti-ally re-
duce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drip below
self sustaining levels, threaten to el:aisate a
plan or animal community, reduce the n=d;er or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important exam:es of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
Yes Maybe No
y
F
(S)
Yes nybe Ho
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, en-
vironmental goals? (A short-term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a relatively
brief, definitive period of time while long-term
impacts will endure well into the future.)
c. Does the project have impacts which are indi-
vidually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(A project may i= act on two or more separate
resources where t'- impact on each resource is
relatively small, 'ut where the effect of the
total of those i." acts on the environment is
significant.)
—
d. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause s-zbstantial adverse effects on
human beings, eit.er directly or indirectly?
III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRZNMENTAL EVALUATION
IV. DETERMINATION
(To be com:leted by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation;
I find t=e proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect c= t'.e environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATIQti will
be prepare--.
I find t.a: 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 the proposed project MY have a significant effect
on the environment, and an ENVIRO*IEN L IMPACT REPORT is
required.
Date:
/ signature
CITY OF LA QUINTA
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
CASE NOS. CZ 91-066, SP 93-023, TTM 27854 and PP93-502 (EA93-267)
JASCORP
GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
The applicant has proposed a very low, low, moderate and market
rate Zero -lot (PUD) single family subdivision (124 units) on +12
acres on property Zoned R1 (One Family Dwelling), R2*8,000
(Multiple Family Dwellings), and C-P General Commercial. The
property is located on the west side of Washington Street, just
south of the La Quinta Evacuation Storm Channel.
The applicant has requested that the City redesignate the site to
R2 verses the existing R1, R2 and C-P Zone categories.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
EXPLANATION OF "YES" AND "MAYBE" QUESTIONS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
1. EARTH: *******************************************************
a. Unstable Earth Conditions or Changes in Geologic
Substructures? (Checked "Maybe")
The soil on this property has been classified as Myoma
Fine Sand and Coachella Sand/Loam. This type of soil has rapid
permeability and can be used for crop production or homesite
development. The site is vacant (never developed) and the
applicant is desirous to pursue development of the site with urban
services (i.e. single family dwellings). The development of the
site will involve grading and recontouring of the existing land
features. However, all work will be done in conformance with the
final Geotechnical Report required by the Engineering Department
during final plan review. The site is protected from seasonal
storm water by an earthen levee (to the north).
b. Disruption, Displacement, and Compaction of Soil (Checked
"Yes")
Earth moving to support the project will be done as part
of the grading plan, and no on -site work shall be done until a
study has been prepared which identifies the cut and fill needs of
the site.
C. Change in Topography or Relief Features (Checked "Yes)
The general elevation of the site is approximately 40 to
60 feet above sea level. The site is in a Zone 3 Seismic/Geologic
Hazard area as noted by the City's General Plan. A Zone 3 is an
area with moderate shaking qualities but less severe than a Zone 12
(highest level). It is categorized as: "effect on people: felt by
most people indoors. Some can estimate duration of shaking. But
many may not recognize shaking of building as caused by an
earthquake, the shaking is like that caused by the passing of light
trucks.
Earth moving to support the project will be done as part
of the grading plan, and no on -site work shall be done until a
study has been prepared which identifies the cut and fill needs of
the site.
d. Modification of Unique Physical Features (Checked "No"
No unique physical characteristics exist at the site.
e. Increase in Soil Erosion (Checked "Maybe")
Preventative measures to minimize seasonal flooding and
erosion should be incorporated into site grading plans (e.g.
phasing of grading) and provisions shall be made with the Coachella
Valley Water District and the City regarding on or off -site
drainage.
f. Effects on Beach Sands, Channels, Rivers, Streams, Ocean,
Bay, Inlet, or Lake (Check "No")
The site is adjacent to the La Quinta Evacuation Channel
(earthen levee) which is to the north of the site. The developer
can request that CVWD allow them access to the channel for off -site
drainage needs, however, these provisions are usually worked out
with the water district and the developer. The City is not
actively involved with these negotiations, and it is the
responsibility of the developer to work out this solutions during
plan check.
g. Exposure to Geologic Hazards (Checked "Maybe")
The project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo
Special Study Zone, but it could be affected by potentially active
faults nearby since this site lies within the Riverside County
Ground Shaking Zone 3 based on distance from causative faults and
soil types. The effects of ground shaking will be mitigated by
seismic design requirements and procedures outlined in the City's
Uniform Building Code, and the future developer prepared
Geotechnical Report.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
1). Grading of the site shall occur pursuant to the approval of
the future grading plan as specified by the City's Engineering
Department. All work shall be conducted in a manner so that it
does not disturb other abutting properties unless off -site
agreements have been made and/or approved. The grading quantities
have not been submitted, but it is assumed that most of the earth
moving at the site (contouring) will occur on the premises and that
importation will also occur to develop the single family pad sites.
2). The site is greater than 5 acres, therefore, a National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit is required
prior to any on -site grading. The permit process was enacted in
1992 by the State Water Resources Control Board to insure that any
storm discharges associated with a construction activity was
examined by the Board. The permit requires all property owners
to: eliminate or reduce non -storm water discharges to storm sewer
systems or other waters, develop an implement a storm water
pollution prevention plan, and perform inspections of storm water
pollution prevention measures (control practices).
3). The site shall meet the provisions of Uniform Building Code
Section 2312 (d) 2 because the project lies within a Seismic Zone
4. It is recommended that all structures be designed according to
current Uniform Building Code requirements.
4). Levee improvements (i.e. concrete) shall be required if deemed
necessary by the Coachella Valley Water District.
2.
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air
quality? (Checked "Maybe")
The City's Environmental Hazards Element identifies on -
site soils as being a wind erosion hazard. This is a concern as
the Coachella Valley exceeds federal air quality standards for
particulate matter.
In accordance with the City's Air Quality Element, the project was
evaluated to determine if the project would have a significant
adverse impact on air quality. The South Coast Air Quality
Management District's significance threshold includes residential
projects of 160 or more units or 177 acres per day. As the
proposed project involves construction of a smaller project than
noted above, it does not exceed the significance criteria threshold
for air quality impacts.
The project site is located within the Southeast Desert Air
Basin (SEDAB) and is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD). With the proposed
construction, there may be air pollutant sources which may
deteriorate ambient air quality. These sources are stationary and
mobile sources. Stationary source considerations include emission
from on -site construction activities and natural gas combustion.
Mobile source consideration include exhaust emissions resulting
from short term construction activities and long term generation
associated with the project.
It could be anticipated that with the construction of the proposed
project there will be a reduction in the overall mobile emission
releases because the location of the apartment complex is
convenient to local downtown services.
b. The creation of objectionable odors? (Checked "No")
The project is not of a type which would create
objectionable odors. No impacts are anticipated.
C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature or
any change in climate, either locally or regionally? (Checked "No")
The single family subdivision is not of a type, design or
density which would significantly alter air movement, moisture, or
temperature. It is anticipated that the climate would not be
either locally or regionally altered.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
1). Adequate watering techniques shall be employed to partially
mitigate the impact of the construction generated dust.
2). Areas graded but not immediately constructed on shall be
planted with a temporary ground cover to reduce the amount of open
space subject to wind erosion.
3). Grading and construction shall comply with all applicable City
Ordinances (PM10) and the requirements of the Air Quality
Management Plan (Rule 403).
3. WATER:
a. Change in currents or the course of direction of water
movements, in either marine or fresh waters? (Checked "No")
None are proposed by the development of the site.
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (Checked "Yes")
With the proposed construction it can be expected that
there will be a change in the absorption rate (due to impervious
surfaces), drainage patterns and amount and rate of surface water
run-off. The project proponent will provide an on or off -site
retention/detention basin (off -site if approved by the City
Engineer) for the collection of storm water and nuisance water run-
off and, special measures will be needed to assure the earthen
levee to the north is adequate to protect the property from storm
water flows.
This area might be subject to liquefaction. Liquefaction is the
term which is used when the ground water table is very close to the
surface, and during an earthquake the ground has a tendency to
vibrate building structures from their respective foundations and,
thus causing failure and other adverse side -effects.
The site has an AO flood insurance rating (FIRM) . This means that
the area is within the 100 year flood plain and special measures
are necessary to insure that any site improvements are designed to
prevent damage to any structure or building by periodic flooding.
C. Alteration of Flood Water (Checked "No")
The project will not modify or alter the existing La
Quinta Evacuation channel to the north of the site.
d. Change in the Amount of Surface Water (Checked "No")
Similar to existing conditions, after project
construction surface water runoff will be captured either on -site
or diverted off -site through engineered designs. Thus, the change
in the amount of surface water is not expected to be significant.
e. Alteration of Surface Water Quality (Checked "No")
Stormwater runoff project improvements may contain small
traces of urban pollutants (e.g. oil, fertilizer, etc.) which can
be accepted into the on or off -site retention basin(s) or accepted
off -site provided CVWD is agreeable to this solution. All
solutions shall be prepared by the licensed engineer and approved
by the City and the local water agency.
f. Alteration of Groundwater Direction (Checked "No")
The project would not alter the direction of existing
groundwater resources nor impact its flow rate.
g. Change in Groundwater Quantity (Checked "Maybe")
The proposed residential development would cause an
incremental increase in the demand for groundwater, which would be
provided by CVWD via an existing distribution system. The
additional withdrawals are not considered to be significant.
h. Reduction in Public Water (Checked "Maybe")
The development of the site will reduce the amount of
water available for public consumption. It is assumed that each
unit can or will consume approximately 350 gals./day which means
the project could use 43,400 gals./day based on 124 units. If the
number of units is reduced, the amount of water used would be
reduced too. However, these amounts are not inconsistent with
other types of residential developments in the City and nothing
unusual is anticipated by the development of the site with an
residential project.
i. Exposure to people or property related hazards such as
flooding or tidal waves (Checked "Maybe")
The project will not modify or alter the existing La
Quinta Evacuation channel to the north of the site.
This area might be subject to liquefaction. Liquefaction is the
term which is used when the ground water table is very close to the
surface, and during an earthquake the ground has a tendency to
vibrate building structures from their respective foundations and,
thus causing failure and other adverse side -effects.
The site has an AO flood insurance rating (FIRM) . This means that
the area is within the 100 year flood plain and special measures
are necessary to insure that any site improvements are designed to
prevent damage to any structure or building by periodic flooding.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
1. The project shall comply with all applicable City requirements
regarding storm water and nuisance water. The developer shall
complete a hydrology study, prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer.
The study will identify the increased water run-off quantities
which will be generated at the site by analyzing the assumed
quantities in an undeveloped state and factoring this against the
development proposal. Based on this study, the project engineer
shall design the necessary on or off -site drainage basins
(retention/detention) which will contain storm water run-off from
the property and allow gradual dissipation of the water into the
ground. A draft hydrology study has not been prepared and it is
staffs understanding that the project proponent would like to work
with the City to develop an off -site retention basin for this
project. Furthermore, the developer will be required to insure
that earthen levee to the north of the site is adequate to assure
the safety of the future occupants of the complex. Measures
which might be warranted are: a concrete levee, elevated building
pads, etc.
2. Very low flow (1.6 gallon) toilets shall be installed pursuant
to Public Health Code Section 17921.3.
4. PLANT LIFE:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any
species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops,
microflora and aquatic plants? (Checked "No")
The subject site is presently vacant and void of any
significant plant life. No impact is anticipated by the
development of this site.
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of plants? (Checked "Maybe")
The City adopted a Master Environmental Report in 1992, and in this
document, the adopted plan has indicated that the site might have
the California Ditaxis (flora) present on this property or other
property in the general area. The Ditaxis is a special interest
plant and determined to be "Endangered" by the State Department of
Fish and Game. Staff would recommend that the City require the
applicant to perform an on -site field review of the site to
determine if the Ditaxis exists on the property. Staff is unaware
of any other significant plant life existing at the site at this
time. No impact is anticipated by the development of this site
provided a horticulturist examines the site prior to on -site
grading.
C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or
result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals?
(Checked "No")
The subject site is presently vacant and void of any
significant animal life. The area is not used in the migration of
animals from one part of the City to another. No impact is
anticipated by the development of this site.
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat?
(Checked "No")
The subject site is presently vacant and void of any
significant fish or wildlife species. No impact is anticipated by
the development of this site.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None required except the applicant shall
have a horticulturist examine the site to ascertain whether or not
the California Ditaxis is present on the 12 ac. site. The
findings of the field study shall be submitted to staff prior to
any on -site grading.
5. Animal Life: **********************************************
a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any
species of animals (birds, land animals, including reptiles, fish
and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? (Checked
" ND " )
No protected animal species exist on the property at this
time which would hinder the development of the site. This is based
on the City's (city-wide) adopted Master Environmental Assessment
prepared for the City in 1992.
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or
endangered species of animals? (Checked "No")
The subject site is not located in an area defined as a
Fringed -Toed Lizard Habitat area (a Federally protected species).
It has been therefore determined that mitigation fees shall not be
required of the applicant to develop this site.
C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or
result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals?
(Checked "No")
The development of the site with residential units will
bring the introduction of domestic animals into this area.
However, the types of animals will be similar to those normally
associated with urban living (e.g. cats, dogs, etc.). No unusual
species are proposed and, therefore, no impact is expected by the
development of this site.
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat?
(Checked "No")
No impacts are anticipated by the development of the site
on either fish or wildlife habitats because the site is not in the
Fringed -Toed Lizard Habitat area nor are there any marine animals
on the property.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None required except the provision of
the Municipal Code shall be complied with.
6. NOISE: ******************************************************
a. Increases in existing noise levels? (Checked "Maybe")
Because of the proposed construction and subsequent operation of
the residential complex, it can be expected that there will be some
increase in the existing noise levels on the site. Most of the
noise generated will be from motorized traffic coming to and from
the site. The developer has proposed a six foot high masonry wall
along the frontage of the site for security purposes but the wall
will also benefit the noise reduction to the units which are in
close proximity to Washington Street.
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (Checked
"Maybe")
The existing noise levels along Washington Street are generally
over 60dba. This measurement was taken in 1992 during the General
Plan Update. Levels greater than 60 Db (CNEL) require mitigation
by the developer in order to bring the project into the required
City standard of less than 60 dB for outdoor areas and less than 45
dB for inside areas. A noise study has not been prepared, but
the Applicant will be required to provide a study prior to any on -
site construction.
MITIGATION MEASURES: As required by the General Plan, this
project shall prepare a noise analysis to minimize noise impacts on
surrounding land uses. The City's General Plan Guidelines for
indoor and outdoor noise shall be met. A comprehensive study shall
be submitted to staff for review prior to the issuance of any
building permit. The study shall use existing and projected
traffic levels along Washington Street to project noise levels, and
then determine ways to reduce road noise impacts on the future
residents. Possible mitigation measures can include: berming,
landscaping, acoustic walls, or other measures deemed necessary by
the licensed acoustic engineer. The final mitigation plan shall
be reviewed by the Planning Department.
7. LIGHT AND GLARE:
Will the proposal produce new light and glare? (Checked "Yes")
It is anticipated that the building(s) and/or parking
lot/landscaping will include lighting. However, at this time, much
of the material has not been submitted to staff. During the plan
check process of this case in the future the applicant will be
required to gain approval of this material from the City's Design
Review Board and the Planning and Building Department prior to
construction permit issuance.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
1). All lighting will have to comply with the City's "Dark Sky
Ordinance". Additionally, light sources shall be shielded to
eliminate light glare and off -site spillage onto abutting vacant or
developed properties.
2). A lighting plan shall be submitted for the on -site parking
lot. The plan shall include a photometric study of the lighting
which analyzes the necessary footcandle light intensity, height and
spaces of the light poles, type of lighting fixtures, and any other
pertinent information which is necessary to assure City compliance
(i.e. Dark Sky Ordinance). The light poles should be less than 10
feet in overall height.
8. LAND USE(S):********************************************t
Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the
present or planned land use of an area? (Checked "Maybe")
The General Plan has designated the property as Medium Density
Residential (4-8 units per acres) and the existing Zoning of the
site is R1 (Single Family ) and R2 (Multiple Family). The
southerly side of the site is Zone C-P (General Commercial).
The Applicant has requested that the City redesignate the 12 acre
site to R2 (Multiple Family).
In 1991, the City processed a Change of Zone request for this area
(CZ 91-066) for a different developer but the case was tabled based
on the City Council's action of November 19, 1991. The current
applicant has requested that the City reprocess this request based
on their new development plan (i.e. R1 and CP property to R2).
The change will require by the Planning Commission and City
Council.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None is required. However, it is
necessary that the City Council approve the land use designation
change in order for the applicant to develop the project to the
density proposed. If this does not occur, the site is to remain
vacant until other land use plans can be reviewed and it is
determined they will meet the intent of the City's existing General
Plan and Zoning Code provisions. The project density will be
adjusted accordingly. The Planning Commission must also address
the applicant's request to allow additional dwelling units on the
site (bonus units) because affordable units are being proposed
(State Code 65915).
9. NATURAL RESOURCES:******************************************
a. Increase in the rate of any use of any natural resources?
(Checked "Yes")
As with any development, the project would require water, natural
gas, and electricity, which are all considered natural resources.
The proposed project, however, would not increase the rate of use
of these resources more than any other similar residential and
commercial development. The project is not of type, size (124
units) or density that could substantially deplete any non-
renewable natural resource.
No major adverse impacts are anticipated with by the construction
of this project.
b. Substantial depletion of any renewable natural resource?
(Checked "No")
The project is not large enough to substantially deplete any non-
renewable natural resource based on the attached local agency
transmittals. Therefore, no major adverse impacts are anticipated
with the construction of this housing project.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None required. However, the applicant
shall meet all necessary requirements of the local serving agencies
as outlined in the attached agency comments or as mandated during
construction plan implementation. Building energy conservation
will largely be achieved by compliance with Title 20 and 24 of the
California Administrative Code. These standards are handled by
the Building and Safety Department during construction plan check
review.
10. RISK OF
Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the
release of hazards substances (including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset conditions? (Checked "No")
No adverse impact is anticipated due to explosion or release of
hazardous substances.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None required. However, all
construction activities whether or not they are permanent or
temporary shall meet all necessary safety standards of the Federal,
State and local government requirements.
11. POPULATION:************************************************
Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density,
or growth rate of the human population of an area? (Checked "Yes")
The developer is proposing 124 units which are 1,100 to 1,200 sq.
ft. All units are two or three bedroom dwellings. The sizes of
the units are comparable to normal smaller homes or townhouse
condominiums.
It is not anticipated that the proposed project will have an
adverse or significant impact on population distribution, density
or growth rate in the area. The developer's intent is to provide
attached single family housing. Some of the units will be for
people who have income levels less than median as established by
the County of Riverside and HUD (Housing and Urban Development) if
the bonus density provisions are allowed by the City. Currently,
the City's population per household is approximately 2.85
people/household. Therefore, it can be assume that the project
will support approximately 353+ people living in the single family
subdivision.
MITIGATION MEASURES: The developer shall be required to meet
all the HUD income level standards if the developer pursues the
density bonus units, as requested, plus the number of people per
unit shall be based on the Uniform Building Code provisions.
12. HOUSING:*****************************************************
Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand
for additional housing? (Checked "No")
The development of the site as a single family (attached)
affordable housing complex is consistent with the policies of the
City's General Plan. The City encourages this type of project in
order for the City to meet its fair -share regional housing needs,
as required by the Southern California Association of Governments
and the City's General Plan Housing Element. The SCAG plan
requires both cities and counties to provide different types of
housing units (i.e. single family and multiple family units) and to
accommodate low/moderate income families. Cities or counties can
examine either rental assisted housing, sweat equity self help
housing, or grant assisted housing pursuant to their redevelopment
guidelines. The City's Redevelopment Agency can examine whether
or not to assist the project with their set -aside RDA monies or in
other ways which can reduce the burden on the developer (i.e. off -
site development improvements).
It is assumed that only minor incremental demands on City services
will be generated by the possible development of the site with
single family units; therefore, the development of the site would
have insignificant affects on the City. Further, the City has an
over surplus of land designated and planned for detached single
family housing thus the City is in need of rental housing or
subsidized units at this time. This project will help the City
meet its fair -share housing requirements.
The developer has also requested bonus apartment units pursuant to
State statues (Bonus Density) pursuant Gov.* Code Section 65915.
The City is allowed to assist the developer is increasing his
project density if the project is designed and rented or sold to
low income persons and, the project remains affordable.
Generally, the units are kept affordable for between 15 to 30 years
depending on the type of project.
MITIGATION MEASURES: The City should insure that the housing
units which are for the very low or low income families are
retained for 15 to 30 years as below market units to accommodate
this section of the population which is in need of proper housing.
The City should examine whether or not the project warrants
consideration for additional units per Government Code Section
65915. The Planning Commission and City Council will examine this
issue and act accordingly on the request.
13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION:************************************
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement?
(Checked "Maybe")
With the proposed project it can be anticipated that there will be
a generation of additional vehicular traffic movement in the
immediate area. The City's Trip Generation book (1987, ITE Manual)
indicates that attached single family housing generates on the
average between 8-10 vehicle trips per day. However, car ownership
is not as important for first time homeowners if public
transportation (bus or mini -bus) is available or needs services are
in close proximity to their residence. The site is located along
Route #4 of the Sunline Transit, therefore, public transportation
is available.
The developer will be required to install ultimate street
improvements along Washington Street. The improvements will
include: curb, gutter, street median, sidewalks, etc. The
developer will also be required to assist in paying for a portion
of the new traffic signal proposed for this project site and the
future shopping center to the south (Ralph's Shopping Center/Koenig
Development Company).
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new
parking? (Checked "Yes")
The developer is proposing on -site parking spaces for the project
which is not consistent with the City's Off-street Parking Code
since only one garage parking space will be provided per unit.
However, the proposed specific plan document can make an adjustment
to this deficiency in order to provide affordable housing units.
Both garage parking and open parking spaces will be provided in
close proximity to each proposed unit. If parking should occur
within the private street inside the development, this type of
parking will not impact the abutting projects to the south since
all parked cars will be on private property.
c. thru f - Effects upon existing transportion, movement of
people and/or goods, etc. (Checked "No")
MITIGATION MEASURES:
1). Compliance with all applicable City requirements regarding
street improvements of adjacent street(s). The level of off -site
improvements shall be commensurate to the magnitude of the project.
2). The developer shall provide adequate on -site parking spaces to
accommodate the proposed use per the requirements of the City's
Off-street Parking Ordinance or unless dictated otherwise in the
Specific Plan document.
3). An eight foot wide sidewalk shall be provided on Washington
Street (major arterial) for pedestrian/bike traffic.
4). A bus stop and shelter shall be install along the frontage of
the site on Washington Street. The location shall be approved by
Sunline Transit and the City Engineering Department. If a separate
bus turn -out is required, the turn -out shall not affect traffic
movement and it shall be recessed within the street parkway.
5) . A traffic signal shall be installed when warranted at the two-
way access driveway on Washington Street as required by the
Engineering Department. The signal will service this site and the
future project to the south (Ralph's Market Shopping Center).
The Engineering Department shall determine the fair -share of the
signal costs for the developer during review of the project with
the Planning Commission.
6). A second point of access into the project shall be required
unless otherwise determined by the City Engineer, the Planning
Commission or the City Council.
14. PUBLIC SERVICES: ********************************************
Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for
new or altered governmental services (e.g. fire, police, schools,
parks or recreation, maintenance of public facilities, or other
governmental services)? (Checked "Maybe")
The project may create a need for additional fire protection,
police protection and maintenance of public roads in the area.
However, it is anticipated that any increases in this area will be
incremental, and further, should only have negligible impacts on
existing personnel or services. The site is approximately 1/2 mile
from Fire Station #32. Response times to the facility should be
within acceptable levels as prescribed by the fire personnel.
MITIGATION MEASURES: The applicant will be required to pays impact
fees which are in effect prior to the issuance of a building permit
for any of the future units.
15. ENERGY:**************************************************
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? (Checked
"Maybe")
The project will consume 641,328
number or amount is consistent
this type of development.
(provider) has not indicated the
based on the applicant's request
an incremental increase in the
project is completed.
kWh of electricity per year. This
with normal per unit figures for
the Imperial Irrigation District
it they cannot service the project
However, the project will have
amount of available energy if the
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of
energy, or require the development of new sources of energy?
(Checked "No")
The project is not large enough to substantially deplete any non-
renewable natural resource. No significant impacts are
anticipated.
MITIGATION MEASURES: The applicant shall be responsible to submit
plans as required by each respective local agency and install the
future facilities as required to meet all safety standards in
affect at the time of the application.
16. UTILITIES:**************************************************
Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power/Natural Gas? (Checked "No") - Power and natural gas
services are available at the subject site. IID power lines are
currently located on the east side of Washington Street, and power
will be provided to the site based on IID requirements. All on -
site electric facilities will be placed underground from the source
to each new apartment building. The new facilities will not
substantially alter or affect any of the existing off -site
utilities.
b. Communications? (Checked "No") - Telephone and cable
services will be available from extensions from nearby existing or
planned neighborhoods. Significant service alterations will not
be necessary.
c. Water? (Checked "No") - Project implementation will not
require significant upgrades or extensions to water facilities.
The project will comply with all water service extension measures
required by CVWD and no significant impacts are anticipated because
the project is not designed to use more water than other types of
multi -family apartment projects.
d. Sewer/Septic? (Checked "No") - The project will be
connected to the CVWD's forced main, which will convey wastewater
to the Mid-Vally Water Reclamation Plant. The 124 unit project is
expected to generate 200-300 gallons per dwelling unit per day.
Substantial alterations or extensions of existing systems will not
be necessary. The project will be required to meet all
requirements of CVWD. No significant impacts are anticipated.
e. Storm water drainage? (Checked "Maybe") - The Applicant
has not addressed how they will manage storm water drainage.
However, based on the plans, an off -site program will be needed to
handle any water generated by the development of the site. The
Applicant will be required to submit a hydrology plan to the City
Engineer for his review and approval. All storm drainage
facilities shall be developed by the developer or by the City with
the developer reimbursing the City for its costs.
f. Solid waste? (Checked "No") - Project implementation will
not generate amounts of solid wastes which would require
substantial alterations to collection services and disposal
facilities. Each unit is expected to generate 9 lbs./day which
1,116 lbs./day for the entire complex. No significant impacts
will occur.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
1). All necessary infrastructure improvements as mandated by the
City or any other public agency shall be met as part of the
development of this site. As mentioned before, the site will be
required to install appropriate drainage facilities which will
house storm water run-off during seasonal rain storms or to contain
nuisance water from both irrigation and surfaced areas (i.e.
parking lots, buildings, etc.). Off -site drainage will be allowed
if approved by the City Engineer.
2). Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant will
be required to pay the City's Infrastructure Fee. This fee will
help mitigate impacts as noted above.
3). The project shall comply with all requirements of the Fire
Marshal and the Riverside County Sheriffs Department. The School
District's mitigation fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of
a building permit.
4). Water, sewer, and electric service provisions shall be made
and secured prior to securing building permits.
5). On -site curb recycling programs shall be established for the
project similar to existing recycling programs which are on -going
in the Cove.
17. HUMAN
a. and b. - Creation of hazards or exposure to people of
potential hazards? (Checked "No")
No additional hazards are contemplated other than those
identified in Section 3 (water).
18. AESTHETICS:**************************************************
Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic
vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in
the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public
view? (Checked "No")
The site is presently vacant. The construction of buildings will
disrupt the site and change the existing views of the Santa Rosa
Mountains. However, in order to reduce this impact, the developer
has proposed single story buildings within 150 feet of Washington
Street. The two story buildings are located westerly of the one
story apartment units. The developer's plan creates diversity
because of the height variation (18, vs. 241) and the different
styles of architecture proposed for each prototype duplex unit.
The proposal is compatible with the surrounding area and the
development should not impact or affect the surrounding residential
properties to the east (across Washington Street).
MITIGATION MEASURES:
1). The height of the apartment building(s) should be single story
along Washington Street (first 1501) to meet the policy provisions
of the City's General Plan. Two story units should be allowed on
the other portions of the site per the R2 standards.
2). The development of the on and off -site landscaping program
should take into consideration the unique setting of this property
as it relates to the downtown area. The developer should consider
vertical type plant material (Palm trees, etc.) and the use of
accent type trees (Jacarandas, etc.) which will create view
"windows" into the project but accentuate the mountains to the west
of the proposed buildings. Native landscaping should be pursued
and accent lighting on the landscaping should be encouraged.
Parking lot lighting should be discouraged wherever possible.
18. RECREATION•***************************************************
Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or
quantity of existing recreational opportunities? (Checked "No")
No significant adverse impacts are anticipated in this area because
the applicant is proposing a central recreation building with pool
for the future residents. Passive walking trails are also
included.
MITIGATION MEASURES: No major impact is anticipated because
the development will have its own recreation facilities for the
tenants. However, the will be required to contribute the City's
park fees to assist off -site development of community facilities
which can benefit this development (or others in the City) as
required by the City's Subdivision Ordinance. This issue will be
evaluated further prior to recordation of the Subdivision Map with
the City Council, as required.
20. ARCHEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL:**************************************
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the
destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site?
(Checked "Maybe")
Due to the historical nature of the City, there may be an adverse
impact created by the construction of the project.
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic
effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object?
(Checked "Maybe")
Due to the historical nature of the City, there may be an adverse
impact created by the construction of the project on prehistoric
features buried in the earth. No known historic buildings are
currently located at the site since it is vacant. However, buried
remains are possible.
c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical
change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (Checked
"Maybe")
Due to the historical nature of the City, there may be an adverse
impact created by the construction of the project.
d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred
uses within the potential impact area?
Due to the historical nature of the City, there may be an adverse
impact created by the construction of the project.
MITIGATION MEASURES: An archaeological survey of the site by
qualified archaeologists will need to be completed prior to
activities which would disturb the site (i.e. site grading).
Compliance with the results of the archaeological survey will be
required.
21. MANDATORY FINDINGS: It is not anticipated that there will be
any adverse impacts by the project in the areas of plant and animal
life, long term environmental goals, cumulative impacts, or impacts
on human beings as long as the proposed mitigation measures are
incorporated into the conditions for the project.
Attached: Agency Comments
Developer's Letter
ESTARISHM IN 191E AS A PMIC AC4MV
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
POST OFFICE BOX iou • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA rdM • TELEPHONE 01913*M1
OIAECTORS
TELUSODOEKAS. PRESIDENT
RAYYOND R. RUMMONDS. Va PAESIDEW
J" W. McFADOEN
DOROTHY M. DE LAY
1HE00011E J. FGH
Planning Comission
City of La Quint&
Post Office Box 1504
La Quints, California 92253
Gentlemen:
OFFICERS
E iLMA EW. GENERAL NAP.E *M EAeGWO
s
MY
June 28, 1993 6 MAW r �KMAriAaER
Dul ?� IOMf11EAA�
AITGRNEMs
M.
JUL 0 2
Subject: Plot Plan 93-502, Portion of the
Northwest Quarter of Section 6, Township 6
South, Range 7 East, San Bernardino Meridian
This area is shown to be subject to shallow flooding and is designated Zone AO,
depth one foot on 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.
This area shall be annexed to Improvement District No. 55 of Coachella Valley
Water District for sanitation service.
There are existing district facilities not shown on the development plans.
There may be conflicts with these facilities. We request the appropriate public
agency to withhold the issuance of a building permit until arrangements have
been made with the district for the relocation of these facilities.
Plans for grading, landscaping. and irrigation systems shall be submitted to
Coachella Valley Water District for review. This review is for ensuring
efficient water management.
If you have any questions please call Bob Meleg. stormwater engineer.
extension 264.
Y rs very t y,
0-ow"
om Levy
General Manager -Chi Engineer
RF: leaf/e/PP93502
cc: Don Park
Riverside County Department
of Public Health
TRUE CONSERVATION
USE WATER WISELY
MEMBER AGENCIES
Cathedral City
Coachella
Desert Hot Springs
Indian Wells
Indio
La Quinta
Palm Desert
Palm Springs
Rancho Mirage
Riverside County
Mr. Greg Trousdell
Associate Planner
City of La Quinta
75-105 Calle Estado
La Quinta, CA 92263
RE: Plot Plan 93-502; Jascorp
Dear Greg:
Thank you for allowing SunLine Transit Agency to review the plans
for the low and moderate income housing project to be located on
Washington Street north of Calle Tampico. SunLine does operate
services in the vicinity of this project. As projects of this
size and nature develop, the pressure for transit services
increases. Therefore, we request the city's assistance in
placing the following mitigation measure on the developer in the
conditions of approval:
"The developer shall provide a bus turnout (to SunLine
standards), a passenger waiting area with seating space, wind
protection and sunshade, a trash barrel, and utility connections,
including electricity and telephone at each bus stop location.
In addition, the developer must receive approval from SunLine on
the design of the improvements to the bus stop(s)."
For this project, we recommend the bus stop be placed at one
location: on Washington street far -side of the entrance to the
project. If a second exit is created on Washington Street, we
recommend that the turnout be centered between the two exits.
SunLine Transit Agency is willing to work with the developer and
the city to design a mutually acceptable bus stop. Please let me
know if you have any questions on these comments.
Yours Very Truly,
SiLINE TRANSIT AGENCY
Debra Astin
Director of Planning
e-4
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
�7 CbuVTY
R/VEJaSJDEr �� FIRE DEPARTMENT
J. M. HARRIS 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE • PERRIS, CALWORNIA 92370 • (909) 657-3183
FIRE CHIEF
September 209 1993
To: City of La Quinta
Planning Division
�.,
Attn: Greg Trousdell sEP ? 1 1993
Re: Tentative Tract No. 27854 Please be advised that the following corrections are required:"`''
1. Provide secondary or emergency access.
2. Provide adequate turning radius at intersections.
3. Provide improvement plans for gated entrance.
For your information, 32 foot wide streets allow for parking an one
side only.
Previous conditions for this project do not apply. Once the above
corrections are made, conditions will be set and a letter issued.
All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be
referred to the Fire Department Planning Engineering Staff at (619)
863-8886.
Sincerely,
RAY REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
By
Tom Hutchison
Fire Safety Specialist
JP/th
FIRE PREVENTION DIVISION
❑ RIVERSIDE OFFICE PLANNING SECTION 11/ INDIO OFFICE
60 12th Street, Riverside, CA 92501 79-733 Country Club Drive, Suite F, Indio, CA 92201
19) 275-4777 9 FAX (909) 369-7451 (619) 863-8886 0 FAX (619) 863-7072
r-ed - recyckd pwro
' cbuxrr •�� RIVERSIDE COUNTY
} ` R,vsa�Sii� ; „- ; FIRE DEPARTMENT
J.
M. HAP" 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVEMA • PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92M • (909) 657.311
i FIRE CHIEF
To: City of La Quints
Planning Division
Attn: Greg Trousdell
Re: Plot Plan 93-502
June 289 1993
JUN 2 a 1
CIly. 00; J GUi!j,A.
PLANNIM DEPA.0
Please be advised that the following corrections are required.
1. Provide secondary or emergency access.
2. Provide adequate turning radius at the street adjacent to the
entrace gate.
All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be
referred to the Fire Department Planning Engineering Staff at
(619) 863-8886.
Sincerely,
RAY REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
By
Tom Hutchison
Fire Safety Specialist
JP%th
FIRE PREVENTION' DIVISION ,�
O RIVERSIDE OFFICE PLANNING SECTION I0 WDIOOiFICE
.•�... �.► e.___. e:.,_—'A- r A 0'%tnt 70.239 rfmintm flu1. Drive Sete R India rA 02201
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
CO1S BYRD. SHERIFF
82.695 DR. CARREON BLVD. • INDIO, CA 92201 • (619) 342-8
June 24, 1993
City of La Quinta
Planning A Development Division
78-105 Calk Estado
La Quinta CA 92253
Attention: Greg Trousdell
Associate Planner
J. JUN 2 9�
RE: PP 93-5021JASCORP
Dear Mr. Trousdell:
We have the following comments concerning the above project.
Regarding Police Staffiiir: Increase in population result in an increase of called for services.
The projected population increase will also impact tragic conditions by increasing daily round
trips in the area.
Regarding Pmject Design: We recommend that address numbers be mounted on contrasting
background. The numbers should be of sufficient sue to be legible from the road►vay and should
be situated near the roof line on the corner of the residence. ?his will reduce the response time
of emergency vehicles to the residence.
Streets, security walls and parking areas should be well lighted to provide a safer environment
for the residents and to dissuade would-be criminals from targeting the area for illegal activities.
High pressure sodium lights are recommended as they provide the greatest amount of light per
kilowatt and are the least expensive to operate.
All residential doors should have an in atrial quality key and latch system. Deadbolt locks are
suggested for all exterior doors. ?he locks should be installed using three inch set screws to
provide maximum benefit. All exterior doors, without windows, should have a peephole installed
in order to allow good visibility of the outside area without having to open the door. Windows
should not be placed close enough, to the doors, which would allow a person to break the glass
and unlock the door by hand.
Page 2
EIR 193-502
June 24, 1993
Shrubbery and bushes should be trimmed low to the ground to eliminate hiding places for
criminals and allow better visibility from the street for patrolmen. Windows should never be
concealed by vegetation.
?he crime prevention measures outlined in this letter are merely suggestions and are not required
as a prerequisite for plan approval. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the project
from a law enforcement point of view.
Sincerely,
COLS BYRD, SHERIFF
. 0 ,
CB.RD.gt
�® IY
Building the Future 1
July 8, 1993
La Quinta Planning Dept.
P.O. Box 1504
78-105 Calle Estado
La Quinta, CA 92253
Attn: Gary Trousdell
Dear Mr. Trousdell,
JUL 0 8
w�.� ►: ;:� IV6rr
Thank you for responding to our submittal and application for
our affordable housing community located on the N/W corner of
the intersection of Washington and Tampico (just north of the
proposed Ralphs Shopping Center.
The community is envisioned to include 124 homes within a
gated and carefully landscaped environment that will also
share a recreation center for small get togethers with
adjoining pool b perhaps bar-b-que area.
The community is intended to provide affordable housing
without compromise to the pride of ownership quality expected
of the young professional or the mature move down buyers we
encounter today.
The homes are designed by the architectural firm of
Stoffregen/Fuller a licensed architect with offices located
both in Palm Desert and the Orange County area. The smart
design has allowed for a popular duplex configuration of
single story units as well as side by side two story units
(vs. Jones below/Smith above). All homes include a generous
single car garage with a driveway that will accommodate 2
more cars to insure off street parking.
Common areas are intended to be kept to a minimum with rear
yards fenced on property lines along with a variation of
front courtyard and side yard areas.
W
We are sensitive to the standard R-2 Zoning which allows for
a density of 8 units per acre. The affordable aspect of the
project as I understand allows a 25% density bonus (or 2
units per acre) this brings us to 10 units per acre. The
design may bring an additional 10% bonus (or 1 unit per acre)
bringing the total density to 11 units per acre. As we have
11.68 net acres, this could equate to 128 units. We propose
124 units.
The financing for this project anticipates state and federal
tax exempt bond status as the developer looks to the city of
La Quinta to provide a letter of inducement resolution to be
issued for procurement of bonds. The bonds are guaranteed
through a letter of credit placed by our local financial
institution guaranteed by the developer.
We trust this will provide you with a better understanding of
our La Quinta Village project. Should you have any further
questions please don't hesitate to give us a call.
Regards,
Bob Wright
Partner
cc: Dennis Moran
Joseph Swain
Partner
RUPERT E. YESSAYIAN
Box 251
LA OUNTA. CA 92253
September 14, 1993
SEP
'i� J"
La Quinta Planning Commission Pta1VF
�hl
City of La Quinta
La Quinta, California
RE: Plot Plan 93-502
Change of Zone 91-066
Commissioners:
I represent the majority of the property owners
in Desert Club Tract Unit #5, which is across
Washington Street from the proposed project.
We protested the assessment for the wall along
the east side of Washington St. in the belief
that the property owners on the west side of
Washington St. were responsible for its cost.
Our efforts were unsuccessful and the very ex-
pensive wall is now being paid for by us, raising
our taxes considerably.
Our argument is that the Ralph's center and the
project which is before you tonight should pay
their fair share for the buffer wall, since they
both are receiving changes of zone and other con-
cessions from the city. We request therefore, that
as a condition of approval for Change of Zone 91-
066 and Plot Plan 93-502, that provision be made
for the developer to pay a fair share for the ex-
pense of the beforementioned wall.
Thank you for your consideration.
Si erel
Ruper E. Yessayian
REY/ss
Design Review Board Minutes
August 4, 1993
16. Boardmember Campbell ted ad strong objections to react to
without seeing all four sista
17. After further d' ssion on the review process, dmembers
Anderson/W ' withdrew the motion and moved t rove Public Use
Permit 9 6 with a recommendation that paste drawings be
compI for Phase I and Phase II and if tanning Commission so
de ' to refer the project back to the eview Board, subject to the
nditions of Approval with the ad ' n of a non -reflective alternative
metal be submitted. The motion unanimously.
•AVW • •c•w4 ana �.nan�e or [one y]-0 * a request of Jascorp for approval
to develop a 124 unit one and two story apartment complex on the west side of
Washington Street south of the La Quinta Storm Channel/Washington Street
bridge and 700 feet north of Calle Tampico, along with a change of zone from
R-1, R-2, and C-P to R-2.
1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in
the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and
Development Department.
2. Boardmember Anderson asked if the material board was acceptable to
staff. Staff stated they were.
I Mr. Joe DeCoster, applicant, gave a lengthy detailed description of the
project. Chairman Curtis asked if the applicant had any objection to the
Conditions of Approval. Mr. DeCoster stated no except they would be
applying to for a variance to the parking requirement.
4. Boardmember Wright asked for clarification on the variance. Mr.
DeCoster stated they would be asking for approval to allow a third
parking space to be the tandem parking of behind the garage door.
Discussion followed regarding the parking space.
S. Commissioner Ellson asked. what the market would be, apartments or
condominiums. The applicant stated they would be selling condominiums
but they have not filed a subdivision map with staff.
6. Boardmember Wright asked if they would be low income. Mr. DeCoster
stated they would be affordable units (i.e., low and moderate income
units).
DRB8-4 4
Design Review Board Minutes
August 4, 1993
7. Commissioner Ellson asked what would happen to the project if Ralph's
shopping center did not go in. Mr. DeCoster stated it would stand alone.
Commissioner Ellson asked what fences would be built between the units
and would the perimeter fence be a block wall. She stated she preferred
an open landscaped area that would give a more open feeling for the green
belt areas. Mr. DeCoster stated the market they were targeting was the
low income group which normally have children and the fencing would
give them privacy. Discussion followed regarding alternate locations for
block wall fencing, wrought iron fencing, and wood fencing.
8. Boardmember Wright asked if there would be a problem if Ralph's was
not built with a second access for the project and especially a fire truck
entry. Staff clarified that the land is owned by the same individual and
therefore an easement for the access will be provided. Boardmember
Wright asked if the second entrance would be a crash gate. Staff stated
it would be.
9. Boardmember Wright asked whether the garage door would be wood or
a metal (roll -up vs. swing). He was concerned there would not be enough
clearance to open the door if a car was parked behind the garage. Mr.
DeCoster stated he preferred the metal roll -up because they were attractive
but the expense was a problem. He further stated there was enough
distance to park the car and open the door and not have the car in the
street. Discussion followed regarding the garage door type and material.
10. Boardmember Wright asked the applicant to show the Board where the
two story units would be placed. He felt the units adjacent to the
recreation building should be single story so not to create a cavity effect.
Discussion followed regarding the location of the two story units.
11. Chairman Curtis asked for clarification that the perimeter wall would be
a block wall and would he have any objection to making it comparable to
the wall on the east side of Washington Street. Mr. DeCoster stated it
would be a block wall but he felt the 20-feet of landscaping would be
more attractive than duplicating the east wall (i.e., file cap). Following
discussion, the Board determined the 20-feet of landscaping was preferable
to the file treatment. Further clarification was made that the block wall
would be stuccoed on Washington Street and painted block walls would
be used for the perimeter areas.
12. Planning Commissioner Ellson asked how much stacking there would be
at the entrance. She felt two or three car stacking was needed and there
DR88-4 5
Design Review Board Minutes
August 4, 1993
did not appear to be enough room. Following discussion regarding
different alternatives, Chairman Curtis suggested that the entrance be
widened and stripped to allow two lanes in and one lane out (e.g., 36-feet
wide).
13. Boardmember Anderson stated his concern for the wood fencing between
the units and strongly suggested that block walls be used and possibly
relocated to the rear portion of each unit. He felt that anything less than
this would detract from the overall look of the project. Mr. DeCoster
stated this would be a budget determination by the owners and those that
have been constructed in other projects have been attractive.
14. Mr. DeCoster asked for clarification of Condition #6 in that the 20-feet
of landscaping is included in the 30-foot setback. Staff stated it was
included.
15. Following discussion, it was moved and seconded by Boardmembers
Anderson/Harbison to recommend approval as submitted subject to staff
conditions, and as amended as follows:
a. The applicant would submit to the Planning Commission elevations
for the half two story half one story unit for their approval.
b. Condition #4: The block wall on Washington Street shall be
stucco and compatible with the east wall (without the green tile.
C. Condition #10: The perimeter wall with the exception of
Washington Street shall be painted block wall to match the stucco
color on Washington Street.
d. The driveway should be 36-feet wide on Washington Street with
two lanes in and one lane out.
VOTE: AYES: Boardmembers Anderson, Harbison, Wright,
Campbell, Chairman Curtis. NOES: Planning
Commissioner Ellson. ABSENT: Boardmember Rice.
ABSTAINING: None.
C. an 3-505; a req t of Forecast Homes fapproval of arch\,east
for gle family residenc located on the north 'de of Miles Af
Adam treet.1. As 'ate Planner Greg T sdell presented the rmatiothe S report, a copy o which is on file i the
Develop t Department.
DRBS-4 6
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 93-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF CHANGE OF ZONE 91-
066
CASE NO. CZ 91-066 - LA QUINTA VILLAGE
JASCORP
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did,
on the 14th day of September, 1993, 28th day of September, 1993, and the 12th day of October,
1993, hold duly noticed Public Hearings to consider the request of JASCORP for a Change of
Zone from R-1 (One Family Dwelling), R-2* 8,000 (Multiple Family Residential), and C-P
(General Commercial) to R-2 (Multi -Family Dwellings) on ± 12 acres, located on the west side
of Washington Street, ±700 feet north of Calle Tampico, more particularly described as:
APN: 769-030-039, AND 040 (NORTH PORTION) SOUTH 1/2
OF THE NORTHWEST SECTION 6, T.6.S., R.7.E., S.B.B.M.
WHEREAS, said Change of Zone request has complied with the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (as amended), and adopted by City Council
Resolution 83-68, in that the Planning and Development Department has completed an
Environmental Assessment/Negative Declaration, which has been reviewed and considered by
the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta.
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 recommendation for approval of said
Change of Zone.
1. The proposed Change of Zone, as requested, will not adversely affect the goals and
policies of the La. Quinta General Plan.
2. The proposed zoning is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan.
3. The proposed zoning is consistent and compatible with surrounding land use and zoning
designations.
4. Approval of this proposal will not result in a significant adverse impact on the
environment due to mitigation measures contained in the proposed Negative Declaration.
RESOPC.113
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 pursuant to the
attached Environmental Assessment.
3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of Change of Zone 91-066
for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as illustrated in the map labeled Exhibit
"A", attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission, held on this 12th day of October, 1993, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
KATIE BARROWS, Chairwoman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY MERMAN, Planning Director
City of La Quinta, California
RESOPC.113 2
e� R-Z
. •� ZONING GAF
VACatAt
ROPOSED ZONING: R2
ULTIPLE FAMILY
DWELLINGS.
EXISTING ZONING: R1
c SINGLE FAMILY
VACANT a DWE!_LING
R-3
ZONING
WASHINGTON
STREET
BRIDGE
S-R
.� ZONING
PROPOSED ZONING: R2
MULTIPLE FAMILY
DWELLINGS j
EXISTING ZONING: RV
(8,000) MULTIPLE
FAMILY 'DWELLINGS i
SINGLE FAMILY
PROPOSED ZONING: R-2 (MULTIPLE ,
FAMILY DWELLINGS EXISTING ZONING:
'mo I C-P GENERAL C-M I t_ ai®
EXISTING ZONING: C-P GENERAL
COMMERCIAL
C A S E M-Al
CASE Nm EXHIBIT A
CHANGE OF ZONE 91-066/JASCORP.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 93-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN 93-023
CASE NO. SP 93-023 - JASCORP (LA QUINTA VILLAGE)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the 28th
day of September, 1993, and the 12th day of October, 1993, hold a duly noticed Public Hearings
to consider the request of Jascorp to develop design standards for a ± 124-unit zero lot line
single family residential project on ±12 acres in the R-1, R-2, and C-P Zones on property
located in +700 feet north of Calle Tampico, on the west side of Washington Street, more
particularly described as:
THE SOUTH ONE HALF OF THE NORTHWEST SECTION 6, T.6.S., R.7.E.
(APN: 769-030-039 & 040)
WHEREAS, said Specific Plan request has complied with the requirements of
"The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended
(Resolution 83-68) in that the Planning Director has proposed a Negative Declaration for the
project to mitigate any impact the project may have on the area. The Planning Commission will
evaluate the proposed Negative Declaration on September 28, 1993; 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 to justify recommending approval of said Specific Plan:
1. The proposed specific plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta
General Plan.
2. The project will include provisions for affordable housing which will assist the City in
its fair -share regional housing needs pursuant to the goals and policies of the Housing
Element. The project will include a percentage of very low or low income families as
required by Government Code Section 65915 (Bonus Density).
3. The specific plan is compatible with the existing an anticipated area development.
4. The project will be provided with adequate utilities and public services to ensure public
health and safety.
5. Approval of this proposal will not result in a significant adverse impact on the
environment due to mitigation measures contained in the proposed Negative Declaration.
RESOPC.117
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 by the City Council
pursuant to the attached Environmental Assessment.
3. That it does hereby recommend approval of Specific Plan 93-023 with conditions as set
forth in this Resolution, labeled Exhibit "A", attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission, held on this 12th day of October 1993, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
KATIE BARROWS, Chairwoman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director
City of La Quinta, California
RESOPC.117 2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 93- Exhibit "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 93-023 - JASCORP
OCTOBER 12, 1993
Modified by staff on 9-29-93 & 10-7-93
GENERAL:
1. The development shall comply with Exhibit B, the Specific Plan document for Specific
Plan 93-023 and the following conditions, which shall take precedence in the event of any
conflict with the provisions of Plot Plan 93-502.
2. Public improvements shall be provided as required by the Engineering Department and
Tentative Tract Map 27854.
3. All dwelling units, within 150 feet of the Washington Street right -of way shall be limited
to one story in height. All one story units in this area of the project shall be a maximum
of 19 feet in height with two story units in project a maximum of 24 feet in height.
4. A master landscaping plan for all perimeter street parkways shall be submitted and
approved by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission prior to issuance of a
building permit for the project. Landscaping materials to be native and drought tolerant.
Irrigation system to utilize emitter irrigation system where possible. Within 5 feet of
curb, no spray irrigation heads nor lawn shall be used. Within this area only emitters
and spreading shrubs and groundcover may be used.
5. Landscaping and architectural plans for individual lots and dwellings shall be reviewed
and approved by staff.
6. Lighting of permanent subdivision identification signs shall be permitted. All permanent
signs shall be approved by the Design Review Board.
*7. The maximum number of units for the project shall be 116. A minimum of 30 units
shall be sold to very low or low income families as required by Government Code
Section 65915. The units shall be guaranteed to remain affordable for a minimum of 30
years pursuant to contractual arrangements approved by either the La Quinta
Redevelopment Agency or City Council, prior to issuance of a building permit. The
units shall be intermixed within the project as determined by the City.
8. The minimum house size shall be 1,109 square feet, excluding garage area.
CONAPRVL.103
Conditions of Approval
Specific Plan 93-023
October 12, 1993
9. The minimum setbacks for each home shall be:
a.
Front
- 20 feet
b.
Rear
- 10 feet+
c.
Side (interior)
- 0 feet (zero lot yard)
d.
Side (exterior)
- 5 feet (one story)
- 7.5 feet (two story)
e.
Street side
- 10 feet
+ Patio covers which are open on three (3) sides may extend to within five feet of the
rear yard property line.
10. Architectural variety: exterior building elevations shall make provisions for architectural
variety by using different colors, styles, roof treatments, window treatments, garage door
treatments, and similar methods. A mediterranean design theme shall be used.
11. The minimum lot area shall be 2,500 square feet.
12. Each single family home shall have a single garage parking space (with tandem driveway
parking space) and a second open concrete parking space immediately adjacent to the
concrete driveway for the garage. The garage size shall not be less than 12 feet by 20
feet (inside dimensions). The garage space shall remain clear of mechanical equipment
or appliances.
13. The doors for each garage space shall be either made of wood or metal. If metal is used,
sectional doors shall be installed. Automatic garage door openers shall be optional.
14. Internally illuminated or externally illuminated mounted building numbers shall be no less
than three inches in height and be of a color contrasting to the background in a prominent
location. The illumination source for the address sign shall be controlled by a photocell
sensor or a timer.
15. A centralized or gang -box mailbox delivery system shall be used for the project pursuant
to the provisions and requirements of the U. S. Postal Service.
16. The applicant shall establish a Design Review Committee to review and approve all
development within Tentative Tract 27854. The main objectives of this Committee shall
be to assure that building architecture, building materials and colors, building height and
setbacks, and landscape design follow appropriate design themes throughout the tract.
Procedures and operation of the committee shall be set forth in the Tract's CC & R's.
CONAPRVL.103 2
Conditions of Approval
Specific Plan 93-023
October 12, 1993
* 17. Applicant shall establish within the CC&R's site design standards appropriate for the zero
lot line homes pursuant to Condition #9, including but not limited to front, side, and rear
setbacks, lot coverage, etc. Standards shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning
and Development Department and Planning Commission as part of its review of the
CC&R's, but be no less restrictive than the R-2 Zone standards, as appropriate.
18. Property lines and perimeter walls for all residential units shall be located at the top of
the graded slope for each parcel.
19. All roofing material within the project shall be concrete barrel tile (i.e., Lifetile Espana
Mission #108).
20. Restroom facilities for the groundskeepers shall be provided at the clubhouse. The
restroom can be a. separate attached or detached building which has a toilet and lavatory
and/or storage facilities.
21. Height of fences and walls constructed as acoustical barriers shall be subject to the
approval of the Planning Director. All other fences or walls shall be limited to six feet
in height unless they are attached to a main building and are an architectural design
element, in which case they may exceed six feet subject to approval of the Planning
Director.
22. This specific plan approval shall not be effective until and unless Change of Zone 91-066
is granted.
23. The specific plan document approval period shall run concurrently with both of its
companion cases (e.g., TTM 27854 and PP 93-502).
*24. The clubhouse swimming pool and spa shall be handicap accessible and meet all the
requirements of the Building and Safety Department and the State of California. All
recreation facilities defined on the site plan and in the specific plan document shall be
built and constructed prior to any release of occupancy within the subdivision. The
swimming pool and spa shall be enclosed by a minimum five foot high wrought iron
fence.
25. Attached or detached second units (e.g. Granny Housing and/or guest houses) shall not
be permitted within the single family development.
26. All fencing within the project shall be decorative. No chain link, agricultural fencing or
wood fencing will. be allowed.
27. The applicant shall be required to enter into an agreement with the City to provide
reciprocal access to the property to the south via the private driveway on Washington
Street.
CONAPRVL.103 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 93-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL CONCURRENCE WITH THE
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AND APPROVAL OF A
TENTATIVE TRACT TO ALLOW A 124 LOT SINGLE
FAMILY SUBDIVISION ON A 12+ ACRE SITE
CASE NO. TT 27854 - LA QUINTA VILLAGE (JASCORP)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did,
on the 28th day of September, 1993, and the 12th day of October, 1993, hold a duly -noticed
Public Hearings, to consider the request of JASCORP to subdivide 12+ acres into + 124 single-
family lots, and other miscellaneous lots, generally located on the west side of Washington
Street, 700± feet north of Calle Tampico, more particularly described as:
A PORTION OF SECTION 6,
T6S, R7E, S.B.B.M.
WHEREAS, said tentative map has complied with the requirements of "The Rules
to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution No.
83-68), in that the Planning Director conducted an initial study, and has determined that the
proposed tentative tract will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and,
WHEREAS, mitigation of various physical impacts have been identified and will
be incorporated into the approval conditions for Tentative Tract 27854 in conjunction with this
tentative tract, 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 recommendation for approval of said tentative tract
map:
1. That Tentative tract 27854, as conditionally recommended, is generally consistent with
the goals, policies, and intent of the La Quinta General Plan for land use density, unit
type, circulation requirements, R-2 zoning district development standards, and design
requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance.
2. That the subject site will h2
single-family lot payouts as
division.
RESOPC.119
re a flat topography. The proposed circulation design and
conditioned are, therefore, suitable for the proposed land
3. That the design of Tentative Tract Map 27854 will not cause substantial environmental
damage or injury to the wildlife.
4. That the design of -the subdivision, as conditionally recommended, will be developed with
public sewers and water, and, therefore, is not likely to cause serious public health
problems.
5. That the design of Tentative Tract Map 27854 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 provided that are substantially equivalent to those previously
acquired by the public.
6. That the proposed Tentative Tract 27854, as recommended, provides for adequate
maintenance of the landscape buffer areas.
7. That the proposed Tentative Tract 27854, as recommended, provides on- and off -site
storm water retention, park in -lieu fees, and noise mitigation.
8. That general impacts from the proposed tract were considered within the MEA prepared
and adopted in conjunction with the La Quinta General Plan.
WHEREAS, in the review of this Tentative Tract Map, 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 confirm the conclusion of Environmental Assessment 93-267 relative
to the environmental concerns of this tentative tract;
3. That it does hereby recommend approval to the City Council of the subject Tentative
Tract Map 27854 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 12th day of October, 1993, by the following vote, to wit:
RESOPC.119 2
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
KATIE BARROWS, Chairwoman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director
City of La Quinta, California
RESOPC.119
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 27854, JASCORP
OCTOBER 12, 1993
* Modified by Staff on 9-29-93 & 10-7-93
GENERAL
1. Tentative Tract 27854 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. This approval shall expire and become void within two years unless extended pursuant
to the City's Subdivision Ordinance.
3. Tract phasing plans, including phasing of public improvements, shall be submitted for
review and approval by the City Engineer and the Planning and Development Department
prior to recordation of any final map under this tentative map. The applicant shall
develop tract phases in the order of the approval phasing plan so that improvements
required of each ;Final map are complete prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy
within subsequent. final maps.
4. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit for construction of any building or
use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances
from the following public agencies:
- City Fire Marshal
- Public Works Department
- Planning and Development Department
- Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
- Desert Sands Unified School District
- Coachella Valley Water District
- Imperial Irrigation District
- California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit)
- Suriline Transit
The Applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those
jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall
furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approvals and signatures on the
plans.
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.
CONAPRVL.106 1
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract 27854, Jascorp
October 12, 1993
5. As required by the General Plan, Applicant shall provide noise study by a qualified
acoustical engineer prior to issuance of building permit, to determine impacts to the
future residents from roadway noise from Washington Street and the future commercial
projects to the south surrounding residential zones and uses. The noise study shall
suggest mitigation measures which the City can require concerning the development of
the site.
6. The developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist (with the Developer to pay costs), to
prepare a mitigation and monitoring plan for artifact location and recovery. Prior to
archaeological studies for this site as well as other unrecorded information, shall be
analyzed prior to the preparation of the plan. The Planning Director shall approve the
individual or firm retained to prepare the work prior to any on -site activities.
The plan shall be submitted to the Coachella Valley Archaeological Society (CVAS) for
a two -week review and comment period. At a minimum, the plan shall: 1) identify the
means for digging test pits; 2) allow sharing the information with the CVAS; and 3)
provide for further testing if the preliminary result show significant materials are present.
The final plan shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for final
review and approval.
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 Planning and
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
Planning and 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.
CONAPRVL.106 2
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract 27854, Jascorp
October 12, 1993
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
Planning and Development Department.
7. Final landscaping plans shall include approval stamps and signatures from the Riverside
County Agricultural Commissioners office and Coachella Valley Water District.
8. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written
report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with those
conditions of approval which must be satisfied prior to issuance of a building permit.
Prior to a final building inspection approval, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a
written report demonstrating compliance with all remaining conditions of approval and
mitigation measures. The Planning and Development Director may require inspection
or other monitoring to assure such compliance.
CITY FIRE MARSHAL
9. Provide secondary or emergency access to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal.
10. Provide adequate turning radius at intersections. Street improvement plan to be reviewed
by the Fire Marshal prior to plans approval.
11. Provide improvement plans for gated entrance for review and approval of the Fire
Marshal prior to issuance of a building permit.
* 12. Parking will be allowed on only one side of all 32-foot wide private streets.
13. Gates installed to restrict access shall be power operated and equipped with a Fire
Department override system. Improvement plans for the entry street and gates shall be
submitted to the Fire Department for review/approval prior to installation.
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
14. The applicant shall construct, or enter into a secured agreement to construct, the on- and
off -site grading, streets, utilities, landscaping, on -site common area improvements, and
any other improvements required by these conditions before approval of any final map(s)
under this tentative tract map.
Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing structures
or obstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements.
CONAPRVL.106 3
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract 27854, Jascorp
October 12, 1993
15. If development improvements are phased with multiple maps, off -site improvements (ie:
streets) and tract -wide improvements (ie: perimeter walls, common -area and setback
landscaping, and gates) shall be constructed or secured prior to approval of the first map
unless otherwise approved by the engineer.
The City Engineer may consider proposals by the applicant to stage the installation of
off -site and tract -wide improvements with development of two or more phases within the
tentative map.
16. The applicant shall pay cash or provide security in guarantee of cash payment for
required improvements which are deferred for future construction by others.
Deferred improvements for this project include a traffic signal on Washington Street at
entry drive - 50 % of the cost to design and construct and the completion and landscaping
of the Washington Street median island - 100% of the cost to design and construct.
The applicant's responsibility for deferred improvements may be satisfied through
participation in a City major thoroughfare improvement program if this development
becomes subject to such a program.
17. The applicant shall dedicate public street right-of-way and utility easements in
conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans,
and as required by the City Engineer.
Dedications required of this tract include:
* A. Washington Street - 90-foot half width (special half width section).
Street 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.
18. The applicant shall dedicate common -area setback lots, of minimum width as noted,
adjacent to the following street rights -of -way on Washington Street - 20'
Minimum widths may be used as average widths for meandering wall designs.
Where sidewalks and/or bikepaths are required, the applicant shall dedicate blanket
easements over the setback lots for those purposes.
CONAPRVL.106 4
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract 27854, Jascorp
October 12, 1993
19. The applicant shall vacate vehicle access rights to the following streets from lots abutting
the street(s):
Washington Street
Access to this street shall be restricted to street intersections and approved emergency
access locations.
20. The applicant shell dedicate any easements necessary for placement of and access to
utility lines and structures, park lands, drainage basins, common areas, and mailbox
clusters.
21. The Applicant shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any portion of
this property between the date of the approval by the City Council and the date of
recording of any final map(s) covering the same portion of the property unless such
easements are approved by the City Engineer.
TRACT DESIGN
22. The requirements of the City's off-street parking ordinance shall be met concerning all
supplemental accessory facilities.
GRADING
23. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the Applicant shall
submit and receive approval of a fugitive dust control plan prepared in accordance with
Chapter 6.10, La Quinta Municipal Code. In accordance with said Chapter, the
Applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the city, in an amount sufficient
to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit.
24. A thorough preliminary engineering, geological and soils engineering investigation shall
be conducted. The report of the investigation ("the soils report") shall be submitted with
the grading plan.
25. A grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer. The plan must meet the
approval of the City Engineer prior to approval of any final map(s).
The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report and shall
be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or an engineering geologist. A statement
shall appear on the final map(s), if any are required of this development, that a soils
report has been prepared pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health and Safety Code.
CONAPRVL.106 5
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract 27854, Jascorp
October 12, 1993
Prior to issuance of any building permit the applicant shall provide a separate document
bearing the seal and signature of a California registered civil engineer, geotechnical
engineer, or surveyor that lists actual building pad elevations. The document shall, for
each building pad in the project, state the pad elevation approved on the grading plan,
the as -built elevation, and shall 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„
DRAINAGE
26. The tract shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention capacity to flow out
of the project through a designated overflow outlet and into the historic drainage relief
route. The tract shall be graded to receive storm flow from adjoining property at
locations that have historically received flow.
27. Storm water runoff produced in 24 hours during a 100-year storm shall be retained in on -
site retention facilities unless the developer participates in off -site facilities sized to
accommodate runoff from this development. The tributary drainage area for which the
applicant is responsible shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets.
28. In design of on -site retention facilities, the percolation rate shall be considered to be zero
unless site -specific data indicates otherwise.
A trickling sand filter and leachfield of a design approved by the City Engineer shall be
installed to percolate nuisance water. The sand filter and leach field shall be sized to
percolate 22 gallons per day per 1,000 square feet of drainage area.
Retention basin slopes shall not exceed 3:1. If retention is on individual lots, the
retention depth shall not exceed two feet. If retention is in one or more common
retention basins, the retention depth shall not exceed six feet.
29. The design of the tract shall not cause any change in flood boundaries, levels or
frequencies in any area outside the tract.
UTILITIES
30. All existing and proposed utilities adjacent to or within the proposed development shall
be installed underground. High -voltage power lines which the power authority will not
accept underground are exempt from this requirement.
CONAPRVL.106 6
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract 27854, Jascorp
October 12, 1993
31. In areas where hardscape surface improvements are planned, underground utilities shall
be installed prior to construction of the surface improvements. The applicant shall
provide certified reports of utility trench compaction tests for approval of the City
Engineer.
STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
32. The City is contemplating adoption of a major thoroughfare improvement program. If
the program is in effect 60 days prior to recordation of any final map for this
development, the development shall be subject to the provisions of the ordinance.
If this development is not subject to a major thoroughfare improvement program, the
applicant shall design and construct street improvements as listed below.
33. Improvement plans for all on- and off -site streets and access gates shall be prepared by
a registered civil engineer. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in
accordance with the La Quinta Municipal Code, adopted Standard Drawings, and as
approved by the City Engineer.
Street pavement sections shall be based on a Caltrans design procedure for a 20-year life
and shall consider soil strength and anticipated traffic loading. The minimum pavement
sections shall be as follows:
Residential 3.0" a.c./4.50" a.b.
Collector 4.0"15.00"
Secondary Arterial 4.0"/6.00"
Primary Arterial 4.5"/6.00"
Major Arterial 5.5"/6.50"
If the applicant proposes to construct a partial pavement section for use during
development of the tract, the partial section shall be designed for projected traffic
loadings during the temporary condition or shall have a strength equivalent to the 20-year
design strength.
34. Improvements shall include all appurtenances such as traffic signs, channelization
markings, raised medians if required, street name signs, sidewalks, and mailbox clusters
approved in design and location by the I.J.S. Post Office and the City Engineer. Mid -
block street lighting is not required.
35. The City Engineer may require miscellaneous incidental improvements and enhancements
to existing improvements as necessary to integrate the new work with existing
improvements and provide a finished product conforming with City standards and
practices. This may include, but is not limited to, street width transitions extending
beyond tract boundaries.
CONAPRVL.106 7
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract 27854, Jascorp
October 12, 1993
36. The following street improvements shall be constructed to conform with the General Plan
street type noted in parentheses:
OFF -SITE STREETS
Washington Street - Major Arterial (96' curb to curb). Complete street
improvements on the west side and fully landscape the existing median island.
ON -SITE STREETS
* Private Residential - 32 feet wide for Lots "E" and "B" and 36 feet wide for Lots
"A", "C", and "D". Four feet wide sidewalk shall only be required on one side
of each private street.
37. Access points and turning movements of traffic shall be restricted as follows:
Single full -turn access at signalized intersection of Washington Street and access drive
shared with development to the south.
The entry drive and gate shall be designed with adequate stacking room to ensure that
traffic from this development does not impede the flow of traffic into and out of the
development to the south. The entry gate design shall include a turn -around between the
guard house or card reader and the gate.
LANDSCAPING
38. The applicant shall provide landscape improvements in the setback lots along Washington
Street. The applicant is encouraged to minimize steep slope designs within the perimeter
landscaping setback areas. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or spray
irrigation within 5-feet of street curb.
39. Landscape and irrigation plans for the Washington Street median island, landscaped lots,
common retention basins and park facilities shall be prepared by a licensed landscape
architect. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the
requirements of the City Engineer. Common basins and park areas shall be designed
with a turf grass surface which can be mowed with standard tractor -mounted equipment.
Landscape and irrigation plans shall meet the requirements of and be signed by the
Planning Director, the City Engineer, the Coachella Valley Water District, and the
Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner.
CONAPRVL.106 8
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract 27854, Jascorp
October 12, 1993
40. The applicant shall insure that landscaping plans and utility plans are coordinated to
provide visual screening of above -ground utility structures.
PUBLIC SERVICES
41. The applicant shall provide public transit amenities as required by Sunline Transit and/or
the City Engineer. These amenities shall include, as a minimum, a bus turnout location
and passenger waiting shelter on Washington Street.
The precise location and character of the turnout and shelter shall be as determined by
Sunline Transit and the City Engineer.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
42. The City is contemplating adoption of a quality -assurance program for privately -funded
construction. If the program is adopted prior to the issuance of permits for construction
of the improvements required of this map, the applicant shall fully comply with the
quality -assurance program.
If the quality -assurance program has not been adopted, the applicant shall employ
construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer.
43. The applicant shall employ or retain California registered civil engineers, geotechnical
engineers, or surveyors, as appropriate, who will provide, or have his or her agents
provide, sufficient supervision and verification of the construction to be able to furnish
and sign accurate record drawings and certify compliance of all work with approved
plans, specifications and applicable codes.
44. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record
drawings of all plans 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.
MAINTENANCE
45. The applicant shall maintain the landscaped areas of the subdivision such as common
lots, landscaped setbacks and retention basins until those areas have been accepted for
maintenance by the City's Landscape and Lighting District or a homeowners' association
(HOA). The applicant shall maintain all other improvements until final acceptance of
tract improvements by the City Council.
CONAPRVL.106 9
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract 27854, Jascorp
October 12, 1993
FEES AND DEPOSITS
46. 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.
MISCELLANEOUS
47. All mitigation measures of Environmental Assessment 93-267 shall be met.
48. An on -site field study shall be conducted by a qualified horticulturist to determine if the
California Ditaxis plant species exists on the property. A written summary of the field
study shall be submitted to staff prior to any on -site grading. The work shall be paid for
by the applicant or developer.
49. The City's Water Conservation Ordinance (Ordinance 220) shall be met.
50. Approval of this tentative tract map shall be subject to final approval of Change of Zone
91-066, Plot Plan 93-502, and Specific Plan 93-023.
51. The appropriate Planning approval shall be secured prior to establishing any of the
following uses:
a. Temporary construction facilities.
b. Sales facilities, including their appurtenant signage.
C. On -site advertising/construction signs.
52. Prior to final map approval by the City Council, the Applicant shall meet the parkland
dedication requirements as set forth in Section 13.24.030, La Quinta Municipal Code,
by paying parkland fees in lieu, as may be determined in accordance with said Section.
53. Design and architectural standards for the single family homes shall be submitted to the
Director of Planning & Development for review and approval prior to final map
recordation. All approved Specific Plan (SP 93-023) standards shall be included in the
CC&R's. A copy of the CC&R's shall be submitted to the Planning Department for
review. The final documents shall require City Attorney approval.
54. Grading, drainage, street, lighting, landscaping and irrigation, park, gate, and perimeter
wall plans are not approved for construction until they have been signed by the City
Engineer.
CONAPRVL.106 10
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract 27854, Jascorp
October 12, 1993
55. Prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for buildings within the tract, the applicant
shall install traffic control devices and street name signs along access roads to those
buildings.
SPECIAL
*56. All future home buyers shall be given proper disclosure information during the sales
proposal that the City will be widening the Washington Street bridge in the next five to
fifteen years and that this future Capital Improvement Project could be a temporary
inconvenience to them because of noise, dust, or other construction activities. The City
will notify the future home owners of the project at such time that the City Council
chooses to pursue construction of the bridge widening program. The notice will define
the improvements to be installed, the length of time construction will occur, and any
other information that is deemed necessary to inform the owners of the widening
program.
CONAPRVL.106 11
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
PLOT PLAN 93-502, JASCORP
OCTOBER 12, 1993
* Modified by staff on 9-29-93
GENERAL
1. Phasing plans, including phasing of public improvements, shall be submitted for review
and approval by the City Engineer and the Planning and Development Department prior
to the issuance of a building permit.
2. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit for construction of any building or
use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances
from the following public agencies:
- City Fire Marshal
- Public Works Department
- Planning and Development Department
- Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
- Desert Sands Unified School District
- Coachella Valley Water District
- Imperial Irrigation District
- California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit)
- Sunline Transit
Applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those
jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall
furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approvals and signatures on the
plans.
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.
3. The development of the property shall be generally be in conformance with the exhibits
contained in the file for PP 93-502, unless amended otherwise by the following
conditions or by Tentative Parcel Map 27854 and Specific Plan 93-023.
4. The approved plot plan shall be used within two years of the final approval date;
otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. "Be used" means
the beginning of substantial construction which is contemplated by this approval, not
including grading which is begun within the one year period and is thereafter diligently
CONAPRVL.097 1
Conditions of Approval
Plot Plan 93-502, Jascorp
October 12, 1993
pursued until completion. The plot plan case shall run concurrently with Tentative Tract
Map 27854 and Specific Plan 93-023 once approved.
5. Approval of this plot plan shall be subject to final approval of Change of Zone 91-066,
Specific Plan 93-023, and Tentative Tract Map 27854.
6. There shall be no outdoor storage of boats, trailers, or RV's without specific approval
of the Planning Commission.
7. All exterior lighting shall be shielded and directed so as not to shine directly on
surrounding adjoining properties or public rights -of -way. Light standard type with
recessed light source shall also be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director.
Exterior lighting shall comply with Outdoor Light Control Ordinance and off-street
parking requirements.
8. A decorative trash enclosure shall be built for the proposed clubhouse building. The
structure shall be designed with pedestrian access that does not require opening the doors,
and provided with opaque metal doors. Plans for trash enclosures to be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of a building permit. Applicant shall
contact local waste management company to insure that enclosure design, size, and
location is adequate.
9. Handicapped parking spaces and facilities shall be provided per Municipal and Federal
Code requirements (e.g. clubhouse building).
10. As required by the General Plan, Applicant shall provide noise study by a qualified
acoustical engineer prior to issuance of building permit, to determine impacts to the
future residents from roadway noise from Washington Street and the future commercial
projects to the south surrounding residential zones and uses. The noise study shall
suggest mitigation measures which the City can require concerning the development of
the site.
11. The project shall comply with applicable Arts in Public Places Ordinance prior to
building permit issuance.
12. Final landscaping plans shall include approval stamps and signatures from the Riverside
County Agricultural Commissioners office and Coachella Valley Water District.
13. Construction shall comply with all local and State Building Code requirements in affect
at time of issuance of building permit as determined by the Building Official.
CONAPRVL.097 2
Conditions of Approval
Plot Plan 93-502, Jascorp
October 12, 1993
14. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written
report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with those
conditions of approval which must be satisfied prior to issuance of a building permit.
Prior to a final building inspection approval, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a
written report demonstrating compliance with all remaining conditions of approval and
mitigation measures. The Planning and Development Director may require inspection
or other monitoring to assure such compliance.
15. That all conditions of the Design Review Board shall be complied with as follows:
A. The landscape program for Washington Street includes a variation of planting
materials such as: palm trees, accent shade trees, lawn, shrubs, and
groundcover. Unlighted trees or palms should be considered along Washington
Street. Incandescent light fixtures will be required (less than 160 watt). The
final landscaping plan should be reviewed by the Design Review Board during
plan check:.
B. A meandering eight foot wide sidewalk shall be installed on Washington Street
along the frontage of the site. The sidewalk shall meander into the right-of-way
but not touch the curb.
C. A common area parking lighting plan shall be reviewed by the Planning and
Development Department prior to building plan check. A photometric study
should be developed with analysis of the lighting pattern on the project and meets
the City's Outdoor Lighting Ordinance provisions as explained in Chapter 9.210.
the height of the light poles should not exceed 10 feet in height.
D. The screen wall along Washington Street shall be a minimum height of six feet
high as measured from adjoining grade height and the wall shall be constructed
to match the recently installed privacy screen wall on the east side of the street
which was installed by the City in 1992, except the green ceramic tile does not
need to be installed. The wall should be stepped or terraced to create an
architectural element on Washington Street which is consistent with the City's
Image Corridor design guidelines.
E. Both passive and active outdoor equipment shall be examined and the on -site
recreational facilities shall be approved by the Design Review Board during final
plan review.
F. All dwelling units along Washington Street shall be a minimum of 30 feet from
the property line (landscape lot). The measurement shall be to the edge of any
CONAPRVL.097 3
Conditions of Approval
Plot Plan 93-502, Jascorp
October 12, 1993
building exclusive of building patios or eave overhangs.
G. The comments of the Riverside County Sheriff's Department (June 24, 1993)
shall be incorporated into the final design of the project.
H. The final construction plans shall be reviewed by the Planning and Development
Department during Building Department review.
I. Landscaping for each duplex unit shall comply with the following:
* 1. The front and side yards of each duplex unit should be landscaped to
property line, edge of curb, sidewalk, or edge of street pavement,
whichever is furthest from the residence. Rear yard landscaping shall be
provided for affordable housing units.
2. The front yard landscaping shall include trees (minimum three 15-gallon
trees per duplex and three extra trees on the exterior sides of the corner
units), shrubs, and groundcover and/or hardscape of sufficient size,
spacing, and variety to create an attractive and unifying appearance.
Landscaping shall be in substantial compliance with the standards set forth
in the Manual of Architectural Standards and the Manual on Landscaping
Standards as adopted by the Planning Commission.
3. A permanent water -efficient irrigation system shall be provided for all
areas required to be landscaped.
4. The landscaping shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and viable
condition by the property owner.
*5. The developer shall be responsible to install all common irrigation piping
and landscaping prior to any occupancy permits being released in the
project. Each dwelling unit shall have front yard irrigation and
landscaping prior to occupancy by the future homeowner. Additionally,
the rear yard areas shall be irrigated and lawn shall be installed by the
developer for all very low and low income units. All landscaped areas
shall be irrigated by automatic systems.
The perimeter security fencing for the project (excluding Washington Street) shall
be masonry and painted to match the Washington Street wall (Item D). The fence
shall be sip: feet high.
CONAPRVL.097 4
Conditions of Approval
Plot Plan 93-502, Jascorp
October 12, 1993
*K. The combination one story/two story duplex design shall be approved by the
Planning Commission on October 12, 1993, or the matter shall be returned to the
Design Review Board for final review.
L. The entry drive and gate shall be designed with adequate stacking room to ensure
that traffic from this development does not impede the flow of traffic into and out
of the development to the south. The entry gate design shall include a turn
around between the card reader and the gate. The final design shall require the
Fire Marshal, Engineering Department, and the Planning and Development
Department approval.
*M. The driveway on Washington Street shall be a minimum width of 54-feet (i.e. two
lanes in and two lanes out) or as determined by the City Engineer.
CITY FIRE MARSHAL
16. The comments of the Riverside County Fire Department (September 20, 1993) shall be
incorporated into the final design of the project.
SPECIAL
17. The Environmental Fees of the State Fish and Game Department and the County of
Riverside shall be paid within 24 hours after review of the proposed by the Planning
Commission and/or City Council (i.e. $1,328.00).
18. All required improvements shall be completed prior to site occupancy of the proposed
development.
19. No roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be permitted unless screened from view by
a building parapet wall or other integral architectural feature per City ordinance.
20. All mitigation measures of Environmental Assessment 93-267 shall be met.
21. The City's Water Conservation Ordinance (Ordinance 220) shall be met.
22. 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.
*23. The on -street parking program shall be submitted to the Planning and Development
Department prior or during the Building and Safety Department plan check process.
CONAPRVL.097 5
BI #1
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
DATE: OCTOBER 12, 1993
CASE NO.: MINOR TEMPORARY OUTDOOR EVENT (MTOE) 93-057
APPLICANT: THUNDERBIRD ARTISTS (JUDI COMBS)
REQUEST: APPROVAL OF FINE ARTS SHOWS AT PLAZA LA QUINTA
SHOPPING CENTER FROM NOVEMBER 6, 1993 THROUGH APRIL,
1994.
LOCATION: SOUTHWEST. CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND WASHINGTON
STREET.
BACKGROUND:
Thunderbird Artists has been granted approval of previous permits to operate fine art shows at
the Plaza La Quinta Shopping Center during the winter seasons of 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93.
Prior to that time there were art shows held at the center by other operators.
CURRENT PROPOSAL:
The applicant is requesting approval to hold art shows on weekends beginning November 6th
and continuing through the weekend of April 30-May 1, 1994. Additionally, the applicant is
requesting approval for Monday shows on January 17th (Martin Luther King Day) and February
21st (President's Day). As in past years, the applicant is not proposing shows on November
27th and 28th (Fine Crafts, Wine, and All That Jazz Festival) and March 19th and 20th (La
Quinta Arts Festival).
The applicant is proposing to utilize the same site along Highway 111 east of Downey Savings
and Loan. The shows hours would run from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. as in past years. The
applicant indicates that the maximum number of artists will be 35. A portable restroom is
proposed to be provided during the time of the art shows. The applicant also intends to utilize
the same 2' X 3' signs that have been used in the past. One sign would be located along
Highway 111 at the westerly driveway with the second sign located along Washington Street
near the vacant Beef and Brew restaurant. The applicant's plans indicate that the majority of
the artists parking would be provided west of Downey Savings near Highway 111 with the
balance being located east of the display area.
PCST.146 1
ANALYSIS:
1. The art shows that have operated the past three years and have been well received and
caused no apparent problems. The applicant has agreed not to hold art shows on the La
Quinta Arts Festival weekend and the Fine Crafts, Wine, and All That Jazz weekend to
avoid potential conflicts or confusion.
2. No adverse comments have been received from outside agencies or City departments.
As in the past, we are recommending a condition that the applicant provide "No Parking"
signs adjacent to ]Highway 111 and the driveway next to Downey Savings.
RECOMMENDATION:
By Minute Motion 93-__ approve MTOE 93-057, subject to the attached conditions.
Attachments:
1. Site plan and parking plan
2. Letter from applicant regarding proposal
3. Draft Conditions of Approval
PCST.146 2
btaN�l'. i
5645517♦
t*)4t$v,v:014i a 7
5028970912;8 7
I%t.V trr:r.tlWn It.LL'LtJ-MK •Ull ill— 1—'�U N.;xt-L1 .
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ;11— 1-90 4:58PM
CA
.. ...� �. mw.vagR�wa;ra•r-•r— r . rr,. - «• �;�'w ^�• q'f '✓ :L•
w
i
[PLA EA LA (MUOH7A
et h
4 .�..�..®..--�....
,•�i p RFa.�� til��� . •.
n i 41 4' Olt •Av �,s
�S ♦tt ♦ 4I �
• 4v+
dnpm
ATOM q 3 - 057
TEMPORARY USE PERMIT APPLICATION INFORMATION
1. The permit request is for a juried fine art show on the grass pad of Plaza La Quinta
adjacent to Washington Blvd. This show includes fine arts and selected fine crafts
(no clothing, hobby or bazaar type articles). Show hours run 9:00am to 5:00pm.
These shows are held on weekends and holidays starting in November (1993) and
going through April (1994) with the exception of the weekend of LaQuinta Art
Festival in March and their craft show in November (which, I feel, is not in direct
competition as 1 do not have that many crafts). Last year the permit allowed
ZZrnderbird Artists to add the following Monday f the show was rained out. Would 4160 (flee; app,
San 1,7 (wart, - rAav*tn t_ le4V4 1K9) 4 _Aab 2 t ( rAOA P1rcddX-h-h5 P4 .
2. Letter from site owner - to be faxed.
3. Certificate of Insurance -to be faxed.
4. Vicinity map showing location of site - enclosed. (No art displays shall be located
within the first 20 feet behind the Highway 111 sidewalk).
5. Parking plan same map - enclosed.
6. Signs are 2 foot by 3 foot, red and white °Art Show & Sale. 3 to 5 no parking signs
& 2 art show signs are used. Same signs have been approved on previous
permits and used for the last three years of showing. Using the same approved
locations these signs will not in any way obstruct traffic visibility.
7. The artists set up their own temporary art displays and canopies per show. I do jury
the displays as well as the artwork. I only allow solid white, creme or silver for
canopies.
8. Application fee - enclosed.
9. City Engineer?
10. Security is police in the area. Traffic arrangements do not need to be
addressed as the traffic for this show is not heavy or disruptive. The artists
will not load or unload in the driveway next to Downey Savings and Loan.
11. There is no smoking within booths and a fire extinguisher is on site.
12. No food sold.
13. A portable restroom shall be available arriving only immediately proceeding the
show on Saturday to the conclusion of the show on Sunday (or Monday).
14. Thunderbird Artists has been and will contrl to be responsible for trash control on
and around the site during the show hours and at the end of each day.
Question: Is it legal for City Government to control competition such as
the above bold information.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
MTOE 93-057
OCTOBER 12, 1993
1. The event shall be conducted per the information
submitted on the plans (Exhibit A-1) and the following
conditions:
2. This approval shall be valid for the period between
November, 1993, through May 1, 1994, on Saturdays and
Sundays with the exception of November 27, and 28, 1993,
March 19 and 20, 1994; the show may operate between
9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. If the art show is rained out on
Saturday and/or Sunday, the Applicant is permitted to
hold an art show on the Monday immediately following the
weekend. Additionally, the Applicant is permitted to
hold an art show on January 17, 1994 (Martin Luther King
Day) and :February 21, 1994 (President's Day).
3. Proof of $1,000,000 liability insurance policy naming the
City as a co-insured shall be in force during the shows.
4. Food will not be sold as part of the event.
5. Electricity will not be available to the site.
6. No art displays shall be located within the first 20 feet
behind the Highway 111 sidewalk.
7. Applicant shall provide a minimum of one portable
restroom on the site during shows. The restrooms shall
be on the site from only immediately proceeding the show
on Saturday to the conclusion of the show on Sunday (or
Monday).
8. Artists shall park their vehicles in areas crosshatched,
shown on Exhibit A-1, except for loading and unloading.
9. Applicant shall be responsible for cleaning trash and
debris on and around the site during show times and at
the end of each day's show.
10. Two portable 2-foot x 3-foot high "Art Show & Sale" signs
shall be allowed during art show hours per Exhibit
"A-1". Signs to be placed far enough back from roadway
so as to not obstruct traffic visibility.
11. During hours of show operation, Applicant shall provide
"No Parking" signs adjacent to Highway 111 and the
driveway :next to Downey Savings and Loan where parking is
not permitted.
BJ/CONAPRVL.059 - 1 -
12. There shall be no sale of clothing or other cloth
products unless they are hand made or hand decorated.
13. Violation of any of these Conditions of Approval or
unresolved problems arising from operation of shows,
shall be cause for immediate closure by Sheriff's
Department. Thereafter, Planning Commission and/or City
Council shall review the violation or problem to ensure
that it is resolved prior to shows being allowed to
continue.
14. Use of open flame devises and smoking within booths is
prohibited per Fire Marshal.
15. A minimum width of 44 inches in aisles for exiting shall
be maintained.
16. A type 2A10BC fire extinguisher with a conspicuous sign
shall be available within 75-feet of display.
17. Booth material and any decorative material shall be flame
retardant. This does not apply to merchandise on exhibit.
18. All the artists, within the show, must obtain from the
Sales Tax Division, State of California, a temporary
sales permit, to report said sales in the City of La
Quinta.
19. There shall be no loading or unloading of equipment or
art work in the driveway next to Downey Savings and Loan.
BJ/CONAPRVL.059 - 2 -
BI #2
STAFFREPORT
Planning Commission
DATE: OCTOBER 6, 1993
CASE NO: PALM ROYALE PARK
PROJECT: APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN (MASTER
PLAN) FOR THE CITY OF LA QUINTA PALM
ROYALE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY
OWNER:
ARCHITECT:
LOCATION:
ZONING:
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS:
PROPOSAL:
CITY OF LA QUINTA
T.I. MALONEY, INC. OF RIVERSIDE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF
ADAMS STREET AND LA PALMA DRIVE
R-1
The Planning and Development Department has completed
an environmental assessment on the proposed park. Based
upon this assessment, the park will not have a significant,
adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, a Negative
Declaration has been prepared, subject to the attached
Mitigation Monitoring Plan.
The City of La Quinta is proposing to develop a public, neighborhood park, which is
mildly active in nature and is located on a 5 acre parcel. The parcel is actually made up of
two different planes: a. 2.49 acre flat section, and a 2.51 acre retention basin. The
property has existing trees and turf on the flat portion, and the retention area is turfed.
Development of the site will occur in two phases.
A Master Plan has been submitted depicting the two phases of the project. Phase One
improvements will focus primarily on the development of the flat parcel area of the park,
specifically focusing on the play area for children. Site features in Phase include: picnic
table, two (2) playground equipment structures, drinking fountains, concrete paving,
security lighting, and 97 trees.
The second Phase will include a tot pool, drinking fountain, 650 shrubs, 35 trees, two (2)
shade structures, a misting system, jogging path, and security lighting. The total project
area for both phases is over 62,000 square feet. The park site is in excess of 250,000
sq.ft.
ANALYSIS:
The budget for the construction of this project is $144,000 in FY 1993-94. The Master
Plan calls for two Phases, with the cost of each at approximately $140,000.
The Community Services Commission reviewed the Master Plan in August of this year,
and approved the Master Plan as presented. The Design Review Board reviewed the
Master Plan on October 6, and has recommended to the Planning Commission that the
Master Plan be approved, and forwarded to the City Council.
SUGGESTED CONDITIONS:
No suggested conditions, however, the Design Review Board provided suggestions
related to programming which will be considered as the park is opened for public use.
RECOMMENDATION:
Move to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 93-—
recommending to the City Council
approval of the design of Palm Royale Park, and adoption of a Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 93-262 subject to the attached
Mitigation Monitoring Plan.
Attachment:
1. Master Plan Process, T.I. Maloney, Inc.
2. EA 93-262 Initial Study
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 93-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING
TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE
PALM ROYALE PARK DESIGN AND ADOPTION
OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR THE
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 93-262 FOR
PALM ROYALE PARK AND ADOPTION OF THE
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN FOR THE PROJECT
PALM ROYALE PARK PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 93-262
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the 12th
day of October, 1993, hold a duly noticed public hearing pertaining to the design and
environmental assessment of the proposed Palm Royale Park; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study/Environmental Assessment (hereinafter "EA") has
been prepared and circulated, pursuant to the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (hereinafter "CEQA); and
WHEREAS, it is the policy of the State of California and the City of La Quinta, in
accordance with the provisions of CEQA, as amended (Public Resources Code Section
21000 et seq.), and the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA, as amended
(California Administrative Code Section 15000 et seq.), that the City shall balance the
benefits of the proposed project against its avoidable environmental risks; meaning that if
the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental
effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered acceptable; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, has
read and considered all environmental documentation comprising the EA, has found that
the EA considered all the potentially significant environmental impacts of the project, is
complete and adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, prior to action on the EA, the Planning Commission of the City of La
Quinta, California has considered all significant impacts and mitigation measures, and has
found that all potentially significant impacts on the project have been lessened of avoided
to the extent feasible; 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 to justify the recommendation from approval of said project and
environmental assessment:
1. The proposed Palm Royale Park is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan.
2. The proposed Palm Royale Park project is consistent with the Parks and
Recreation Master Plan for the City of La Quinta.
3. Approval of the project will not result in any significant adverse environmental
impacts.
4. The project will provide needed public park facilities for the City of La Quinta.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of La Quinta does hereby
adopt a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for EA 92-262 subject to the
mitigation measures contained in the EA and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the
project.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission, held on this 12th day of October, 1993, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
I.
Background
1. Name of Proponent
Attachment 2
Environmental Assessment No. 93-262
Case No.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
City of La Quinta
2. Address & Phone Number of Proponent PO Box 1504
La Quinta CA 92253 619-777-7125
3.*Date Checklist Prepared June 16, 1993
4.
Agency Requiring
Checklist
City of La
Ouinta
5.
Name of Proposal,
if applicable
Palm Royale
Park - Phase I & II
II. Environmental Impacts
(Explanation of "yes" & "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.)
YES
MAYBE NO
1. Earth. will the proposal result in:
a.
Unstable earth conditions or in changes
X
in geologic substructures?
b.
Disruptions, displacements, compaction or
X
over covering of the soil?
c.
Change in topography or ground surface
X
relief features?
d.
The destruction, covering or modification
X
of any unique geologic or physical features.
e.
Any increase in wind or water erosion of
X
soils, either on or off the site?
f.
Changes in deposition or erosion of beach
X
sands or changes in siltation, deposition
or erosion which may modify the channel of
a river or stream or the bed of the ocean
or any bay, inlet or lake?
X
g.
Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure or similar hazards?
FORM.009/CS -1-
YES
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally?
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents or the course of
direction of water movements, in either
marine or fresh waters?
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff?
c. Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters?
d. Change in the amount of surface water
in any water body?
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality
including but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of
flow of ground waters?
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or with -
drawls, or through interception of an
aquifers by cuts or excavations?
h. Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies?
i. Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding or
tidal waves?
MAYBE NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
FORM.009/CS -2-
YES MAYBE NO
4. Biological Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
X
number of any species of biological
resources?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
X
rare or endangered species of plants
or animals?
c. Introduction of new species of plants
X
into an area, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment or migration or
movement of existing species?
d. Reduction in acreage of agricultural crops?
X
e. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat?
5. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
X
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
X
6. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce X
new light or glare?
7. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a X
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
S. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any X
natural resources?
9. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of
X
hazardous substances (including but not
limited to oil, pesticides, chemical or
radiation) in the event of an accident
or upset conditions?
10. Population. Will the proposal alter the
X
location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of an area?
rnnm_nn4/cs -3-
YES MAYBE NO
11.
Housing. Will the proposal affect existing
X
housing, or create a demand for additional
housing?
12.
Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
X
vehicular movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facilities
X
or demand for new parking?
c. Substantial impact upon existing
X
transportation systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of
X
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air
X
traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor X
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
13.
Public Services. Will the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered governmental services in any of the
following areas:
X
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection? -.-x--
c. Schools?
X
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X
e. Maintenance of public facilities & roads? X
f. Other governmental services? X
14.
Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amount of fuel
X
or energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand upon
X
existing sources or energy, or require
the development of new sources of energy?
FORM.009/CS -4-
YES MAYBE
NO
15.
Utilities. Will the proposal result in a
X
need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
X
b. Communications systems?
X
X
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
X
e. Storm water drainage?
X
f. Solid waste and disposal?
X
16.
Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or
X
potential health hazard (excluding
mental health).
17.
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in
the obstruction of any scenic vista or
view open to the public, or will the proposal
result in the creation of an aesthetically
offensive site open to public view?
18.
Recreation. Will the lroposal result in an X
impact upon the quality or quantity of
existing recreational opportunities?
19.
Cultural Resources
a. Will the proposal result in the alter-
X
ation of or the destruction of a pre-
historic -or historic archaeological site?
b. Will the proposal result in adverse
X
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building, structure
or object?
c. Does the proposal have the potential to
X
cause a physical change which would
affect unique ethnic cultural values?
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
FORM.009/CS -5-
YES
MAYBE NO
20. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a. Does the project have the potential
X
to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self sustaining levels, threaten
to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the potential to
X
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage
of long-term, environmental goals? (A
short-term impact on the environment is
one in which occurs in a relatively brief
definitive period of time while long-term
impacts will endure well in the future).
c. Does the project have impacts which are
X
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (A project may impact on two
or more separate resources where the impact
on each resource is relatively small, but
where the effect of the total of those
impacts on the environment is significant).
d. Does the project have environmental
X
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
FORM.009/CS
U
III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
(Narrative description of environmental impacts.)
IV. Determination
(To be completed by the Lead Agency).
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.
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.
X A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant
effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL
`r IMPACT REPORT is required.
June 16, 1993
Date S gnature of sparer
FORM.009/CS -7-
III ADDENDUM
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 93-262
FOR
PALM ROYALE PARK
CITY OF LA QUINTA
GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
The City of La Quinta Parks & Recreation Master Plan identifies a 5 acre site located
on the westerly side of Adams Street, between Miles Avenue and Fred Waring Drive
in North La Quinta as a neighborhood park. This site consists of a 2.49 acre flat
section and a 2.51 acre retention basin. The proposed park amenities are to include
a Tot -lot, playground, gazebo, sand volleyball pit, and landscaping. The existing
retention basin will be designed to be used for a soccer field, baseball field and
multi -use open play area when not inundated with flood waters. No parking facilities
are proposed as the park is designed as a neighborhood park primarily for nearby
residents. The park is proposed to be developed in two phases.
This park project has been previously assessed for preliminary environmental
impacts in Environmental Assessment 93-258, prepared for the City of La Quinta
Parks & Recreation Master Plan. A Negative Declaration of environmental impact was
adopted.by the La Quinta City Council on April 20, 1993.
A Master Plan has been submitted depicting the two phases of the project. Phase
One improvements will focus primarily on the development of the flat parcel area of
the park, specifically focusing on the play area for children. Site features in Phase
One include: picnic table, two (2) playground equipment structures, drinking
fountains, concrete paving, security lighting, and 97 trees.
The second Phase will include a tot pool, drinking fountain, 650 shrubs, 35 trees,
two (2) shade structures, a misting system, jogging path, and security lighting.
The total project area for both phases is over 62,000 square feet.
The park site is surrounded by existing and future residential lands. The City of
La Quinta proposes to maintain the park site as a passive park that serves the needs
of the surrounding neighborhood.
1. Earth
a. No. There are no anticipated unstable geologic conditions or changes to
substructures resulting from the proposed development of additional park
facilities in the City of La Quinta. The entire region experiences periodic
seismic activity, therefore, it is possible that future parks could be impacted
by earthquakes and related events. The only mitigation necessary is that any
structures proposed be built according to current codes.
DOCLC . 003
b . Maybe. The only grading activities that will be necessary to develop this park
will be minor and related to installation of additional landscaping and
structural pad levelling for the proposed shade structures and tot pool. The
retention basin is existing and the entire site has been turfed and there are
several trees already planted on the site.
c-g. No. Because the park site has already been developed with a retention basin
and preliminary landscaping, any impacts to topography, water erosion
factors, or other geologic issues have been attained. Therefore, the proposed
completion of Palm Royale Park will not contribute to any further adverse
impacts to the earth or geologic conditions of the site or the surrounding area.
Compliance with the local and regional air quality regulations regarding PM10
and blowsand control will mitigate any potential for wind erosion of soils that
may result from minor earth moving activities.
There are no oceans, rivers, or bays near the project area that would be
impacted by depositional changes from the development of Palm Royale Park,
as proposed. The surrounding land uses consist of single family homes to the
north and west, vacant land and homes to the east, and a well site and vacant
land to the south of the park site. A mobile home park is located near the
southwest corner of the park site.
The entire region is subject to impacts and hazards from seismic events,
especially earthquakes. Since the park facility will not include human
occupancy structures, the hazard level to the public is very low. There is no
requirement for any mitigation measure as no reasonable mitigation exists. A
discussion on seismic hazards can be found in the La Quinta Master
Environmental Assessment (1992) , and a discussion on seismic safety and land
use standards is found in the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan
(1989) Pages 300-308.
2. Air
a-c. No. The development of Palm Royale Park will not result in any substantial air
emissions or deterioration of the air quality. Since only minor earth -moving
activities will be required, exhaust emissions from construction vehicles will
be minimal.
The installation of additional landscaping will provide a more oxygen rich
environment in the local area. Localized temperatures within the park facility
may be somewhat cooler than the surrounding built environment. However,
there will not be any significant change to the local climate resulting from the
development of this park. In addition, there is little chance that objectionable
odors will be generated from the development or on going operation of the
park.
DOCLC . 003 2
3. Water
a-i. No. There are no marine or fresh water bodies on or adjacent to the proposed
park. There is an existing flood water retention basin on site which has been
engineered to accept and contain runoff flood water from the adjacent
residential neighborhood. During seasonal rains, the basin will have some
water in it. However for the majority of the year the basin will be clear and
dry allowing for recreational uses. For the remainder of the park site, the
proposed amenities requiring minor earth moving and man made surfaces could
result in some changes in absorption rates and drainage patterns. These
changes are not anticipated to be significant. There are no anticipated
impacts to the flow of ground waters. Irrigation of park turf and landscaping
will be necessary and will require draws upon local ground water wells under
the jurisdiction of the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) . It has been
estimated that the annual water use will be as follows:
Turf = 157,000 square feet
7,143,400 gallons per year
Groundcover = 37,000 square feet
= 1,154 ,164 gallons per year
TOTAL GALLONS = +8,297,564 per year
Annual Evapotranspiration Rate (ET) = 87.6
An automatic irrigation system will be installed in the park. This system will
be reviewed for efficiency and water management concerns by the Coachella
Valley Water District and the Planning and Development Department at the
City of La Quinta. Plans for grading, landscaping, and irrigation systems
shall be submitted to CVWD for review, per CVWD letter dated June 22, 1993.
4. Biological Resources
a-b . No. The development of Palm Royale Park will not change the diversity of
species or number of any species of biological resource. The site has been
developed with a retention basin and all natural vegetation or habitat has been
destroyed. The park facility will not result in the endangerment of any plant
or animal species over that impact that has already taken place.
c. Maybe. It is possible that the proposed park landscaping will introduce new
plant species into the area. The landscaping plans have not yet been
developed for this project. There is little chance that these new species will
create a barrier to animal mitigation since the surrounding area has been
largely developed and the project site has already been disturbed by grading
and turfing.
DOCLC . 003 3
d-e. No. There is no agricultural land in production in the near vicinity of the
park site. Similarly, there is no intact wildlife habitat on the site or adjacent.
No fish exist in the area. The project site has not been inundated with water
for any length of time since the last stand of ancient Lake Cahuilla. After the
lake dried up, the area was gradually overcovered with sand, into a dune
environment.
5. Noise
a. Yes. It is possible that the park development will result in increases to
existing noise levels. Noise will be generated by the construction of the park
amenities and by on -going uses of the park. These uses include, but are not
limited to, friendly, non-league ball games, children on playground
equipment, and other activities. Noise generated from these activities would
be short in duration. The friendly ball games will be held in the retention
basin which will buffer much of the noise from nearby homes. The children's
play area and tot play area are more centrally located within the park which
will help to buffer noise created by the children at play. Additional trees and
landscape berming are proposed around the periphery of the park. Trees will
be planted throughout the eastern interior area.
Furthermore, the prevailing winds emanate from the northwest and blow to the
southeast across the park toward the southeast corner of the park. Noise will
tend to travel with such wind which means that it will be directed toward the
southeast, away from existing homes and toward Adams Street and the well
site on windy days.
b. No. No severe noise producing uses are anticipated from the park.
6. Light and Glare
No. No lighting other than security lights for the park is proposed,
therefore, very little light pollution will be generated. All lighting fixtures
shall be required to comply with the Dark Sky Ordinance requirements of the
City of La Quinta.
7. Land Use
No. There will be no alteration of the present or planned land use of the
project area with the development of the Palm Royale Park. The park is
designated on this parcel in the La Quinta General Plan and the La Quinta
Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The proposed park is consistent with the
policies of these documents. The park is the subject of the Palm Royale Master
Plan Process.
DOCLC . 003 4
8. Natural Resources
Maybe. Any new construction activity results in the consumption of natural
resources such as fossil fuels, timber, concrete, and other materials. These
resources will be utilized during development of the park. The amount of
resource materials to be used is not projected to be a significant quantity, and
thus, the project will have only a slight impact on natural resources. There
is no feasible mitigation except for designing the project with conservative
material and resource requirements for development.
9. Risk of Upset
No. There does not appear to be any significant risks of upset resulting from
the development of the Palm Royale Park. Any required chemicals, such as
herbicides or pesticides, will be housed at the City Yard located in the
southern portion of the City. Application of these chemicals will be by trained
and certified staff, thus reducing the risk of accidental spill or contamination.
Mitigation shall consist of keeping such chemicals in the appropriate storage
facilities and application of these chemicals only by qualified individuals.
10. Population
No. The proposed park will not alter the location, distribution, density or
growth rate of the human population of the City of La Quinta or surrounding
communities in any significant way. It is possible that the park may stimulate
some residential construction nearby. No mitigation is required or available
at this time.
11. Housing
No. The development of the Palm Royale Park is not anticipated to impact
housing stock. No displacement of housing units is necessary for the project.
There are existing homes adjacent to the north, west, and some to the east
across Adams Street. A mobile home park is located to the southwest of the
park site. The park will not create a significant demand for additional
housing by maintenance workers as only one new employee will be required to
be added to the City staff for park maintenance on a City-wide basis.
12. Transportation
a-e . No. An assessment of additional vehicular movement is found in the
Environmental Assessment prepared for the Parks Master Plan which includes
the Palm Royale Park. The Palm Royale park is 2.19 acres in size. Utilizing
the Microtrans computer program (I. T . E . Report - 5th Edition) to calculate
vehicle trips per day, this park will generate 4.88 trips per day on week
days. This calculation is based on the rate of 2.23 trips per day for each acre
of parkland. On Saturdays, 91.95 trips will be generated. However, since
the park is pedestrian -oriented and will have no off street parking facilities,
actual vehicular traffic is anticipated to be lower.
DOCLC . 003 5
A discussion of circulation issues is found in the La Quinta Master
Environmental Assessment and the La Quinta General Plan. No off street
parking is proposed for the Palm Royale Park as it is designed to service the
surrounding residents. There will be no alterations to waterborne, rail, or
air traffic, as none exist in the immediate area.
f. Maybe. It is possible that there could be a slight increase in traffic hazards
to motor vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians emanating from activity in and
around the park. Any such increase will be very slight and not a significant
impact. It is anticipated that the majority of park users will walk to the park.
Bicycle racks are required to be placed within the park per City
requirements.
13. Public Services
a. Maybe. No significant impact upon fire protection will result from the
development of Palm Royale Park. However, the City is currently under -
served by approximately 7 fire protection personnel based on the standard of
one paid firefighter per 1,000 population. Currently, there are two fire
stations within La Quinta, both are located in the southern area of the City.
It is possible that the services of the fire department will occassionally be
needed at the park facility, which when combined with other current and
future development in the City will, to some degree, strain the existing level
of fire protection service available. However, the City Fire Marshal did not
have any comments.
b . Maybe. Police protection is provided on contract with the Riverside County
Sheriff's Department. The Sheriff's Department utilizes a planning standard
of 1.5 deputies per 1,000 population to forecast public safety personnel
requirements in the City at buildout .
Currently, the City is under -served by 5 personnel. The development of this
park may have a slight impact on police protection at the current staffing
level, but not a significant impact as stated in the Sheriff review letter dated
June 24, 1993.
C. No. There is no anticipated adverse impact upon local schools from the
development of Palm Royale Park. The park will provide additional needed
recreation opportunities for school children.
d . No. The park will not alter current patterns of circulation or movement of
people or goods. A sidewalk will be installed along the three street side
boundaries which will provide a safe pedestrian walkway around the park.
d-e. Yes. Palm Royale Park will add needed recreation opportunities to the north
end of the City. Currently, there are no public park facilities in North La
Quinta. This project will make a positive or beneficial impact in the area.
DOCLC . 003 6
f. Maybe. It is possible that other governmental services could be impacted as
a result of Palm Royale Park development. Administrative and Public Works
Departments may experience additional demands from the on -going park
operations. These demands are not anticipated to be significant, however, as
additional park facilities are developed each park will contribute to a
cumulative impact on local government services. The estimated annual cost to
the City to operate and maintain the park is $57, 238.
14. Energy
a-b. No. Relatively little in the way of fuel consumption is anticipated with the
development of :Palm Royale Park. The retention basin exists and very little
grading will be necessary to install the proposed equipment and amenities.
No new sources of energy will need to be developed as the majority of the
surrounding parcels are developed. On -going energy uses in the park will
be minimal with exterior security lights and any electricity required for
maintenance is the only energy consumption anticipated.
15. Utilities
a-f. . No. The proposed park amenities will not require any new utility systems or
substantial alterations to the existing service in the area. There will be
landscape irrigation required, at an estimated water cost of $6,000 annually.
Estimated water use for the park is a total of approximately 8,297,564 gallons
per year for both turf and groundcover. No restrooms are proposed in the
park. Storm water drainage will be contained in the existing retention basin
constructed for that purpose. Solid waste disposal will be provided by Waste
Management of the Desert. Waste Management is calling for designated trash
enclosures on the park site plan.
Several trash barrels will probably be placed within the park that will need to
be emptied by park maintenance workers. There should be minimal impact to
this utility.
16. Human Health
No. The park development is not anticipated to result in the creation of any
health hazards under normal use. To the contrary, a new park facility will
promote exercise and additional recreational opportunities for the surrounding
residents.
17. Aesthetics
No. The proposed park will not result in the obstruction of any scenic vistas
or views. The facilities will feature landscaping designed for aesthetic appeal
to the public. Review of landscape plans will be required prior to development
which meads that this issue will be examined in detail by the Planning and
Development Department.
DOCLC . 003
i 8 . Recreation
Yes. The proposed park will result in a beneficial impact upon the quality and
quantity of recreation opportunities for the surrounding residents.
19. Cultural Resources
a-d. No. The project site has been developed into a large landscaped retention
basin. Any cultural resources that may have existed are probably no longer
present. Previous archaeological studies were conducted for the property as
part of the surrounding residential developments. Any unique ethnic cultural
values that may have existed, no longer exist to any level of significance.
20. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a-d . There is no evidence that. the proposed park facility will result in substantial
impacts upon the environment, either short-term or long-term, individually,
or cumulatively. All identified impacts can easily be mitigated to a level of
insignificance by particular mitigation measures. There are several positive
benefits to the immediate area and to the City by development of the proposed
Palm Royale Park.
DOCLC . 003 8
A
z
.a
VU
N
Cy
U
�n O
0o w
•� w
� y
•g p C
o
t�
0
a
wZ
a0
0�
�0
3 �
Y
E
a.
H
r
$
y
�Z
C
O
��
aC
Tw
a
`� O
r
� o vi
°
E" 00
c
vOi
0
a o
a
>8
2
a
0=
o�a
0-0
8sr
20
1.4
�m
ip
;w
>U
G
U N
aC
U •°
00
w �
.0 M.
7 y
C A H
�
c a •�
•.1
K.O W
s O.
•� o C
N
L C7
Z
M
U
iiO
Z
C
12.0
y
w
20
R
3CC a
rQ
C
F
U
E
W
V
y
W d C
W C
c `�
3 E
>
pQ
rA
Q
OHa°i3a
�
C
O
U
any
a
ca
aO
a
U ti
vUi
vUi
00
c
'C w
H
0 G. �
" c
•�
N N G
C c
° 8 ao
•K •Z
•�
0 .L
y a
�yCi
uy.�
q c
wE
$�
3
u
i
i
yy
y
3�
3�
L
4
00
'-
3
U
E to r
v�
as
u S
y..
a C
•g•��
$ w v
C
N
.5 ..
•a
..o
Ee
�
> a aye
a.y o
8E
C a
E•:
o c
F
��� as
e
>
Z
�p
N
R7 i�
W
y O C[
cn
0
7. 3
0> 9
� �
B
Ski
§
§/�
k
0 §
$ƒ2
�
ku$
R
\
�k
§ E
g/
\�
k
c S
a
2
7
�
£
2
�k
�2
�k
k2
»E
§
B
Iv
g
�-
%
E
E
a2
�>
:
'
§§
o
§F
<
§
a >
§k$
' §
2
3
/
2£
|
/�9
SB
02
U
2
\\
�a
w
.
■
��
;E
>-Sk
o k:
i
0
Ia
e
u
E
a
0
v
C�
00 �
5 �
aG
T
� •O
C
a
w
r�
ww
U Q a
h
s
a
00
c
00
a
C
C 0 •C
aCC]
u
vi
L
w
�
C C
o C •p
� U
y
..•v;� � u•ia
H
a
� u r u •a
L
�
>o
�yaua
~ •4y
{tl
> h 'O N
G �W7
A (0
ZA e
Wp 13
c�v
09
205E a. cc
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA
A :regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
'78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California
September 28, 1993
I. CALL TO ORDER
7:00 P.M.
A. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairwoman Barrows who led
the flag salute.
II. ROLL CALL
A. Chairwoman Barrows requested the roll call. Present: Commissioners Adolph,
Ellson, Marrs, Abels, and Chairwoman Barrows.
C. Staff Present: Planning Director Jerry Herman, Principal Planner Stan Sawa,
Associate Planner Greg Trousdell, Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer, and
Department Secretary Betty Sawyer.
Commissioner Ellson moved to add the discussion of R-1 zoning and the completion of
incomplete tracts to the; agenda. Commissioner Adolph seconded the motion and it was
unanimously approved.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
B. Continued - Change of Zone 91-066 Specific Plan 92-023 Tentative Tract
27854, and Plot Plan 93-022; a request of JASCORP for approval of a change of
zone designation for from R-1, R-2*8,000, and C-P to R-2; a specific plan to
develop design and architectural standards for a 124 unit planned unit
development project; a tentative tract map to subdivide 12± acres into 124 single
family lots; and a plot plan to develop a low and moderate income zero lot line
single family home project.
1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in
the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and
Development Department.
PCM9-28 1
Planning Commission Minutes
September 28, 1993
2. Commissioner Marrs questioned the parking requirements as he was
concerned with the width of the streets being able to accommodate street
parking. Commissioners discussed with staff the problem of parking.
3. Chairwoman Barrows asked staff where the sidewalk space would come
from. Staff stated the sidewalk would encroach into the front setback or
they would have to reduce the rear yard setback.
4. Commissioner Ellson stated her desire for an internal sidewalk system.
She felt that when the rear property line block walls were built, the open
corridor area would become a safety hazard. She would like to see these
units back to back and an internal circulation pattern created along the
streets. In addition, she asked how the tenants of the project would exit
the project if walking.
5. Commissioner Marrs asked if the houses on the west side boundary would
be restricted to one story. Staff stated they would have to comply with
the R-2 regulations which would allow two story units up to 28-feet. The
developer proposes one and two units in this area.
6. There being no further questions of staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened
the public hearing. Mr. Joe Swain, applicant addressed the Commission
regarding the project. Mr. Swain stated they reduced the garage size as
they felt a two car garage was not needed for this type of project. He
further stated that in reference to the "sidewalk alley" between the rear
property line walls, they had originally envisioned this backyard area as
having a 30" high wrought iron fence, but felt that Commissioner Ellson's
idea would be better and it would help them gain extra space.
7. Commissioner Ellson inquired whether the trash would be picked up at
one location or at the individual homes. Mr. Swain stated they would be
picked up at the individual homes.
8. Commissioner Ellson questioned the problem of stacking at the entrance
for the non-resident drivers. She felt there should be a minimum of two
cars stacking. Mr. Swain stated there were two lanes as well as a turn
around area for those not entering. Commissioner Ellson questioned
where school bus pick-up was provided. Mr. Swain stated there was a
need for a deceleration lane at the bottom of the bridge on Washington to
accommodate this.
PCM9-28 2
Planning Commission Minutes
September 28, 1993
10. Commissioner Ellson asked how the tenants would exit the project if
walking to the shopping center. Mr. Swain stated there would be a
pedestrian gate provided at the entry on Washington Street.
11. Commissioner Ellson asked if restrooms were provided for the gardeners.
Mr. Swain stated they would be provided as part of the recreation
building. Commissioner Ellson asked about the drainage area at the end
of the westerly north/south street. Mr. Swain stated it would drain into
an off -site open space/retention area.
12. Commissioner Adolph asked if a pool and spa would be installed. Mr.
Swain stated the pool and spa would be built and in addition the use of the
recreation room was optional, it could be used as a child care facility.
Commissioner Adolph asked if the houses would look as they are drawn
on the detailed elevations. Mr. Swain stated he would have his architect
address this question.
13. Commissioner Adolph stated the front yards would be landscaped and
irrigated but questioned the rear and side yards. He felt that as these were
low income homes, that the owners would not be able to afford to install
lawns and irrigation systems immediately and perhaps the builder could
do this. Mr. Swain stated he had no objection as long as it was for the
low income homes only (40 units).
14. Commissioner Marrs asked if the applicant was aware of the impact to the
northerly lot when the bridge on Washington Street is widened. Mr.
Swain stated he was not aware of the bridge widening, but the lot would
be elevated three feet and the house another six inches and it would have
retaining walls. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer explained the height
of the retaining wall and the wall in addition to the retaining wall. He
further stated this was not in the current City's Five Year Capital
Improvement Plan but hopefully it would be widened within ten years.
Commissioner Marrs expressed his concern that these property owners
receive a disclosure regarding the bridge during any future sales program.
Mr. Swain agreed.
15. Mir. Steve McCutchan, Hunsaker & Associates, engineers for the project,
discussed the retaining wall and perimeter wall with the Commission and
staff. Mr. Speer stated the walls will be in place upon completion of the
project even though the bridge would not be widened at this time.
PCM9-28 3
Planning Commission Minutes
September 28, 1993
16. Commissioner Ellson asked Mr. McCutchan if he could address the
stacking at the entrance to the project. Mr. McCutchan stated there would
be enough room for two car stacking as there were two lanes going into
the project and one exiting. Discussion followed as to the number of
lanes and the location of the entrance phone. Mr. Speer interjected that
the width of the shared driveway to Washington Street would have to be
a total of 54-feet. Commissioner Adolph asked if the shopping center
would have its own entrance further south. Mr. Speer stated it would and
this would alleviate some of the pressure on this entrance.
17. Mr. Joe DeCoster, building designer for the project addressed
Commissioner Adolph's question regarding the working drawings looking
exactly as the detailed elevation drawings. He further stated that
restrooms were designed for the gardeners as a separate facility attached
to the recreation building.
18. Commissioner Adolph questioned who would be controlling the CC & R's
once the project was built. Mr. Swain stated a board would be set up
consisting of developers representatives as well as homeowners.
19. Commissioner Ellson asked if pets would be allowed. Mr. Swain stated
they would be allowed. She also asked if there would be a resident
manager during business hours. Mr. Swain stated they would probably
hire a homeowners association management company to enforce the CC
& R's, but did not feel the project warranted an on -site staff person.
20. Mr. Mike Horton, Horton Shepardson & Associates, landscape architects
for the project, described the proposed landscaping. Commissioner
Adolph asked if the trees would be deciduous or evergreen and what size
was proposed to be planted. Mr. Horton stated they were intending to use
evergreen trees and they would be a minimum of 15 gallon and in some
instances 24" box where the budget would permit.
21. Commissioner Ellson asked that the developer consider a pedestrian
sidewalk be installed to provide on one side of the street around the entire
project. Mr. Swain had no problem with the idea.
22. Chairwoman Barrows asked that Mr. Swain keep the play area the same
size even if he did need to relocate or reconfigure.
PCM9-28 4
Planning Commission Minutes
September 28, 1993
23. Commissioner Abels stated his concern that one pool would not be
sufficient for this size of project. Mr. Swain stated that due to the type
of project and cost, the pool would be built to the size that would
adequately accommodate the project.
24. Mr. John Koenig, Koenig Companies, addressed the Commission in favor
of the project.
25. Mr. Bruce Cathcart, Sr., resident to the east, stated his concern about the
project as well as his concern that the bridge would not be widened for ten
years. With so many people plus the shopping center this would cause
additional traffic problems. Mr. Cathcart felt the project did not belong
in this location.
26. Mr. Dane Hooper, Tujunga, expressed his concern about the project. He
did not feel there was enough parking and this was a classic design for a
walled ghetto. He asked that the Commission deny the project.
27. Mr. Dennis Moran, representing the landowner of the project (AMCOR),
expressed his objection to the project being classified as to the type of
people that would buy in the project. He felt it was a quality project and
one: that was needed in La Quinta and they intended to built a quality
project.
28. Mr. Don Session, Quito homeowner, stated his objection to the project as
it was too dense.
29. There being no further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the
public hearing.
30. Commissioner Abels stated he felt the project was well thought out and
designed very well but, the density was to much and it should be located
in a different location.
31. Commissioner Ellson asked staff what the density would be without the
change of zone. Staff stated it would be 50± units for the nine acres
zoned for residential units. Staff went on to explain the bonus density
program and parking. Discussion followed between staff and the
Commission regarding the parking and density.
PCM9-28 5
Planning Commission Minutes
September 28, 1993
32. Commissioner Adolph asked if this area was zoned for low income
housing. Staff stated that according to the General Plan and Housing
Element affordable housing is required and was allowed in the Village
area since it was designed to handle multi -family units (e.g., Medium
Density Residential 4-8 du's/ac).
33. Commissioner Abels asked staff when the last traffic study was done.
Staff stated they were done during the General Plan Update (1992) and the
figures were based on the projected growth of the City for ±20 years.
Discussion followed regarding growth caused improvements.
34. Commissioner Ellson stated her concurrence with the location because of
its was close proximity to so many amenities. She still was concerned
with the density and parking and would like to see more open space.
35. Chairwoman Barrows stated she agreed with Commissioner Ellson and
reminded everyone that a project of this nature had been planned for this
area for a number of years. She felt that by placing the project in this
location it might help to mitigate some of the traffic problems on
Washington by having the project so close to the shopping and City
services. She too was concerned with the parking problem.
36. Commissioner Marrs stated he felt the project was well laid out but it was
too dense. He was in favor of denying the 10% bonus but allowing the
25 % bonus and reducing the density to ± 116 units. This would give the
project more room for off-street parking. Discussion followed regarding
the 10% (architectural bonus) and 25 % density bonus.
37. Following the discussion staff explained the Commission's options: 1)
deny the project; 2) approve the project but deny both the 10% and 25%
bonus and continue the project to allow staff to determine findings to
allow the denial of the bonuses; or 3) approve the project by denying the
10`,'lo bonus and request that the applicant resubmit a new plot plan.
38. Commissioner Abels moved to continue the project to allow staff time to
determine findings for denial of the 10% and 25 % bonus. The motion
died for a lack of a second.
39. Following discussion, Commissioner Marrs moved to continue the project
with approval of the 25 % bonus only and require the applicant to resubmit
a new site plan redesign with 116 units. Commissioner Ellson seconded
the motion and it carried on a 4-1 vote (Commissioner Abels voting no).
PCM9-28 6
Planning Commission riinutes
September 28, 1993
IV. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
V. BUSINESS SESSION:
A. Commissioner Ellson asked that the Planning Commission be given some input
into the discussion regarding R-1 zoning changes. She stated the current R-1
zoning requirements for Rancho Mirage and Indio and asked that this item be
placed on the next Planning Commission agenda.
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. There being no corrections to the Minutes of September 14, 1993, Commissioners
Abels/Ellson moved and seconded a motion to approve the Minutes as submitted.
Unanimously approved.
VII. OTHER - None
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Marrs to adjourn this regular
meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on
October 12, 1993, at 7:00 P.M. at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chambers. This meeting
of the La Quinta Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:29 P.M., September 28, 1993.
PCM9-28 7