Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1994 02 22 PC
W�ty a/ 9?a PLANNING COMM733I01V A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chambers 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California February 22, 1994 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 94-005 Beginning Minute Motion 94-006 CALL TO ORDER - Flag Salute ROLL CALL PUBLIC HEARINGS I. Item ............... CONTINUED - PLOT PLAN 93-394 Applicant .......... Simon Plaza, Inc., Mr. Phil Pead Location ........... The southeast corner of Washington Street and Higghway � 111 Request ............ Approval of a modification to Condition X36 of the Conditions of Approval Action ............. Minute Motion 94 2. Item .............. TENTATIVE TRACT 27840, AMENDMENT #1 Applicant .......... TD Desert Development Location ........... East side of Washington Street south of 48th Avenue, within Rancho La Quinta Request ............ Approval of an Amendment to a previously approved tentative tract map tar add three single family lots and other miscellaneous lots on a 55+ acre site. Action ............. Resolution 94- PC/AGENDA 2. Item ............... ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 93-035 Applicant .......... City of La Quinta Location ........... City-wide Request ............ Proposed development standards for commercial communications towers and related structures - to be added as Chapter 9.218 of the Zoning Ordinance Action ............. Resolution 94- 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 ............... PRECISE PLAN 94-481 Applicant .......... Dennis and Gloria O'Malley Location ........... 54-881 Avenida Ramirez Request ............ Establishment of a large family day care home Action ............. Minute Motion 94- 2. Item ............... PLOT PLAN 92-494 (TIME EXTENSION #1) Applicant .......... Location The Lube Shop (Peter Sturgeon) West side of Adams Street approximately 350 feet north of ........... Highway 111 within the One Eleven La Quinta Center Request ............ Approval of a one year extension for a previously approved plot plan to allow construction and operation of an automotive lubrication shop and coin operated self car wash Action ............. Minute Motion 94- CONSENT CALENDAR Approval of the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of February 8, 1994. OTHER 1. Conference update. 2. Energy efficient issues 3. Report of Council meeting by Planning Commissioner ADJOURNMENT STUDY SESSION Tuesday, February 22, 1994 Study Session Room 4:00 P.M. 1. All agenda items. PC/AGENDA PH *1 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 1994 CASE NO.: PLOT PLAN 93-495 APPLICANT: SIMON PLAZA, INC., MR. PHIL PEAD LOCATION: THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND HIGHWAY 111 REQUEST: APPROVAL OF A MODIFICATION TO CONDITION #36 OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BACKGROUND This request was originally scheduled for Planning Commission consideration on December 14, 1993. The applicant requested and received a continuance to January 11, 1994. Prior to this date, the applicant requested and received an extension to February 22, 1994. The City Council approved the "Simon Plaza" Development on May 18, 1993. The project consists of 22,013± square feet on a 5.6 acre site located southeast of the intersection of Washington Street and Highway 111. The approval users are: medical offices, restaurant, business offices, and a two story parking garage. REQUEST: The applicant is requesting that the last sentence of Condition #36 be changed. Condition #36 reads as follows: "Applicant shall dedicate public street right-of-way and utility easements in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans if any, and these Conditions of Approval noted as follow: A. Washington Street - provide right-of-way as required by the Washington Street specific plan. B. Washington Street/Highway 111 intersection - provide right-of-way cut back as needed to accommodate a 55-foot curb return (45-feet right-of- way). (*)Applicant shall dedicate the required right-of-way within thirty (30) days after receipt of land conveyance documents from the City." PCST.159 1 The applicant would like the last sentence (*) of the condition to read: "Applicant shall dedicate the required right-of-way prior to the issuance of a building permit." ANALYSIS: City staff sent the land conveyance documents to Mr. Pead (the developer) on June 9, 1993. On July 16th, staff sent a letter reminding the developer of the noncompliance status of Condition #36. On July 26th, staff granted a time extension for the dedication to August 24th and again continued to October 4th. The developer was informed that the matter would be referred to Council or the applicant could apply for an amendment to the condition. On November 8, 1993, the applicant submitted a request to modify Condition #36. The applicant has indicated that the reason for not dedicating the right-of-way was because of the unforseen delay in obtaining financing. The improvements to the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street are greatly needed. Without this right-of-way, the City has no alternative but to make the necessary intersection changes within the existing right-of-way. The Conditions of Approval are attached for your review. The entire project is before the Commission for review and the Commission has the right to modify any of the other conditions as they wish. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: The request does not change the project, therefore, the prior environmental review is adequate. RECOMMENIDATION: Move to adopt Minute Motion 94- amending Condition #36B to read as follows: "B. Washington Street/Highway 111 intersection - provide right-of-way cut back as needed to accommodate a 55-foot curb return (45-feet right-of- way). Applicant shall dedicate the required Washington Street/Highway 111 right-of-way prior to the issuance of a building permit." Attachments: 1. Conditions of Approval PCST.159 2 �.ing Development. TEL No.714-361-3374 Feb 18,94 No.001 P.03 February 18th, 1994 Mr Jerry Herman Planning & DcveIupa_:,2!nt Director City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Txmpicc La Quinta Ca 92253 SUBJECT. CONDITION MODIFXATION FOR PLOT PLAN 93-495 Dear Jerry, Yesterday I received a letter from the rst.,uctural engineers assisting ira the design of Simon 'Piraza, requesting more time to analyze the effects of the Northridge ea.rthquaRe on parking structures. As their findings may li ve an impact or. the project, 1 ani requesting a continutancc of our Planning Commission meeting currently set for February 22nc1, 1994. Plearse convey m►• a;pclogies to the members of the con:missi'an. H.-wever, I am sure everyone recognizes the importance of this analysis and as soon as I am riotified of the results, I shall call you to re -schedule. The engineers estimate that they wM have completed their investigations within //}} the next 30 days. Your�'.'sincere 1 �J Philip M. Pead President F.O. BOX 461, 78-611 HWY, 11+, LA QUANTA, CA 22253 * PH.: 619/773-2345 * FAX: 6191556-4567 yling Development, TEL No.714-361-7314 Feb 18.94 9:03 No.001 :�.02 UZ•I( t� Ld: 1J 7al OV_, 1t`a .vae a•"i +nta�.r,a..� ter.•.•. TOM PAPPAS NC: 6483C GA€ E RfAL GCLrr k CA 93117 4147 57A7E STREFT. SUITE F4 -SAc ,IYA SARSAA4. C4L/FORRIIA 93770 r305i $64.0702 . ° T 'l P PP, [h VC STRUC71-1FRAL HL'GlNEcRS February 17, 1994 Simon Plam lrc. 2691 Richter Ave. 0114 Irvine, Ca 92714 Attn: Phil Pead Re- Simon Plan Prolect La Quinta, CO Dear M€', Pd: Because of Ito recent earthquake and the resulttng sic tural carnage it has cQused. we respectfuity request and extecsion of t1me on this project to run another sti've'T ral analysls. The area of pat'tlouiar concem is the parking'wnicture with offices above. Thank you for your c�o_nsido~abon of this request. We! vr}W keep you informed of cur progress. Very Truly Yours • orn Pappas Inc. Ahasta53ds Pappas Strzt=ral Engineer !yling Developmert, T-- No.714-361-3374 Jan 5.94 7:52 No.001 p.Cll Mr Jerry Herman Director of Planning City of L& Quinta La Quinta SENT BY FACSIMILE 5th January, 1994 Dear Jerry, On the ]]th January, Simon Plaza is on the Planning Commission agenda and unfortunately due to some unforseen circumstances, I will be out of town for a significant part of January. I am therefore requesting that we move the Simon Plaza planning commission meeting to mid February. I apologize for any inconvenience and thank you for your assistance in this tter. You s sincerely, t, Philip M. Pead President P.n. Row 461 7R-R11 HWY. 111. I A 011INTA. CA 92253 • PH.: 6191773-2345 • FAX- 619/568-4567 �5�0*, 00/000 e, December 9, 1993 Mr. Jerry Herman City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: Plot Plan 93-495 Dear Jerry, - eq.. 0 E C 0 9 1993 CITY V LA 4UINTA PLANNING DEPARTME,11T .r:ati4esr•�a This letter will confirm my telephone conversation with Betty this date regarding continuing consideration of the above referenced Plot Plan from December 14, 1993 meeting to the January 11, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely yours, SIMON P ZA, INC. �Ph'lip M. Pead President P.O. BOX 461, 78-611 HWY. 111, LA QUINTA, CA 92253 0 PH.: 619/773-2345 0 FAX: 619/568.4567 Pomona First Federal Savings and loan Ass"iafion Since IM November 16, 1993 City of La Quinta Mr. Jerry Herman 78 495 Calle 'Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Mr. Herman: Subject: Simon Plaza/Plat Plan 9349S tU ;t•� �_ n i U 1NOV 18t993 CIT'i OF LA 61'ANTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT We are aware and agree to the application submitted by Mr. Philip Pead on behalf of Simon Plaza requesting an extension of time on Condition 36 of Plat Plan Approval 93495. It is requested that the Condition read that 'dedication of the land required by the City of La Quinta will be made by Simon Plaza prior to the issuance of a building permit for the site. Thank you for your continued cooperation. Very truly yours, POMONA FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION Gilbert F. Smith Senior Vice President General Counsel GFS:dmn AdminWMK* Offiow NO South Gon1, P. a Ba ISM 9 Pbeiona. Camornis 91709 • (714) ff232323 • (900) 332-4733 FILE Copy 4 4 " 78495 CALLE TAMPICO — LA CUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92M • (619) M-7000 FAX (619) M-7191 November fly, 1993 Mr. Phil Pead, President Simon Plaza, Inc, P. O. Box 461 La Quinta, CA 92253 SUBJECT: CONDITION MODIFICATION REQUEST FOR PLOT PLAN 93-495 Dear Mr. Pead: We are in receipt of your request to modify Condition #36 regarding the dedication timing for Washington Street right-of-way. Please be advised that the following information is required: 1. Two sets of property owner mailing labels for the area 300 feet surrounding your property; and 2. Letters of authorization from the current property owners allowing you to process this request. Please provide this information by November 19, 1993. ery truly ours, 01 ERR HERMAN PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR JH : kas cc: City Council City Manager Public Works auuUNo ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 . JA ouiNTA. CAUFORNIA 9M 'ALTRJB.00! RICHARD T. ANDERSON- JOHN 0 WAMLKP MICHAEL 0. NARRKY w CURT EALYn THOMAS S. SLOVAK- JOHNE SROWN• MICHAEL T *MKLL- MEREDITN A JURY- FRANNCK� 6R lµUM ANNE T THOMAS• O MARTIN NETNERY• GEORGE M *EYES WILLIAM W FLOYD. JII GREGORY L. HARM KENDALL N M&cVEY CLARK N ALSOP• DAVID J ERWIN- MR:NAEL J. ANDELSON- • A Fp►V MOkAL Comou' vek BEST, BEST & KRIEGER LAWYERS OOUSLAO I. ftKLI.O• ANTOINA GRAPI106 CLOSE R. TRAYNUM GREGORY K. W"Ifts N WILLIAM 0 OAIILING in. MATT N MORRI6 wYNNE 6 nRTTN DAVID L. SAROM JE/FRET V OLRIN STEVEN C ONAUN "RE TAMARA BAN& T. CHA►MAN ERIC L 6011111NER DENNIS M COTA TIMOTNT M. CONNOR VICTOR L. WOLF RACNELL E J NIQOLL E ROMRT w HARGREAVES OANR?L E. OLIVKR DANIEL J McHUBN JANICE L WE* PATRICK N w r ►EARCE HOWARD B BOLDS STEPHEN P. OEITSCN RIRK w SMITM JASON 0 DAOAREINER MARC E EMPEY JONN R ROTTSC:MAE►ER KYLE A SNOW MARK A EASTER MARTIN A MUELLER J MICHAEL SUMMCROUR DIANE L FINLEY MICHELLE OUELLETTE VICTORIA N KIIIG JEFFERY J CRANDALL DAVID P MIIPPEN, SR $USA" C NAUSS SCOTT C SMITH JACK 0 CLARKE. JR CHRISTOPHER COMON BERNIE L WILUAMSON BRIAR M LEWIS BRADLEY E NEVFELD ELAINE E HILL KEVIN K AANOOLPN SMYL PETER MWBARMACK ILPIN MARSHALALKER JAMES aCS RUDOLPH JEANNETTE A-PETERSON KIM A BYRENS City of La Quinta Mr. Jerry Herman 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 RAYMOND BEST IIa"-1957) JAMES N KRIEGER 119111975) EUGENE BEST (1893-1981) November 10, 1993 Re: Simon Plaza / Plat Plan 93 - 495 Dear Mr. Herman: 400 CAST TAHMATZ G1WM W4 POST OFM WX 2710 PALM S►R1NOS. CALL/OMAA 9224 mutt* aE (Sig) S26.7256 TUCCOACR can S2&*"6 OF COUNSEL JAMES 0 CORISON Offers IN RIVERSIDE (909) 666.1490 RAMCNO MWAGE 1S19) 9"2611 ONTARIO (909) 969-6964 R)2l 1993 Lt. Gul.�!A pc ; !cl:a►�. 0£P. UMENT We are aware and agree to the application submitted by Mr. Philip Pead on behalf of Simon Plaza requesting an extension of time on Condition 36 of Plat Plan Approval 93-495. It is requested that the Condition read that "dedication of the land required by the City of La Quinta will be made by Simon Plaza prior to the issuance of a building permit for the site". PTS/sk Thank you for your continued cooperation. Yours very truly, THE 3 S PARTNERSHIP, a California nartnarch 41n 3%9 9;to*, /0.'0 A November 8, 1993 Due to the unforseen delay in obtaining financing, Simon Plaza requests an extension of time on condition #36. M t CA +, d►4 f 4 K °T Since Philip M. Pead P.O. BOX 461, 78-611 HWX 111, LA QUINTA, CA 92253 • PH.: 619/773-2345 • FAX: 619/5684M Tity; 4 4 Q", 78496 CALLE TAMPICO — LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92263 - (619) 777.7t FAX (616) 777.71 October 13, 1993 Mr. Phil Pead, President Simon Plaza, Inc. P. 0. Box 461 La Quinta, CA 92253 SUBJECT: SIMON PLAZA PLOT PLAN 93-495 - RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION Dear Mr. Pead: I have reviewed your request for more time or City participation in right-of-way acquisition for Washington Street relating to your development. As a reminder, staff sent the land conveyance documents to you on June 9, 1993. Per Condition #36, you had 30 days in which to dedicate the subject right-of-way. On July 16, Steve Speer, Assistant City Engineer, sent you a letter reminding you of your noncompliance with Condition #36. On July 26, 1993, Jerry Herman, Planning and Development Director granted you until August 24th to comply with Condition #36. On September 9th a letter was sent granting you until October 4th to dedicate the right-of- way for Washington Street. This last time extension was granted based upon a letter from C.G.I. Financial Corporation's commitment to release the necessary funds within 40 days. The options available are: 1. You can seek a formal amendment to the approved plot plan. This will require submittal of an application with the appropriate fees. Your request would be to amend Condition #36 to permit a different dedication schedule; however, the Planning Commission and City Council can modify the project or any of the conditions during the public hearing process on the amendment. 2. A second option is for staff to recommend the Council terminate your plot plan approval for failure to comply' with conditions. In order to resolve this issue, your response, in writing or submission of the completed application with fees and drawings, is required by November S. 1993. Should you apply for the amendment, the earliest that it could be scheduled for Planning Commission consideration would LTRJH.288 4 MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - U QUINTA, CAUFORNIA 92253 41 be December 14th with Council consideration on December 21st, provided the meetings are not continued or cancelled. Should you need additional information, please contact Jerry Herman in the Planning and Development Department. Sincerely, ROBERT L. HUNT City Manager RLH:JH:bjs cc: City Council Public works Administrative Services LTRJH.288 T4hf 4 4 9krcv 78495 CALLS TAMPICO — LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) M.7000 FAX (619) M-7101 Fee: 380.00 NOV 0 8 1993 1.JI z �� 11 ml nr. . . �.,._ __ PMMNG DEPA-fii Ij 01 Pi*"e--camp is $380.00. Date Received 11-8-93 Received 8y --�o REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF AN APPROVED ESIDENTIAL 6 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PLOT PLAN his application form. The Fee to process this request 33rz a separate sheet of paper explairn t noC1M4neLt1o3M requested, s1t1rxjW the condition '@,gulatiori to ibe changed . Plot Plan Number 93-495 FR Location/Address SIMON PLAZA ' - L Assessor's Parcel Number ;-J NOV 15 1993 Section/Township/Range Applicant's Name _ Philip M. Pead Mailing Address Signature Owner's Name Mailing Address Signature C O. §ox 461 LaQuinta, CA 92253 Phone: (619) ,273-2345 Phone: ( /Vol.' ar. d► e, '� � — MAIUNO ADDRESS - P.O. 80X 1504 - LA OUINTA. CAUFORNIN 92253 FngV . n 1 Q /rQ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - FINAL PLOT PLAN 93-495 (REVISION) MAY 11, 1993 SIMON PLAZA * Modified by the Planning Commission on 5-11-93 ** Added by the Planning Commission on 5-11-93 *** Deleted by the Planning Commission on 5-11-93 GENERAL 1. The development of the property shall be generally in conformance with the exhibits contained in the file for PP 93-495, unless amended otherwise by the following conditions. 2. The approved plot plan shall be used by May 11, 1994; 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 pursued until completion. A one year time extension may be requested as permitted by Municipal Code provided an extension request is filed by April 11, 1994. 3. There shall be no outdoor storage or sales displays without specific approval of the Planning Commission. 4. 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. 5. Adequate masonry trash enclosures shall be provided for all structures 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. The applicant shall contact the local waste management company to insure that the number of enclosures and size of the enclosures are adequate. 6. Decorative enclosures may be required by the City around any retention basins depending on site grading requirements. The color, location, and placement of said fence(s) shall be approved by the Planning and Development Department. 7. Phased improvement plans shall be subject to Planning Commission review. CONAPRVL.037 1 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93-495 (Revision) - Simon Plaza May 11, 1993 8. Handicap parking spaces and facilities shall be provided per Municipal Code, State, and Federal requirements. 9. A noise study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer to be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for review and approval prior to submission of building plans for plan check or issuance of grading permit, whichever comes first. The study shall concentrate on noise impacts on building interior areas from perimeter streets, and impacts on the proposed abutting and provide mitigation of noise as alternative mitigation measures for incorporation into the project design such as building setbacks, engineering design, building orientation, noise barriers (berming, landscaping and walls, etc.), and other techniques. 10. The project shall comply with all existing Off -Street Parking requirements including but not limited to, shading of parking lot areas and bicycle parking spaces. 11. Perimeter landscaping planters shall be provided at maximum widths possible adjacent to property lines and planted with landscaping. 12. The project shall comply with all applicable Art in Public Places Ordinances. A public art piece shall be installed on the property at a location agreeable to the Art in Public Places Committee (e.g., at the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street). A public easement shall be offered to the City for the site that any art piece may occupy which has been established by the Art in Public Places Committee. 13. * The developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist and pay all associated 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 and Development Director shall approve the firm to be used in the study 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. CONAPRVL.037 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93-495 (Revision) - Simon Plaza May 11, 1993 A list of the qualified archaeological monitor(s), cultural resources management firm employees, and any assistants)/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. 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. 14. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this use, the applicant shall obtain permits or clearances from the following agencies: • City Fire Marshal • City of La Quinta Public Works Department • City of La Quinta Planning and Development Department • Coachella Valley Water District • Desert Sands Unified School District • Imperial Irrigation District • Caltrans (District 11) Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above mentioned agencies shall be presented to the Building and Safety Department at the time of application for a building permit for the proposed project. 15. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City adopted infrastructure fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 16. Final landscaping plans shall include approval stamps and signatures from the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioners office and the Coachella Valley Water District. 17. A bus waiting shelter and bus turnout shall be provided as requested by Sunline Transit on Highway 111 when said street improvements are re -installed or unless other site locations are permitted by the transit authority (e.g., Simon Drive) and the City Engineering Department. CONAPRVL.037 3 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93-495 (Revision) - Simon Plaza May 11, 1993 18. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the applicant shall submit to the Engineering Department an interim landscape program for the entire site which shall be for the purpose of wind and erosion and dust control. The land owner shall institute blow sand and dust control measures during grading and site development. These shall include but not be limited to: a) use of irrigation during construction and grading activities; b) areas not constructed on during first phase shall be planted in temporary ground cover or wildflowers and provided with temporary irrigation system; and c) provisions of wind breaks or wind rolls, fencing and/or landscaping to reduce the effects upon adjacent properties and property owners. The landowner shall comply with requirements of the Directors of Public Works and Planning and Development Departments. All construction and graded areas shall be watered at least twice daily while being used to prevent emission of dust and blow sand. 19. Construction shall comply with all local and State Building Code requirements in effect at the time of issuance of the building permit as determined by the Building Official. 20. 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 of other monitoring to assure such compliance. 21. A parking lot striping plan including directional arrows, stop signs, no parking areas, and parking spaces shall be approved by Planning and Development and Engineering Departments prior to issuance of a building permit. 22. All roof equipment shall be screened from view by parapet walls of building or other architecturally matching materials. 23. All compact spaces shall be clearly marked "compact cars only". 24. That all conditions of the Design Review Board shall be complied with as follows: A. The landscape plan shall include an eight foot wide meandering pedestrian/bike trail. The plans should be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to submission of the final landscape plan by the applicant/developer. CONAPRVL.037 4 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93-495 (Revision) - Simon Plaza May 11, 1993 B. The landscape program for Washington Street shall include a variation of planting materials, i.e., palm trees, accent shade trees, lawn, shrubs, and groundcover. The use of mature California Pepper, Australian Willow, Mesquite, Crape Myrtle, Bottle trees, and Washington Robusta Palms shall be encouraged. Varieties of flowering shrubs such as Texas Ranger, Cassia, Crepe Myrtle, and Dwarf Oleander shall be utilized. Native (low water use) plants shall be used, and the landscape architect should consult the Coachella Valley Water District's plant material list prior to designing their proposal. Uplighted trees or palms shall be used along Washington Street and Highway 111. Incandescent light fixtures will be required (less than 160 watt). Landscaping plan shall conform to Ordinance 220 regarding water conservation. C. Any proposed parking lot lighting plan shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to building plan check. A photometric study shall be developed which analyzes the lighting pattern on the project and meets the City's Lighting Ordinance provisions as explained in Chapter 9.210 and 9.160 (Off -Street Parking). The height of the light poles shall not exceed 18 feet in height, and the lighting contractor should reduce this height if physically possible during review of the project. D. A maximum building height of 28 feet shall be maintained along Washington Street and Highway 111 within 150 feet of the ultimate property line (after street dedication has been included) excluding minor architectural appendages (e.g., chimneys, towers, building columns, etc.). E. Decorative concrete entryways shall be provided for all two-way driveways into the project site. The concrete shall be stamped and colored to accentuate the proposed development. The color, design, and location of the concrete should be reviewed by the Design Review Board during a final plan check review. F. The revised concept design plan shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to the submission of the plans to the Building and Safety Department for final plan check consideration. The plans should include but are not limited to landscaping and irrigation, building elevations, signs, and any other major exterior design features of the project as noted at the Design Review Board meeting of May 5, 1993. G. Bike racks shall be provided at convenient areas within the site for usage by bicycle riders. One space for every 50 parking spaces shall be provided as noted in the Off -Street Parking Code. CONAPRVL.037 5 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93-495 (Revision) - Simon Plaza May 11, 1993 H. The landscape setback on Washington Street shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the new property line. I. All open parking stalls shall be screened by berm walls, landscape hedges, or a combination thereof to a minimum height of 42 inches. J. The maximum floor area ration (F.A.R.) for this project shall be 0.35 per the Policy Standards of the General Plan (LU Table #4). K. The roof design for the 4-story medical office building shall be either 4:12 or higher to give the building balance and proper scale to its mass. L...4 The feef design for- the one stei-y effiee building sMl be similaf te the ene story M. The parking structures tile roof facade shall be eliminated because it is not compatible with the design motif of the four story medical office building. The applicant should evaluate another design style which incorporates a cornice design feature (similar to the upper portion of the four story building) and other articulated features which will soften the elevation and not enhance its presence. N. * The parking structure ramp on the south side of the project shall be stuccoed to match the building. The structure shall be landscaped along its westerly side to conceal its presence. O. The applicant shall include the following features into the four story medical office building: I.... Pfe eas4 stene windew triffi-. 2. * Individual pane windows or grid molded windows can be used. 3. * Additional building column connections should be used where agreed upon with the Design Review Board. 4. Accented building roof heights. 5. Revision to the elevator shaft design and its relationship to Highway 111. 6.... Energy eensefyation measures shall be Feview . 7.... The two story elements on the west side of the four- s" building shall be redesigned so that the mef eenneets inte th building (delete th existingwindows). CONAPRVL.037 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93-495 (Revision) - Simon Plaza May 11, 1993 CITY FIRE MARSHAL 25. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 3500 gpm for a three hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. Fire flow is based upon all buildings being equipped with automatic fire sprinklers. 26. A combination of on -site and off -site Super fire hydrants, on a looped system (6" X 4" X 21/2" X 2'/z"), will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. 27. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the applicant/developer shall furnish one blueline copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review/approval. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County ]Eire Department." The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and operational prior to start of construction. 28. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13. The post indicator valve and Fire Department connection shall be located to the front within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). System plans must be submitted with a plan check/inspection fee to the Fire Department for review. A statement that the building(s) will be automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the building plans. 29. Install a supervised waterflow fire alarm system as required by the Uniform Building Code. 30. Install a Hood Duct automatic fire extinguishing system. System plans must be permitted, along with a plan check/inspection fee, to the Fire Department for review. 31. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2Al0BC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 32. Occupancy separation will be required as per the Uniform Building Code, #503. CONAPRVL.037 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93-495 (Revision) - Simon Plaza May 11, 1993 33. Install Panic Hardware and "Exit" signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. 34. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes. 35. Install a Class I Standpipe System. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: 36. Applicant shall dedicate public street right-of-way and utility easements in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, if any, and these Conditions of Approval noted as follows: A. Washington Street - Provide right-of-way as required by the Washington Street Specific Plan. B. Washington Street/Highway 111 Intersection - Provide right-of-way cut back as needed to accommodate a 55-foot curb return (45-feet right-of-way). *C. Applicant shall dedicate the required right-of-way within thirty (30) days after receipt of land conveyance documents from the City. 37. Applicant shall provide a fully improved landscaped setback area of noted minimum width adjacent to the following street right-of-way: A. Washington Street - 20-feet wide; B. Highway 111, 50 feet wide; C. Simon Plaza, 10 feet wide 38. Applicant shall vacate vehicle access rights to all streets from the project site except for three locations as proposed by the applicant as shown on the site plan drawing. :< CONAPRVL.037 8 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93-495 (Revision) - Simon Plaza May 11, 1993 39. * Applicant shall reimburse City for design and construction cost for all street improvements to be installed by the City located east of the existing, Washington Street curb and gutter improvements and contiguous to the project site The new improvements include street widening. curb and gutter, asphalt concrete overlay. landscaping and hardscape 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk. traffic striping and signing, along with all appurtenant incidentals and improvements needed to properly integrate and join together the new and existing improvements. 40. Applicant shall reimburse City for 5 % of the cost to design and install a new traffic signal at the Washington Street/Highway 111 intersection. 41. Appheant shall r-eimburse Gity for- 25% of the eest to design and install tr-affie sign 41. * Applicant shall reimburse City for 12 5 % of the cost to design and install traffic signal at the Simon Drive/Highway 111 intersection. 42. Applicant shall reimburse City for cost to design and install bus stop "pullout" on Highway 111. 43. Applicant shall reimburse City for half of the cost to design and install raised median improvements and landscaping on Highway 111 in the portion contiguous to the project site. 44. Applicant shall enter into a secured agreement with the City to pay for the City installed improvements required by these Conditions of Approval before the grading permit is issued. 45. A thorough preliminary engineering, geological, and soils engineering investigation shall be conducted with a report submitted for review along with grading plan. The report recommendations shall be incorporated into the grading plan design prior to grading plan approval. The soils engineer and/or the engineering geologist must certify to the adequacy of the grading plan. 46. The grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. 47. The site shall be designed and graded in a manner so the elevation difference between the building pad elevations on site and the adjacent street curb do not exceed three (3.0) feet. CONAPRVL.037 9 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93-495 (Rev•sion) - Simon Plaza May 11, 1993 48. Applicant shall provide storm drain facilities with sufficient capacity to evacuate all water that falls on -site and off -site to the centerline of the streets adjoining the site during the, 1-hour duration, 25-year storm event. The storm drain facility shall convey the storm water from the site to the Whitewater Channel. The applicant may purchase capacity on a fair share basis in a storm drain to be designed and constructed in Washington Street by the City, if the City proceeds with said storm drain facility within time constraints which suit the applicant. The tributary drainage area for which the applicant is responsible shall extend to the centerline of Washington Street, Highway 111, and Simon Drive. 49. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect for the landscaped setback areas. The plans and proposed landscaping improvements shall be in conformance with requirements of the Planning Director, City Engineer, and Coachella Valley Water District and the plans shall be signed these officials prior to construction. 50. Applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed grading, landscaping and irrigation plans to the Coachella Valley Water District for review and approval with respect to the District's Water Management Program. 51. Applicant shall landscape and maintain the landscaped setback area and right-of-way between all street curbing and property lines. 52. Applicant shall construct an eight -foot wide meandering bike path in the combined easterly parkway of Washington Street and southerly parkway of Highway 111 in lieu of the standard six-foot wide sidewalk. A six foot wide sidewalk shall be constructed on Simon Drive. 53. All existing and proposed telecommunication, television cable, and electric power lines with 12,500 volts or less, that are adjacent to the proposed site or on -site, shall be installed in underground facilities. 54. Underground utilities that lie directly under street improvements or portions thereof shall be installed, with trenches compacted to city standards, prior to installation of that portion of the street improvement. A soils engineer retained by Applicant shall provide certified reports of soil compaction tests for review by the City Engineer. 55. Applicant shall pay all fees charged by the city as required for processing, plan checking and construction inspection. The fee amount(s) shall be those which are in effect at the time the work is undertaken and accomplished by the city. CONAPRVL.037 10 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93-495 (Revision) - Simon Plaza May 11, 1993 56. Applicant shall retain a California registered civil engineer, or designate one who is on applicant's staff, to exercise sufficient supervision and quality control during construction of the tract grading and improvements to certify compliance with the plans, specifications, applicable codes, and ordinances. The engineer retained or designated by the applicant to implement this responsibility shall provide the following certifications and documents upon completion of construction: A. The engineer shall sign and seal a statement placed on the "as built" plans that says "all (grading and grades) (improvements) on these plans were properly monitored by qualified personnel under my supervision during construction for compliance with the plans and specifications and the work shown hereon was constructed as approved, except where otherwise noted hereon and specifically acknowledged by the City Engineer". B. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the engineer shall provide a separate document, signed and sealed, to the City Engineer that documents the building pad elevations. The document shall, for each pad, state the pad elevation approved on the grading plan, the as built elevation, and clearly identify the difference, if any. The data shall be organized by phase and shall be cumulative if the data is submitted at different times. C. Provide to the City Engineer a signed set of "as built" reproducible drawings of the site grading and all improvements installed by the applicant. 57. The parking stalls on the north side of the office complex as determined by Staff, shall be restricted to either handicapped parking or reserved parking to help eliminate queuing at the Highway 111 access driveway. 58. The driveways on Washington Street and on Highway 111 shall be restricted to right turn movements only. 59. Turning movements at the intersection of Washington Street and Simon Drive shall be restricted to right turns only in accordance with the Washington Street Specific Plan. SPECIAL 60. All required improvements shall be completed prior to first site occupancy of the proposed development. CONAPRVL.037 11 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93-495 (Revision) - Simon Plaza May 11, 1993 61. The parking structure shall not exceed 15 feet in overall height as measured from finished grade pad elevation within 100 feet of Highway 111. Exterior lighting on top level of parking structure shall not exceed six feet and not be within ten feet of outside wall. 62. All mitigation measures of Environmental Assessment 91-211 shall be met. 63. The parcels shall be legally merged prior to building permit issuance. 64. Prior to issuance of any land disturbance permit, the applicant shall pay the required mitigation fees for the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Program, so adopted by the City, in the amount of $600 per acre of disturbed land. 65. * The north side of the parking structure shall include perimeter grade planting as deemed appropriate by the Design Review Board. 66. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, a parking analysis shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department to verify compliance with the Off -Street Parking requirements. Prior to each subsequent phase beginning construction a new parking study based on existing usage and potential demand shall be submitted. In each study, building size adjustments shall be made if it is determined that a parking deficiency exists. 67. Appropriate and adequate service delivering areas (loading facilities) and trash facilities shall be provided as required by the Off -Street Parking Code. The facilities shall include areas for recycling bins and be approved by Staff during the final review process. The standards and requirements of AB 939 (recycling) shall be met. This shall include provisions for on -site recycling of recyclable materials by the tenants in conjunction with the City's franchise hauler contract provisions. 68. An on -site elevator(s) shall service the site and provide accessibility from the parking garage to each respective building floor level. The design and installation of the elevator shall meet both Uniform Building Code standards and any other California State requirements. 69. The existing six foot high soundwall along the Washington Street frontage road shall be extended between the frontage road and Washington Street northerly of its present location to the northeasterly corner of Lot 27 of Tract 2043 (Singing Palms Drive and Washington Street) to mitigate traffic noise impacts on the existing R-1 single family neighborhood. CONAPRVL.037 12 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93-495 (Revision) - Simon Plaza May 11, 1993 70. A Transportation Demand Management Plan shall be submitted (Ordinance 217) if the project or the ultimate development of the site employs 100 or more persons. The plan can be prepared by either the property owner or the tenant(s) within the development. The plan shall be submitted and approved by the Director of Planning and Development. 71. The provisions of the City's newly adopted Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance (#220) shall be met. 72. ** The applicant shall provide a theme plaza at the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street as required by the General Plan which shall include landscaping, public furniture and a public art piece. The art piece can contain the developers main identification sign (Sign #1), if it is an integral part of the theme plaza and/or the public art piece. The design shall be approved by the Art in Public Places Committee and the City Council as required by Chapter 2.65 of the Municipal Code. The developer shall retain an artist to help design the theme plaza. The theme plaza size shall not be less than 2,000 square feet and the overall design should be similar to the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center theme plaza at the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street.. 73. ** The medical office building shall not exceed three stories with a maximum 40-foot height. The height of the building shall be measured from the existing grade (top of curb) on Highway 111. The developer can reallocate the fourth floor square footage into the project (e.g., over the parking structure) provided the new site plan does include adding two story elements into the 150-foot setback requirement on either arterial street. The revised design shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission prior to preparation of final working drawings. CONAPRVL.037 13 PH #2 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 1994 CASE NO: TENTATIVE TRACT 27840, AMENDMENT #1 REQUEST: APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO ADD THREE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS LOTS ON A 55+ ACRE SITE. APPLICANT: TD DESERT DEVELOPMENT OWNER: TD DESERT DEVELOPMENT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ENGINEER: SANBORN WEBB LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF WASHINGTON STREET SOUTH OF 48TH AVENUE, WITHIN RANCHO LA QUINTA ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT #90 WAS CERTIFIED BY THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE FOR THE PREVIOUS SPECIFIC PLAN (SP 127-E) WHICH ENCOMPASSED A MORE EXTENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL THAN THAT APPROVED BY SPECIFIC PLAN 84-004. APPROPRIATE MITIGATION MEASURES HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE CURRENT SPECIFIC PLAN. THEREFORE, NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS DEEMED NECESSARY. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: G (GOLF COURSE/OPEN SPACE) AND LDR (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) ZONING: R-2 20,000/PD BACKGROUND: This property is a part of Specific Plan 84-004 which was approved by the City on November 20, 1984. This tentative tract map was originally approved by the City Council on September 21, 1993 and is a part of "Rancho La Quinta" which just recently began construction. Since that time a second tentative tract map (Tentative Tract 27835) for property to the east has been approved by the City Council. PCST.169 1 The original Tentative Tract, 27840, provided for 127 single family residential lots, several recreation lots and a number of street and other miscellaneous lots. Eight of the lots were originally proposed for custom homes. The balance of the residential lots were proposed for detached single family residences. PROPOSED AMENDMENT: The applicant is proposing relatively minor amendment changes to the map. All of the large custom lots have been eliminated. As a result of this, three additional residential lots are being created bringing the total number of lots for residential use to 130. The five recreation lots originally approved, are still noted on the revised map. The majority of the custom lots which were at the northwest corner of the property are now proposed to be developed with Hacienda models (2,940 square feet to 3,265 square feet) and are noted as lots 1-10 on the amended tentative tract map. As a result of a land survey of the tract area, it became apparent that there was some property which was not part of the golf course or a part of the proposed tract which needed to be accounted for as lots. Those lots are indicated on the amended subdivision map as "letter lots", generally surrounding the golf course area. These lots are in fact now part of the golf course. Other amendments to the map consist of minor orientation changes to the access of the lots, lot line modifications along side yards, and minor changes to lot access for several lots. ANALYSIS: Overall, the proposed amendments to the tentative tract map are relatively minor. With the increase of three residential lots, the total number of residential lots approved for this project (TT 27835 and TT 27840) will rise from 219 to 222 lots. The lot configuration changes are for the most part acceptable. Proposed lots 60 and 61 have unusual configurations at the front property line and are recommended for amendment. This area is presently utilized for the models and parking lot area. The lettered lots which are shown as part of the golf course will need to be merged with the golf course parcels at the same time that the final tract map is recorded. The Engineering Department has included a condition regarding this matter. FINDINGS: Findings to recommend approval of this amended tentative tract map can be made and are contained in the draft resolution. RECOMMENDATION: By adoption of Resolution 94- , recommend approval of Amendment #1 to Tentative Tract 27840 to the City Council, subject to the attached conditions. PCST.169 Attachments: 1. Location map 2. Amended Tentative Tract Map exhibit 3. Comments from other City Departments and agencies 4. Draft Planning Commission Resolution and Conditions of Approval PCST.169 3 �e Wn (TT 27840) STD I!M' 1#1 e /Nr�Sr O /TE ,vim VICIA117Y r1AP nr. T 5• co•ec 'cuw 25 cf?i,,, 4 4 a "" MEMORANDUM TO: Stan Sawa Principal Planner FROM: Fred R. Bouma Associate Engin er DATE: February 16, 1994 SUBJECT: Tentative Tract 27840 - Amended Map FEB 16 The Engineering Division requests the following revisions to the Conditions of Approval for the original Tentative Tract: Condition 7 - In the first and third sentences, add "and Washington Street" to "48th Avenue." Condition 12 - Add the following: "G. Any final map including Lot 60 of this tentative map shall increase the street lot frontage for that lot to a minimum of 50 feet." "H. Prior to approval of any final map within this amended tentative map, golf course lots L through S of this map shall be merged with Parcel 5." Condition 20 B - Add the following "Additional right-of-way as necessary to provide a minimum of 12 feet of right-of-way behind the curbing for the full length of Washington Street frontage. The main entryway shall include corner cutbacks in addition to the 12-foot setback." Condition 21 - Add the following paragraph: "Setback lots not shown on the amended tentative map shall be designated as such on final maps within the Amended Tentative Map," Condition 66 - Revise the second paragraph to read as follows: "The applicant shall develop tract phases in the order of the approved phasing plan. Improvements required of each final map shall be completed and accepted by the City Council prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy within that map unless otherwise provided in the phasing plan." PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO A SUBDIVISION ON APPROXIMATELY 55 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF 48TH AVENUE AND EAST OF WASHINGTON STREET TENTATIVE TRACT 27840, AMENDMENT #1 TT) DESERT DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 22nd day of February, 1994, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing as requested by TD Desert Development on the request to amend a previously approved subdivision with associated street, common area and recreation lots, generally located on the southeast corner of 48th Avenue and Washington Street within Rancho La Quinta, more particularly described as: PORTIONS OF PARCELS 1, 2, 5, AND 8 OF PARCEL MAP 20469 T5S, 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 83-63, that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and addendum EIR have been adopted. Therefore, no additional environmental documentation is deemed necessary; and, WHEREAS, at the Public Hearing held on the 22nd day of February, 1994, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Commission did make findings to justify the recommendation for approval of said amended tentative tract map; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing said amended Tentative Tract Map 27840 was recommended for approval by the La Quinta Planning Commission based on said findings and subject to certain conditions; and, WHEREAS, the La Quinta Planning Commission on the 22nd day of February, 1994, did find the following facts to justify recommending approval of said amended tentative tract map: 1. The design and improvements of the approved amended Tentative Tract 27840 are consistent with the current goals and objectives of the La Quinta General Plan. 2. Amended Tentative Tract 27840 is consistent with current standards of the Municipal Zoning and Land Division Ordinances. RESOPC.131 Planning Commission Resolution 94- 3. The subject site is physically suitable for a 130 unit development. 4. The design of amended Tentative Tract 27840 and its related improvements are not likely to cause environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat provided that approval conditions related to mitigation measures for the flora, fauna, and archaeological resources are complied with during project development. 5. The design or amended Tentative Tract 27840 and the type of improvements are not likely to cause public health problems nor would they conflict with existing public easements. 6. There is no evidence to suggest that approval of amended Tentative Tract 27840 could have a major adverse impact on the environment. 7. The location and appearance of the proposed dwelling units will be made compatible with the area in which the 130 unit development is located. 8. The proposed private circulation system will provide for the safe and efficient movement of vehicles within the project, and the use of small private streets within some areas of the project will not impact the overall safety of the future residents. 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 concur with the environmental determination and recommends approval of the above described amended Tentative Tract 27840, for the reasons set forth in this resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval as recommended by the La Quinta Planning Commission and modified herein. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 22nd day of February, 1994, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RESOPC.131 2 Planning Commission Resolution 94- KATIE BARROWS, Chairwoman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California RESOPC.131 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 94- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED TENTATIVE TRACT 27840 - RANCHO LA QUINTA FEBRUARY 22, 1994 * Added by Planning Commission on 9-14-93 ** Amended by Planning Commission on 9-14-93 + Deleted by City Council on 9-21-93 + + Recommended for amendment or addition by Planning Commission 2-22-94 GENERAL: + + 1. Amended Tentative Tract Map 27840 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 tentative tract map approval shall expire and become void in two years on September 21, 1995, unless extended pursuant to the City's Subdivision Ordinance. 3. 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) 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 Division at the time of the application for a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 4. This approval shall be in compliance with all applicable conditions and applicable provisions of Specific Plan No. 84-004 and applicable Development Agreement. CONAPRVL.105 Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 27840, Amendment #1 - Rancho La Quinta February 22, 1994 5. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 6. Construction shall comply with all local and State building code requirements as determined by the Building and Safety Director. ++7. Applicant shall provide landscape improvements in the setback lots along 48th Avenue and Washington Street. Design of these setbacks shall be reviewed by the Design Review Beef and approved by the Planning Commission. The applicant is encouraged to minimize steep slope designs within the perimeter landscaping setback areas along 48th Avenue. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or spray irrigation within 5-feet of street curb. ++8. Landscaping and irrigation plans for landscaped lots, common retention basins and park facilities shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and approved by the Design Review Beafd and Planning Commission. The plans and proposed landscaping improvements shall be in conformance with requirements of and be signed by the Planning Director, the City Engineer, the Coachella Valley Water District, and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner. 9. Applicant shall insure that landscaping plans and utility plans are coordinated to provide visual screening of above -ground utility structures.. 10. Applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed grading, landscaping and irrigation plans to the Coachella Valley Water District for review and approval with respect to the District's Water Management Program. TRACT AND BUILDING DESIGN ++I1. Development of the project site shall comply with amended tentative tract map Exhibit A, as contained in the Planning and Development Department's file for Tentative Tract 27840, Amendment #1, and the following conditions, which conditions shall take precedence in the event of any conflict with the provisions of the tentative tract map. ++12. The development of custom, single-family lots, if any, shall be governed by the following: A. The applicant shall establish a Design Review Committee to review and approve all custom home development within Tentative Tract 27840. 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 CONAPRVL.105 Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 27840, Amendment #1 - Rancho La Quinta February 22, 1994 design themes throughout the tract. Procedures and operation of the committee shall be set forth in the Tract's CC & R's. B. Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for any house within Tentative Tract 27840, landscaping/groundcover shall be installed and appropriately maintained. C. All roof -mounted equipment shall be screened from view at all sides by design of the house. All ground -mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from view by methods approved by the Planning and Development Department. D. No two-story units shall be allowed within 75-feet of 48th Avenue per the specific plan approval. + + E. The minimum dwelling unit (living area) size for all residential units shall be 'W 1,400 square feet (excluding attached or detached parking garage) per City ordinance. F. All dwelling units shall have a minimum two car garage measuring 20-feet by 20- feet in overall size. The garage can be either attached or detached. ++ G. Any final map including Lot 60 of this tentative map shall increase the street lot frontage for that lot to a minimum of 50 feet. + + H. Prior to approval of any final map within this amended tentative map, golf course Lots L through S of this map shall be merged with Parcel 5. 13. Any minor changes in lot mix, sizes, lines, or shapes, or street alignments, shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Development Department prior to any final map approvals for recordation. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 14. All existing and proposed utilities adjacent to or on the proposed site or shall be installed in underground facilities. Electric power lines over 66KV are not subject to this requirement per the specific plan. 15. 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. CONAPRVL.105 Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 27840, Amendment #1 - Rancho La Quinta February 22, 1994 MANAGEMENT: 16. Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Director the following documents which shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that the open space/recreation areas and private streets and drives shall be maintained in accordance with the intent and purpose of this approval. A. The document to convey title; B. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions to be recorded; and, C. Management and maintenance agreement to be entered into with the unit/lot owners of this land division. The approved Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions shall be recorded at the same time that the final subdivision map is recorded. A Homeowners' Association with the unqualified right to assess the owners of the individual units for reasonable maintenance costs, shall be established and continuously maintained. The association shall have the right to lien the property of any owners who default in the payment of their assessments. Such lien shall not be subordinate to any encumbrance other than a first deed of trust, provided that such deed of trust is made in good faith and for value and is of record prior to the lien of the Homeowners' Association. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT 17. 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 and shall meet all other obligations or secured said obligations before approval of this tentative map or before any final map(s) under this tentative tract map as specified hereinafter. Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing structures or obstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements. 18. If tract improvements are phased with multiple final maps, off -site improvements and tract -wide improvements (i.e., perimeter walls, common areas and setback landscaping, and gates) required of any final map within this map unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Tentative map shall be constructed or secured prior to approval of the first final map. 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 final maps within the tentative map. CONAPRVL.105 Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 27840, Amendment #1 - Rancho La Quinta February 22, 1994 19. The applicant shall reimburse the development to the north for the actual cost to that development for construction of improvements to the south side of Avenue 48 contiguous to this tentative tract. This reimbursement may be deferred until Phase II of the Rancho La Quinta development provided the applicant provides security in guarantee of the reimbursement. ACQUISITIONS AND DEDICATIONS: 20. Applicant shall dedicate or deed public street right-of-way and utility easements for the full Rancho La Quinta development of which this tentative map is a part. Said easements shall conform with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans and as required by the City Engineer. Dedications or deeds required for approval of this tract include: A. Avenue 48: 55-feet half width right-of-way. + + B. Washington Street: 60-feet half width right-of-way from the specific plan centerline of Washington Street as amended and provided by the City. Additional right-of-way as necessary to provide a minimum of 12 feet of right-of-way behind the curbing for the full length of Washington Street frontage. The main entryway shall include corner cutbacks in addition to the 12 foot setback. C. North boundary of tentative tract - easement for acceptance of drainage from existing drainage facilities in sag point in Avenue 48. 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. Dedication or deeding of street rights -of -way and utility easements shall be made within 60-days of written demand for such dedications by the City Engineer or concurrent with approval of any final map within this tentative map, whichever event occurs first. ** Prior to approval of this Final Map, the applicant shall make a good -faith effort to acquire, at a fair price, the land parcel known as Riverside County APN 617-310-023, a wedge of property lying between Washington Street and the southwest corner of the Rancho La Quinta property. If successful in acquiring the property, the applicant shall dedicate or deed right-of-way along the Washington Street frontage of the property at the time of approval of the tentative map. If the applicant is not able to acquire the property at a fair price, the applicant shall, prior to approval of the Final Map, submit a request to the City to acquire the property via the power of eminent domain. The request shall be guaranteed by security in the CONAPRVL.105 Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 27840, Amendment #1 - Rancho La Quinta February 22, 1994 amount of 150 % of the appraised cost of the property plus estimated legal fees, administrative fees and court costs. If the property is acquired in this manner, the applicant shall deed or dedicate Washington Street right-of-way and common -area setback lots along this property within 60 days of the acquisition of the property. The applicant shall be responsible for one third of the cost of the acquisition (including legal and administrative costs and court costs) of this property. The City will grant a credit to the applicant in the amount of two thirds of the cost of the acquisition. The credit will be made against the applicant's other obligations with respect to this development. The means of granting of this credit shall be determined at a later date. 21. Prior to approval of the first final map under this tentative map, the applicant shall dedicate or deed common area setback lots, of minimum width as noted, for the full length of the Rancho La Quinta development adjacent to the following street rights -of - way: A. Avenue 48: 20-feet B. Washington Street: 20-feet Minimum widths may be used as average widths for meandering wall designs. Where sidewalks, bikepaths, and/or equestrian trails are required, the applicant shall dedicate or deed blanket easements over the setback lots for those purposes. + + Setback lots not shown on the amended tentative map shall be designated as such on final maps within the amended tentative map. 22. The applicant shall vacate vehicle access rights along the following streets from lots abutting the streets: A. Avenue 48 B. Washington Street Access along these streets shall be restricted to approved project entries and emergency access locations. 23. The applicant shall dedicate or deed any easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines and structures, park lands, drainage basins, common areas, and mailbox clusters. 24. The applicant shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any portion of the property included in this tentative map between the date of approval by the City Council and the date of recording of any final map(s) covering the same portion of the property unless such easements are approved by the City Engineer. CONAPRVL.105 6 Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 27840, Amendment #1 - Rancho La Quinta February 22, 1994 25. The requirements of the City's Off -Street Parking Ordinance shall be met concerning all supplemental accessory facilities. 26. 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. 27. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a condition so as to prevent a dust and blowsand nuisance and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other wind and water erosion control measures as approved by the Planning and Development and Public Works Departments. 28. The applicant shall comply with the City's Flood Protection Ordinance. 29. 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. 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 tract, 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 the tract phase and lot number and shall be cumulative if the data is submitted at different times. 30. The tract shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention capacity to flow out of the tract through a designated overflow outlet and into the historic drainage relief route. Similarly, the tract shall be graded to receive storm flow from adjoining property at locations that have historically received flow. 31. Storm water run-off produced in 24 hours during a 100-year storm shall be retained on site. The tributary drainage area for which the applicant is responsible shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets. CONAPRVL.105 Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 27840, Amendment #1 - Rancho La Quinta February 22, 1994 32. In design of retention facilities, the percolation rate shall be considered to be zero unless applicant provides site -specific data that indicates otherwise. For common retention basins 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. The 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. 33. The design of the tract shall not cause any change in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the tract. 34. The applicant shall consider drainage from adjacent developments as required in the specific plan and hereinabove. 35. 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. 36. Improvements plans for all on- and off -site street 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 4.011/5.00" Secondary Arterial 4.0"/6.00" Primary Arterial 4.5"/6.00" Major Arterial 5.5"/6.50" CONAPRVL.105 8 Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 27840, Amendment #1 - Rancho La Quinta February 22, 1994 If the applicant proposes to construct a partial pavement section for use during development of the tract, the partial section shall be designed with a strength equivalent to the 20-year design strength. 37. 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 U.S. Post Office and the City Engineer. Mid - block street lighting is not required. 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 includes street width transitions extending beyond the tract boundaries. 38. The following street and landscaping improvements shall be constructed to conform with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses: A. OFF -SITE STREETS ** 2. Washington Street (Major Arterial) - 48' half width - with medians. The half -width improvements shall extend from Avenue 48 southerly to a point west of the most westerly southwest corner of the Rancho La Quinta development. 3. Washington Street at Eisenhower Drive - modification of traffic signal for four -legged intersection. The Applicant shall pay all costs of the modification and shall reimburse the City for its $3,400 cost of the design of said modification. If the Applicant's total cost for the design and modification of the signal exceeds by any amount the $25,000 cap set forth in the Development Agreement underlying this tract, that amount shall be credited toward the Applicant's obligation to participate in the improvement of Adams Street between Ave 48 and Highway 111. * 4. Adams Street (Primary Arterial) - 80-foot full improvement width. The applicant shall participate in 9.6% of the cost to design and construct Adams Street between Avenue 48 and Highway 111, including the cost of signals at Highway 111 and Avenue 48. The 9.6 % figure is based on a prorata share of traffic contributed by the Rancho La Quinta project to Adams Street based on a calculation made by City staff utilizing the traffic study prepared for Specific Plan 84-004. CONAPRVL.105 Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 27840, Amendment #1 - Rancho La Quinta February 22, 1994 * B. ON -SITE STREETS 1. Main interior circulation road - 36-feet wide. ++ 2. Residential streets adjacent to lots 87 89 89-91 and lots 59-68 62-71 - 26- feet wide. 3. All other interior streets - 32-feet wide. 39. Access points and turning movements of traffic shall be restricted as follows: A. Ave 48 at Adams Street - full -turn access to line up with Adams Street B. Washington Street at Eisenhower Drive - full -turn access to line up with Eisenhower Drive. LANDSCAPING 40. The applicant shall provide landscape improvements in the setback lots and medians along the following streets: A. Avenue 48 B. 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. 41. Prior to approval of building permits, the applicant shall prepare a water conservation plan which shall include consideration of: A. Methods to minimize the consumption of water, including water saving features incorporated into the design of the structures, the use of drought tolerant and low- water usage landscaping materials, and programs to increase the effectiveness of landscape and golf course irrigation, as recommended by Coachella Valley Water District and the State Department of Water Resources. B. Methods for maximizing groundwater recharge, including the construction of groundwater recharge facilities. CONAPRVL.105 10 Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 27840, Amendment #1 - Rancho La Quinta February 22, 1994 C. Methods for minimizing the amount of water used for on -site irrigation, including the use of reclaimed water from sewage treatment facilities. The water energy plan shall be subject to review and acceptance by CVWD prior to final approval by the City Engineer. 42. Landscape and irrigation plans for 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. 43. The applicant shall insure that landscaping plans and utility plans are coordinated to provide visual screening of above -ground utility structures. QUALITY ASSURANCE 44. 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. 45. 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. 46. 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. CONAPRVL.105 11 Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 27840, Amendment #1 - Rancho La Quinta February 22, 1994 MAINTENANCE 47. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous maintenance of landscaping and related improvements. 48. 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 a homeowner's association (HOA). The applicant shall maintain all other improvements until final acceptance of tract improvements by the City Council. 49. The applicant shall provide an Executive Summary Maintenance Booklet for streets, landscaping and related improvements, perimeter walls, drainage facilities, or any other improvements to be maintained by an HOA. The booklet should include drawings of the facilities, recommended maintenance procedures and frequency, and a costing algorithm with fixed and variable factors to assist the HOA in planning for routine and long term maintenance. FEES AND DEPOSITS 50. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall provide the Planning and Development Department with written clearance from the Desert Sands Unified School District that the per -unit impact fees have been paid. 51. 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. FIRE MARSHAL: 52. Schedule A fire protection approved Super fire hydrants, (6" X 4" X 21/2 X 21/2") shall be located at each street intersection spaced not more than 330 feet apart in any direction with no portion of any frontage more than 165 feet from a fire hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 gpm for two hours duration at 20 psi. 53. Prior to recordation of the final map, applicant/developer shall furnish one blueline copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review/approval. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." CONAPRVL . 10 5 12 Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 27840, Amendment #1 - Rancho La Quinta February 22, 1994 54. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot. 55. A temporary water supply for fire protection may be allowed for the construction of the model units only. Plans for a temporary water system must be submitted to the Fire Department for review prior to issuance of building permits. 56. Gates installed to restrict access shall be power operated and equipped with a Fire Department override system consisting of Knox key operated switches, series KS-2P with dust cover, mounted per recommended standard of the Knox Company. Improvement plans for the entry street and gates shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review/approval prior to installation. 57. If public use type buildings are t required. Fire flows and hydrant reviewed by the Fire Department. MISCELLANEOUS o be constructed, additional fire protection may be location will be stipulated when building plans are 58. On- and off -site grading, drainage, street, lighting, landscaping & irrigation, park, gate, and perimeter wall plans shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for plan checking. The plans are not approved for construction until they have been signed by the City Engineer. 59. 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. 60. Appropriate approvals shall be secured prior to establishing any construction or sales facilities, and/or signs on the subject property. 61. Restroom facilities for the groundskeepers shall be provided in the vicinity of golf course, and a permanent golf course and homeowners maintenance facility shall be constructed on the property to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Development. 62. All lighting facilities shall comply with Chapter 9.210 (Outdoor Light Control) and be designed to minimize light and glare impacts to surrounding property. All lighting to be installed, including street and common area, shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning and Development Department. CONAPRVL.105 13 Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 27840, Amendment #1 - Rancho La guinta February 22, 1994 63. Applicant/Developer shall work with Waste Management of the Desert to implement provisions of AB 939 and AB 1462. The applicant/developer is required to work with Waste Management in setting up the following programs for this project: A. Developer shall prepare a plan to provide enlarged trash enclosures for inclusion of separate facilities for storage of recyclables such as glass, plastics, newsprint and steel & aluminum cans. B. Developer shall provide proper on -site storage facilities within the project for green waste associated with golf course and common area maintenance. Compost materials shall be stored for pick-up by Waste Management, or an authorized hauler for transport to an appropriate facility. C. Curbside recycling service shall be provided in areas where no centralized trash/recycling bins are provided or utilized. 64. The specific plan requires ten acres of land to be dedicated for park purposes. 7.8 acres has been dedicated to date. The balance of 2.2 acres shall be paid as a in -lieu fee prior to recordation of the final map. 65. Per the specific plan Conditions of Approval, a contribution of $100,000 as a fire mitigation measure, shall be paid prior to issuance of the first building permit for production homes or any custom homes. ++66. 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 approved phasing plan se-th of Oeeupaney within subsequent final . Improvements required of each final map shall be completed and accepted by the City Council prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy within that map unless otherwise provided in the phasing plan. *67. Along 36-foot wide streets, stripped and labeled golf cart lanes shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Director of Planning and Development. *68. A complete pedestrian and bicycle path system shall be provided within the project. The design shall be subject to the approval of the Planning and Development Director. *69. All conditions and requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District shall be met as noted in their letter dated August 10, 1993, on file in the Department of Planning and Development. CONAPRVL.105 14 PH #3 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 1994 CASE NO.: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 93-035 REQUEST: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL COMMUNICATIONS TOWERS AND RELATED STRUCTURES - TO BE ADDED AS CHAPTER 9.218 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE (ATTACHMENT 1) APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA LOCATION: CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 93-270 FOR THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE. BASED UPON THIS ASSESSMENT, THE ORDINANCE WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. THEREFORE, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT HAS BEEN PREPARED. BACKGROUND: Staff has prepared a draft ordinance regulating the location and development of commercial communications antennas, towers, and related structures. City Council directed staff to prepare this ordinance after the review of the PACTEL Cellular case (PUP 93-015). The PACTEL application was for approval to attach additional antennas and microwave dishes to an existing tower at the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) complex on Avenue 58. The City of La Quinta does not have any ordinances or policies addressing commercial towers and antennas. Staff currently processes applications for towers as public use permits, utilizing existing height standards and zoning requirements. These standards are limited in usefulness when reviewing an application for a tower project. On September 21, 1993, staff presented to the City Council a copy of the draft ordinance as a study session item (Attachment 2) and received direction to circulate the document for agency review and comment and then set it for public hearing before the Planning Commission and City Council (Attachment 3) . Staff transmitted the ordinance to 44 public and private entities (see Attachment 4) that might be affected or concerned with the ordinance. A review period was provided and comments were received. A cover letter from staff accompanied the draft ordinance transmittals (Attachment 5) . Several revisions were made taking agency comments into consideration, primarily those of the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) . SVa? BT.030 PROPOSED ORDINANCE: The proposed ordinance amendment (Attachment 1) is based upon an ordinance adopted in Multnomah County, Oregon, which was the subject of an American Planning Association special report. Staff has tailored the ordinance to La Quinta's environment and planning process. The ordinance is comprehensive and inclusive. This ordinance does not pertain to amateur ham radio towers. Ham radio requirements will be addressed in the Zoning Ordinance Update, which will begin soon. The proposed ordinance amendment contains eight sections which treat the consideration of commercial towers in a comprehensive manner. Listed below are the sections and a summary of their contents: 1. PURPOSE: this section lists seven goals the ordinance is intended to promote: aesthetics, structural safety, traffic safety, tower sharing, health safety, land use efficiency, and conflict avoidance. 2. DEFINITIONS: this section defines technical terms contained in the ordinance that are not found in our local Zoning Ordinance definition section. 3. WHERE PERMITTED: this section states that proposed towers can be located in any zone with an approved conditional use permit. 4. APPLICABILITY: this section is intended to list every type of transmission facility, and cross-reference to the applicable approval standards. The approval standards are the same for most transmission facilities, but some uses are not permitted in urban residential areas, and those that are permitted there must comply with additional standards. 5. EXEMPTIONS: this section clarifies the equipment that is exempt from this ordinance. Six categories of equipment are exempt as follows: A. Portable, handheld, and vehicular transmissions. B . Industrial, scientific, and medical equipment, operating at frequencies designated for that purpose by the FCC. C. A source of Nonionizing Electromagnetic Radiation (NIER) with an effective radiated power of seven watts or less. D. A sole -source emitter with an average output of one kilowatt or less if used for amateur purposes. E. Marketed consumer products, such as microwave ovens, citizens band radios, and remote control toys. F. Goods in storage or shipment or on display for sale, provided the goods are not operated, except for occasional testing or demonstration. STAFFRPT.030 S. APPROVAL STANDARDS: this section addresses new transmission facilities, whether it be additional antennas on existing towers, or new towers and antennas. Siting, setbacks, shared towers, heights, landscaping, and other issues are addressed as follows: A. Siting policies are concerned with the sharing of existing tower facilities before allowing a new tower to be approved and erected. The shared -use concept maximizes existing towers. For La Quinta, there is only one existing tower, the 110-foot tall tower at the III) complex on 58th Avenue. As the City receives future applications for new towers, the applicant must demonstrate that an existing tower is not available to the applicant before a new tower could be approved by the City. Both structural capacity and frequency capacity must be assessed by the applicant to justify the need for a new tower. Arrangements for tower sharing must be made between the tower owner and the applicant. The City will not get involved with these arrangements other than requiring a letter from the tower owner stating that an agreement has been reached. B . Any new commercial towers must observe certain setback requirements in case of a tower failure, to protect the public from excessive NIER, and preserve the privacy and safety of adjoining residential property. The tower base must be setback from abutting residential parcels or public property or streets by a distance of 20 percent (20%) of the tower height or the distance between the tower base on guy wire anchors, whichever is greater, and from abutting land in other zones by the rear yard setback required in that zone. Guy wire anchors are to be set back 25 feet from abutting residential property or public property or streets, or the rear yard setback from abutting land with zoning designations other than residential. Towers must also be set far enough from each other so that one tower will not strike another tower in case of a tower failure. C. Concerning the issue of height requirements, the ordinance indicates that commercial towers shall have the least practicable adverse visual effect on the environment. There are five height standards a tower must comply with, depending on height and proximity to airports. Towers within certain radii of an airport and over 150-feet in height must comply with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), State Aeronautics, and County Aviation Painting and Lighting Standards. Towers will be allowed only the maximum height necessary to operate transmitting and receiving equipment. Any tower over 150-feet tall must be supported with guy anchors unless the City determines that a guyed tower has a greater negative visual impact. Although neither Thermal Airport or Bermuda Dunes Airport are within the current City limits or the City's Sphere of Influence, it is prudent to include these height standards in the event that one of these airports becomes annexed into the City' Sphere. 7. APPLICATION CONTENTS FOR A NEW TRANSMISSION TOWER: t h i s section lists those items and documents required to be submitted to the City with an application for a new transmission facility. sxRFFxrx.oso 8. NONIONIZING ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION (NIER) STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES: this section provides two kinds of standards, one based on NIER calculations and measurements for most commercial uses, and one based on tower distance from nearby habitable structures for the remaining commercial NIER sources. NIER sources are those frequencies in the lower two-thirds of the electromagnetic spectrum and include all radio, television, and microwave frequencies as well as ordinary household current and radar. NIER is distinguished from ionizing electromagnetic radiation (IER) - cosmic, atomic, and X-ray - by its lack of energy to ionize or alter the molecular structure of living tissue. Although the short- and long-term damage to humans resulting from exposure to even low levels of IER is well documented, potential health hazards associated with some NIER exposure is a subject of controversy among health scientists. The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) states that measurements have shown that ground -level power densities due to microwave directional antennas are normally a thousand times or more below recommended safety limits. The FCC now uses the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) protection guides for purposes of evaluating environmental impact from the radio frequencies from 300 kHz to 100 GHz . Data shows that the human body absorbs radio frequency energy at some frequencies more efficiently than at others. The most restrictive limits are in the frequency range of 30-300 MHz where maximum levels of 1 mW/cm2 as averaged over any six minute period of exposure, are recommended. This recommendation is based on a determination that the threshold for hazardous biological effects was approximately 4 watts per kilogram (4W/kg) . A safety factor of ten was then incorporated to arrive at the final recommended protection guidelines. The proposed ordinance amendment incorporates these protection guidelines. ANALYSIS: Staff transmitted the original ordinance amendment to 44 agencies for review and comment. Comments (Attachments 6 through 16) were received from the following: • Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service (RACES) of Eastern Riverside County (Donald Doughty) • Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) City of Indio Time Warner Cable Southern California Gas Company • Riverside County Sheriff State Department of Transportation Riverside County Fire Marshal Waste Management City Staff A representative of the RACES group, Mr. Donald Doughty, met with staff on November 1, 1993, to discuss written comments received from Mr. Doughty about the ordinance. Mr. Doughty provided staff with position papers and legal opinions pertaining to the regulating of amateur ham radio towers and equipment. Mr. Doughty suggested that a separate ordinance be drafted to deal with the ham radio issues and that the proposed ordinance up for consideration at this time be directed SVUggWT.030 r ,r v •1 toward commercial towers only. Staff took this recommendation and revised the ordinance to pertain only to commercial towers. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) office of Engineering and Technology, conducted an engineering review and a legal review of the draft ordinance. Comments from this office were received on January 18, 1994 (Attachment 14) . All of the comments and suggestions offered by the FCC were incorporated into the ordinance revision. Attorney Holly Berland of the FCC General Council's office verbally commented, on December 29, 1993, that the ordinance did not appear to pose any legal problems, and did not suggest any changes. Staff received a letter (Attachment 11) from the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) dated October 20, 1993. Their comments focused on the IEEE's interest in "the biological effects of non -ionizing electromagnetic radiation, examining and interpreting the biological effects and presenting findings in a authoritative manner". Three position papers discussing possible biological effects were attached to this letter. It is the position of the IEEE that the roles of field strength, duration of exposure, and intermittent versus continuous exposure are unknown, and that there is no consensus expressed in any of the published reports as to which factor, the electric or magnetic field, is biologically important. It will take many years for the biological sciences to determine what component of exposure, if any, is a factor in health risks. In a paper titled "Human Exposure to Microwaves and other Radio -Frequency Electromagnetic Fields" the IEEE takes the position that "there is no cause for alarm regarding the environmental levels of radio -frequency electromagnetic (RFEM) fields to which the general population is exposed. " The City of Indio commented in a letter (Attachment 13) dated October 26, 1993, that the ordinance is inherently technical and commended staff for the effort. Time Warner Cable, Southern California Gas Company, the Sheriff's Department, and the State Department of Transportation did not have any significant comments (Attachments 7 to 10) . Staff prepared an Environmental assessment for the proposed ordinance (Attachment 17) . There were no significant impacts identified that could not be mitigated with appropriate measures. CONCLUSION: The proposed ordinance provides a comprehensive guideline utilizing the latest safety requirements. The format used will provide staff with a step-by-step guide to reviewing applications for commercial communication towers, antennas, and related structures. It will also provide detailed information for applicants. No other jurisdiction in the Coachella Valley has such an ordinance, thus La Quinta will be in the forefront on issues related to the approval of communications towers. Potential health hazards are not fully understood, however, information sent to staff does not indicate any concrete hazards. 8VUT BT.030 RECOMMENDATION: Move to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 94- recommending to the City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance amendment 93-035, and adoption of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment No. 93-270. Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution 2. Council Report dated September 21, 1993 3. Minutes from Council Study Session dated September 21, 1993 4. Agency List 5. Cover Letter 6. Waste Management - transmittal dated October 1, 1993 7. State Department of Transportation - letter dated October 7, 1993 8. Southern California Gas Company - letter dated October 12, 1993 9. Riverside County Sheriff - letter dated October 15, 1993 10. Time Warner Cable - letter dated October 131, 1993 11. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) - letter dated October 20, 1993 12. Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service (RACES) - letter dated October 23, 1993 13. City of Indio - letter dated October 26, 1993 14. Federal communications Commission (FCC) - letter dated January 13, 1994 15. Building and Safety Department - transmittal received January 24, 1994 16. Fire Marshal - transmittal dated January 25, 1994 17. Environmental Assessment 93-270 sxaFFxPr.030 P ATTACHMENT 1 PLANNING CONINUSSION RESOLUTION 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE ADDITION OF CHAPTER 9.218, STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL COMMUNICATIONS TOWERS AND RELATED STRUCTURES, TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 93-035 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the 22nd day of February, 1994, hold a duly noticed public hearing pertaining to the addition of Chapter 9.218 to the Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, this Text Amendment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (County of Riverside, Resolution 82-213, adopted by reference in City of La Quinta Ordinance No. 5), in that the Planning Director has conducted an updated initial study and has determined that the proposed Text Amendment will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and that a Negative Declaration is hereby recommended; 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 recommendation for approval of said Ordinance Amendment: 1. The Ordinance Amendments to the Municipal Code are consistent with the La Quinta General Plan. 2. Approval of the Amendments will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. 3. The Amendment will provide standards for approval of commercial communications towers and related structures. 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 93-270, indicating that the proposed Ordinance Amendment will not result in any significant environmental impacts and that a Negative Declaration should be adopted; RESOPC.129 1 3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the above described Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment request for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, and as illustrated in Exhibit "A", attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 22nd day of February, 1994, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California RESOPC.129 2 KATIE BARROWS, Chairwoman City of La Quinta, California ,i` s 4-6 CHAPTER 9.218 STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL COMMUNICATIONS TOWERS AND RELATED STRUCTURES Sections: EXHIBIT "A" 9.218.010 Purpose 9.218.020 Definitions 9.218.030 Where Permitted 9.218.040 Applicability 9.218.050 Exemption 9.218.060 Approval Standards 9.218.070 Application Contents for a New Transmission Tower 9.218.080 Nonionizing Electromagnetic Radiation Standards and Procedures 9.218.010. PURPOSE. The purpose of the ordinance is to address the following concerns: A. To minimize adverse visual effects of towers through careful design, siting and vegetative screening; B. To avoid potential damage to adjacent properties from tower failure through engineering and careful siting of tower structures; C. To lessen traffic impacts on surrounding residential areas; D. To maximize use of any new transmission tower to reduce the number of towers needed: E. To limit radiation emitted by telecommunications equipment so that it will not adversely affect human health; and, F. To allow new transmission towers in urban residential areas only if a comparable site is not available outside urban residential areas. 9.218.020. DEFINITIONS. A. For the purpose of this Chapter, certain words and terms used herein are herewith defined. ORDDRFT.036 3 B. When not inconsistent with the context, words used in the present tense include the future tense; words in the singular number include the plural number and words in the plural number include the singular number. The word "shall" is always mandatory and not merely directory. The word "may" is permissive. 1. Effective Radiated or Irradiated Power (ERP or EIRP). The power input to the antenna multiplied by the numerical power gain of the antenna relative to the dipole or isotropic radiator, respectively. 2. General Population. People who are not members of the family or employees of the owner or operator of a source of NIER or the owner or other users of the site of an NIER source. 3. Hand -Held Source. A transmitter normally operated while being held in the hands of the user. 4. Height of Antenna Above Grade or Ground. The vertical distance between the highest point of the antenna and the natural grade directly below this point. 5. Highest Calculated NIER Level. The NIER predicted to be highest with all sources of NIER operating. 6. Intermittent. A radio transmitter that normally operates randomly and for less than 15 continuous minutes. 7. Nonionizing Electromagnetic Radiation (1SlIER). The tower portion of the electromagnetic spectrum; includes household electrical current, radio, television, and microwave communications, radar, and visible light. It is insufficient to ionize living tissue, causes thermal effects, may cause nonthermal effects. 8. Portable Source. Transmitters and associates antennas that are moved from one point to another and operated at each location less than one month at a time. 9. Shared Capacity. That capacity for shared use whereby a tower can accommodate several users simultaneously. Tower height, design, and the effects of wind are prime determinants of capacity. 10. Sole -Source Emitter. One or more transmitters only one of which normally transmits at a given instant. 11. Source of Nonionizing Electromagnetic Radiation. A source of NIER emitting between 100kHz and 300 GHz with an ERP or EIRP of more than one watt. ORDDRFT.036 4 12. Transmission Tower. A structure principally intended to support a source of NIER and accessory equipment related to telecommunications. 13. Vehicular Source. A transmitter regularly used in vehicles that normally move about. 9.218.030 WHERE PERMITTED. Television, radio, and microwave towers and related equipment are permitted in any zone with a conditional use permit approved pursuant to Chapter 9.172. 9.218.040. APPLICABILITY. The following antenna equipment are permitted subject to Sections 9.218.060 and 9,218.080: 1. VHF and UHF television. 2. FM radio. 3. Two-way radio. 4. Common carriers. 5. Cellular telephone. 6. Fixed-point microwave. 7. Low -power television. 8. AM radio. 9. Specialized mobile radio. A source of nonionizing radiation can be attached to an approved tower or structure in any zone if the planning director finds the source complies with Sections 9.218.040 and 9.218.080. 9.218.050. EXEMPTIONS. The following uses are exempt from this Ordinance, but may be regulated by other sections of the Municipal Code: A. Portable, handheld, and vehicular transmissions. B. Industrial, scientific, and medical equipment operating at frequencies designated for that purpose by the FCC. C. A source of nonionizing electromagnetic radiation with an effective radiated power of seven watts or less. D. A sole -source emitter with an average output of one kilowatt or less if used for amateur purposes. E. Marketed consumer products, such as microwave ovens, citizens band radios, and remote control toys. ORDDRFT.036 5 F. Goods in storage or shipment or on display for sale, provided the goods are not operated, except for occasional testing or demonstration. G. Amateur ham radios. 9.218.060. APPROVAL STANDARDS. A. Existing or approved towers cannot accommodate the proposed telecommunications equipment if: 1. Planned equipment would exceed the structural capacity of existing and approved towers, considering existing and planned use of those towers, and existing and approved towers cannot be reinforced to accommodate planned or equivalent equipment at a reasonable cost. 2. Planned equipment will cause RF interference with other existing or planned equipment for that tower, and the interference cannot be prevented at a reasonable cost. 3. Existing or approved towers do not have space on which planned equipment can be placed so it can function effectively and at least in parity with other similar equipment in place or approved by the City. 4. Addition of the planned equipment to an existing or approved tower would result in NIER levels in excess of those permitted under Section 9.218.080. 5. Other reasons that make it impracticable to place the equipment planned by the applicant on existing and approved towers. B. Proposed towers or structures shall be set back from abutting residential parcels or public property or street sufficient to: fl . Contain all debris from a tower failure on the tower site. 2. Protect the general public from NIER in excess of that allowed in Section ` 1:1 3. Preserve the privacy of adjoining residential property. The site is of sufficient size to comply with this standard in other ways if: underlying district. a. Accessory structures comply with the setback standard in the b. The tower base is set back: ORDDRFT.036 6 1.) From abutting residential parcels or public property or street by a distance of 20 percent (20%) of the tower height or the distance between the tower base and guy wire anchors, whichever is greater. 2.) From abutting land in other districts by the rear yard setback required in that district. C. Guy wire anchors are set back: public property or street. 1.) Twenty-five (25) feet from abutting residential parcels or 2. The rear yard setback from abutting land in other districts. C. The proposed tower is set back from other on- and off -site towers and supporting structures far enough so one tower will not strike another tower or support structure if a tower or support structure fails. D. The proposed tower shall be designed structurally to accommodate the maximum number of foreseeable users. 1. The City can reduce the required shared capacity of a tower: a. If fewer or different telecommunications equipment should be accommodated based on: the number of FCC licenses foreseeable available for the area; kind of tower site or structure proposed; the number of existing and potential licensees without tower space; and space available on existing and approved towers; or b. If a tower necessary to provide for such sharing dominates and/or alters the visual character of the area adversely. 2. Generally antennas on a shared tower will be arranged as follows, except as needed to prevent electromagnetic interference or to accommodate topographic or other physical or functional constraints: a. Transmitting and receiving equipment serving similar kinds of uses shall be placed on a shared -use tower so one of the users in a group can operate roughly equal to other users in the group with similar equipment. b. Generally a TV tower will have two side -mounted and one top - mounted TV antenna or one top -mounted, one mounted below it, and one side -mounted. Triangular, T-shaped, or other platforms or candelabra may be used if required telecommunications equipment cannot be mounted as safely or economically without such structures. ORDDRFT.036 C. Microwave transmitters and receivers and FM and two-way radio antennas can be placed anywhere on a tower above surrounding obstacles. 3. The letter of intent to lease space on a tower complies with Section 9.218.070(E). E. The tower shall have the least practicable adverse visual effect on the environment. A tower complies with this standard if it complies with the following: 1. If the tower is 150 feet or less in height, more than 10,000 feet from a feeder airport, and more than 20,000 feet from a major airport and is painted silver or light blue above the top of surrounding trees and is painted green below treetop level or sand color if in open desert area. 2. If the tower is over 150 feet in height, less than 10,000 feet from a feeder airport, or less than 20,000 feet from a major airport, it shall comply with FAA and State Aeronautics division painting and lighting standards. 3. Towers shall not be artificially lighted unless required by the FAA or State aeronautics division. 4. Towers shall be the minimum height needed to comply with Section 9.218.060(D), (2), (a). 5. Towers over 150 feet in height shall be guyed unless the City finds that a guyed tower would have a greater negative effect on the visual environment. F. Traffic associated with the facility shall not adversely affect abutting streets. Vehicular access shall be limited to a collector street if the site adjoins both a collector and local street. G. At least two off-street parking spaces shall be provided for service vehicles. H. Existing on -site vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum extent practicable. I. Where the site abuts residential parcels or public property or street, the site perimeter shall be landscaped as follows: 1. For all towers, at least one row of evergreen shrubs such as yellow oleander, Cape Honeysuckle, or other approved plants capable of forming a continuous hedge at least five feet in height within two years of planting shall be spaced not more than five feet apart within 15 feet of the site boundary. ORDDRFT.036 8 2. For a tower greater than 150 feet tall, at least one row of evergreen trees with tree trunk not less than llh inches diameter measured three feet above grade, and spaced not more than 20 feet apart and within 25 feet of the site boundary. 3. Within 25 feet of the site boundary for a tower less than 200 feet tall, and within 40 feet of the site boundary for a tower more than 200 feet tall, at least one row of evergreen trees or shrubs, at least four feet high when planted and spaced not more than 15 feet apart. 4. Vegetation, topography, walls, fences, and features other than those listed above may be used if the City finds that they: wires. a. Achieve about the same degree of screening. b. Do not affect the stability, security, or maintenance of the guy C. Are needed for surveillance and security of structures. d. Are used for continued operation of agricultural uses. J. Accessory facilities in a residential district may not include offices, long-term vehicle storage, other outdoor storage, or broadcast studios, except for emergency purposes, or other uses that are not needed to send or receive transmissions, and in no event may exceed 25 percent of the floor area used for transmission equipment and functions. K. The proposed use shall comply with the applicable policies of the General Plan. L. The proposed use shall be consistent with applicable Federal and State regulations, based on the applicant's good faith effort to provide the information required in Section 9.218.070(D). M. All tower installations shall be required to have engineering supervision during construction phases. 9.218.070. APPLICATION CONTENTS FOR NEW TRANSMISSION TOWER(S) OR ADDITIONS TO EXISTING TOWERS. An application for approval of a transmission tower shall include: A. A site plan or plans drawn to scale and identifying the site boundary; tower(s); guy wire anchors; existing and proposed structures; vehicular parking and access; existing vegetation to be retained, removed, or replaced; and uses, structures, and land -use designations on the site and abutting parcels. B. A plan drawn to scale showing proposed landscaping, including species type, size, spacing, and other features. ORDDRFT.036 9 i .) C. A report from a California registered structural engineer. The report shall: 1. Describe the tower and the technical, economic, and other reasons for the tower design; 2. Demonstrate that the tower complies with the applicable structural standard; 3. Describe the capacity of the tower, including the number and type of antennas that it can accommodate and the basis for the calculation of capacity; 4. For a tower in a residential district, show that the tower complies with the capacity requested under Section 9.218.060(D) (1-2) or;. 5. Demonstrate that the proposed sources of NIER will comply with Section D. The applicant shall request the FAA, FCC and State aeronautics division to provide a written statement that the proposed tower complies with applicable regulations administered by that agency or that the tower is exempt from those regulations. If each applicable agency does not provide a requested statement after the applicant makes a timely, good -faith effort to obtain it, the application will be accepted for processing. The applicant shall send any subsequently received agency statements to the Planning Director. E. For a tower in a residential district, evidence that the tower complies with Section 9.218.060(D) (1-3) and a ]letter of intent to lease excess space on the tower and excess land on the tower site except to the extent reduced capacity is required under Section 9.218.060(D)(1-2). 1. A letter of intent shall commit the tower owner and his or her successors in interest to: a. Respond in a timely, comprehensive manner to a request, required under Sections 9.218.060(A), for information from a potential shared -use applicant; the tower owner may charge a party requesting information under Section 9.218.060(A) to pay a reasonable fee not in excess of the actual cost of preparing a response. b. Negotiate in good faith for shared use by third parties; an owner generally will negotiate in the order in which requests for information are received, except an owner generally will negotiate with a party who has received an FCC license or permit before doing so with other parties. C. Allow shared use if an applicant agrees in writing to pay charges and to comply with conditions described in Section 9.218.070(E)(1)(d). ORDDRFT.036 10 9 1y� JL V d. Make no more than a reasonable charge for shared use, based on generally accepted accounting principles. The charge may include but is not limited to a prorata share of the cost of site selection, planning, project administration, land costs, site design, construction and maintenance, financing, return on equity, and depreciation, and all of the costs of adapting the tower or equipment to accommodate a shared user without causing electromagnetic interference or causing uses on the site to emit VIER in excess of levels permitted under Section 9.218.080. 2. If a new tower is approved, the applicant shall demonstrate that the letter of intent is recorded in the Office of County Records before a building permit is issued. F. Written authorization from the owner of the site of the tower; a description of the guy wire anchors, and other features associated with the use. G. For a tower in an urban residential district, evidence that it complies with Section 9.218.060(A): 1. The applicant shall contact the owners of all existing or approved towers within the City of La Quinta with a top elevation like or higher than that proposed, except owners of those towers presumed unable to accommodate the proposed antenna. 2. The applicant shall provide each contacted owner with the engineer's report required under Section 9.218.070(C). 3. The applicant shall request each contacted owner to: a. Identify the site by address and legal description. b. Describe tower height and existing tower users. C. Assess whether the existing tower could accommodate the antenna to be attached to the proposed tower without causing structural instability or electromagnetic interference. d. If the antenna to be attached to the proposed tower cannot be accommodated on each existing tower, assess whether the existing tower could be structurally strengthened or whether the antennas, transmitters, and related equipment could be protected from electromagnetic interference and generally describe the means and projected cost of shared use of the existing tower. H. For a tower in an urban residential district, evidence that it cannot practicably be accommodated at a particular site shall be provided as follows: ORDDRFT.036 11 1. The applicant shall contact the owners of all existing or approved towers if the base elevation of an existing or approved tower site is about the same or higher than the base elevation of the proposed site except owners of those towers presumed unable to accommodate the proposed antenna. 2. The applicant shall request each contacted owner to: a. Identify the site by address and legal description. b. Assess whether the site could accommodate the proposed tower without changing an existing or approved tower. C. If the proposed tower cannot be accommodated on each existing tower site, assess whether the existing tower site could be changed to accommodate the proposed tower, and generally describe the means and projected cost of shared use of the existing tower site. I. Responses to other applicable approval standards. 9.218.080 NONIONIZING ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES. A. A source of nonionizing electromagnetic radiation (NIER) when combined with existing sources of NIER, shall not expose the general public to ambient radiation exceeding the mean squared electric or magnetic field strengths, or their equivalent plane -wave free -space power density, for the frequency ranges and durations described in Table A and Sections 9.218.080(B)-(D); provided, within 90-days after a Federal or State NIER emission or measurement standard is adopted, the Planning Director shall schedule a hearing before the Planning Commission to consider whether the standards described herein should be changed. B. Before establishing a new source of NIER or changing an existing VIER source in a way that increases the amount of radiation pattern of NIER, an applicant shall submit the following information certified by a California registered electrical engineer: 1. The name and address of the owner of the transmitter and antenna. 2. The location of the antenna, including address, geographic coordinates, height above grade. 3. The manufacturer, type and model of antenna and antenna radiation patterns to the extent available. ORDDRFT.036 4. Frequency and output of transmitter and direction of transmission. 12 radiator. 5. Power input to antenna and gain of antenna with respect to isotropic 6. Type of modulation and class of service. 7. Except for uses approved under Section 9.218.080(C), a scaled map and exhibits showing the following: TABLE A. MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE EXPOSURE (MPE) TO NIER LEVELS FOR UNCONTROLLED ENVIRONMENTS Frequency Range (MHz) Electric Field Strength E (V/m) Magnetic Field Strength H (A/m) Power Density (S) E-field; H-field (mW/cm) 0.003 to 0.1 614 163 (100:1,000,000)* 0.1 to 1.34 614 16.3/f (100:10,000/t')* 1.34 to 3.0 823.8/f 16.3/f (180/fz:10,000/f )* 3.0 to 30 823.8/f 16.3/f (180/f':10,000/f2)* 30 to 100 27.5 158.3/f-66" (0.2: 940,000/fs36)* 100 to 300 27.5 0.0729 0.2 300 to 3000 - - f/ 1500 3000 to 15,000 - - f/ 1500 15,000 to 300,000 - - 10 Notes: f E _ H = V/m = A/m = mW/cm2 = frequency in megahertz (MHz) electric field magnetic field volts per meter amperes per meter mil�iwatts per centimeter squared * These plane -wave equivalent power density values, although not appropriate for near - field conditions, are commonly used as a convenient comparison with MPEs at higher frequency and are displayed on some instruments in use. Source: IEEE C95.1-1991 ORDDRFT.036 13 a. Horizontal and radial distance from the VIER source to the nearest point on the property line, the nearest habitable space regularly occupied by people other than those residing or working on the site, and the points on the property and off the property with the highest calculated rIIER levels and elevations above sea level at those points. b. Ambient VIER levels in the frequency range of the proposed source measured at the four points identified as provided in Section 9.218.080(B)(7)(a). C. Calculated VIER levels after establishment or change of the proposed source at the four points identified in Section 9.218.080(B)(7)(a). 8. If the calculated NIER level at any of those points listed in Section 9.218.080(B)(7)(a) is more than one-third the maximum VIER level permitted under Section 9.218.080, the proposed IoIIER source can be approved only subject to the conditions that the applicant measure VIER levels at those points after the source is established or changed, and that such measurements show the use complies with, or is changed to comply with, Section 9.218.080. C. A commercial, intermittent, sole -source emitter with less than one kilowatt averaged output over time may be approved without calculating or measuring VIER if the antenna for the emitter complies with the following separation standards. 1. An antenna with an effective isotropic radiated power of less than 100 watts is at least three feet from the exterior of a habitable structure other than a structure on the site of the antenna and the highest point of the antenna is at least 10 feet from that exterior surface. 2. An antenna with an effective isotropic radiated power between 100 and 1,000 watts is at least six feet from the exterior of a habitable structure other than a structure on the site of the antenna and the highest point of the antenna is at least 15 feet from the exterior surface. 3. An antenna with an effective isotropic radiated power between 1,000 and 10,000 watts is separated from the exterior of a habitable structure other than a structure on the site of the antenna as shown in Table "B". ORDDRFT.036 14 TABLE B. MINIMUM SEPARATION OF HABITABLE STRUCTURE FROM COMMERCIAL INTERMITTENT SOLE -SOURCE EMITTER (Effective Isotropic Radiated Power [EIRP] Between 1,000 and 10,000 Watts) Frequency (MHz) Minimum Separation from Highest Point of Antenna, in feet. Minimum Separation from Any Point of Antenna, in feet. <7 11 5 7 to 30 frequency/0.67 frequency/ 1.5 30 to 300 45 20 300 to 1,500 780/sq. rt. frequency 364/sq. rt. frequency > 1,500 20 10 4. An antenna with an effective isotropic radiated power between 10,000 and 30,000 watts is separated from the exterior of a habitable structure other than a structure on the site of the antenna as shown in Table "C". TABLE C. MINIMUM SEPARATION OF HABITABLE STRUCTURE FROM COMMERCIAL INTERMITTENT SOLE -SOURCE EMITTER (Effective Irradiated Power [EIRP] Between 10,000 and 30,000 Watts) Frequency (MHz) Minimum Separation from Highest Point of Antenna, in feet. Minimum Separation from Any Point of Antenna, in feet. < 7 17.5 5 7 to 30 frequency/0.4 frequency/0.91 30 to 300 75 33 300 to 1,500 1,300/sq. rt. frequency 572/sq. rt. frequency > 1,500 34 15 D. Measurements shall be made according to commonly accepted engineering practice, using NIER measurement equipment generally recognized as accurate to measure NIER at frequencies and power levels of the proposed source and existing ambient RF sources. ANSI standard C95.3, Techniques and Instrumentation for the Measurement of Potentially Hazardous Electromagnetic Radiation at Microwave Facilities, is one acceptable method of measuring NIER. The effect of contributing sources of NIER below the lower frequency limit of a broad- band measuring instrument may be included by separate measurement of these sources. NIER levels of less than 20 microwatts/square centimeter or the minimum sensitivity of the instrument being used, whichever is less, shall be treated as zero. ORDDRFT.036 15 1. Measurements are made at a height of 2 meters above ground or at a greater height if habitation occurs at a greater height with lesser radial distance to the source. 2. Measurements shall be made when NIER levels are reasonably expected to be highest due to operating and environmental characteristics. 3. Measurements shall be accompanied by exhibits showing: a. The instruments used where calibrated within the manufacturer's suggested periodic calibration interval. b. The calibration method is used by or derived from methods used by the National Bureau of Standards. C. The accuracy of the measurements and certification that the measurements were made in accordance with commonly accepted engineering practice. ORDDRFT.036 16 %- . meet e • COUNCIL MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 21, 1993 ITEM TITLE: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF COMMUNICATIONS TOWERS AND RELATED STRUCTURES. APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA SUMMARY: AGENDA CATEGORY: PUBLIC HEARING: BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: The City of La Quints does not have any policies concerning the siting of communications equipment. At Council direction staff has prepared a draft ordinance addressing this issue. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None APPROVED BY: 22L--,OOO'- RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests Council authorization to route the ordinance for comment and to schedule public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. Submitted by: Approved for submission to City Council: "tL� RRY IFRMAN9 PLANNING DIRECTOR ROBERT L. HUNT, CITY MANAGER CC#4 r- ' TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING fir. DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: SEPTEMBER 21, 1993 SUBJECT: PROPOSED TOWER POLICIES ISSUES: At the direction of the Council, staff has researched and prepared a draft ordinance dealing with the siting and development standards for communication towers and related structures. BACKGROUND: Currently, the City of La Quinta does not have any policies or development standards to address the large communication tower applications. They are processed as a public use permit. Staff is proposing to change the application type to a conditional use permit. This would allow the Council more flexibility in conditioning the approval of such an application. The attached ordinance is based upon an ordinance adopted in Multnomah County, Oregon, which was discussed in an American Planning Association special report in which Multnomah was used as a model case study. Staff has tailored the model to La Quinta's environment and planning process. The ordinance contains eight sections which treat the consideration of towers in a comprehensive manner. Listed below are the eight sections and their contents: PURPOSE: this section lists seven goals the ordinance is intended to promote: aesthetics, structural safety, traffic safety, tower sharing, health safety, land use efficiency, and conflict avoidance. 2. DEFINITIONS: this section defines terms contained in the ordinance that are not found in our local Zoning Ordinance. 3. WHERE PERMITTED: this section states that proposed towers can be located in any zone with a conditional use permit. MEMOLC.012 4. APPLICABILITY: this section is intended to list every type of transmission facility, and cross-references to the applicable approval standards. The approval standards are the same for most transmission facilities, but some uses are not permitted in urban residential districts, and those that are permitted there must comply with additional standards. 5. EXEMPTION: this section clarifies the equipment that is exempt from this ordinance. Six categories of equipment are exempt. They are: A. Portable, handheld, and vehicular transmissions. B. Industrial, scientific, and medical equipment operating at frequencies designated for that purpose by the FCC. C. A source of Nonionizing Electromagnetic Radiation (NIER) with an effective radiated power of seven watts or less. D. A sole -source emitter with an average output of one kilowatt or less if used for amateur purposes. E. Marketed consumer products, such as microwave ovens, citizens band radios, and remote control toys. F. Goods in storage or shipment or on display for sale, provided the goods are not operated, except for occasional testing or demonstration. 6. APPROVAL STANDARDS; this section addresses new transmission facilities. Siting, setbacks, shared towers, heights, landscaping, and other issues are addressed as follows: A. Siting policies are concerned with the sharing of existing tower facilities before allowing a new tower structure to be approved. The shared -use concept maximizes existing towers. For La Quinta, there is only one existing tower, the 100-foot tall tower at the HD complex on Avenue 58. As the City receives applications for new towers, the applicant must demonstrate that an existing tower is not available to the applicant before a new tower could be approved by the City. Both structural capacity and radio frequency capacity must be assessed by the applicant to determine the need for a new tower. Arrangement for tower - sharing must be made between the tower owner and the applicant. The City will not get involved with these arrangements other than requiring a letter from the tower owner stating an agreement has been reached. B. Any new towers must observe certain setback requirements in case of a tower failure to protect the public from excessive NIER, and to preserve the privacy of adjoining residential property. The tower base must be setback from abutting residential parcels or public property or street by a distance of 20 percent (20%) MEMOLC.012 tA. of the tower height or the distance between the tower base and guy wire anchors, whichever is greater, and from abutting land in other zones by the rear yard setback required in that zone. Guy wire anchors are to be setback 25 feet from abutting residential parcels or public property or street, or the rear yard setback from abutting land with other zoning designations than residential. Towers must also be setback far enough from each other so that one tower will not strike another tower in case of a tower failure. C. Concerning the issue of height requirements, the ordinance indicates that towers shall have the least practicable adverse visual effect on the environment. There are five height standards a tower must comply with, depending on height and proximity to airports. Those towers 150-feet or less that are more than 10,000- feet from a feeder airport (such as Thermal Airport or Bermuda Dunes Airport), and more than 20,000 feet from a major airport must have aesthetically minimizing coloring such as silver or light blue above the tree tops and green below tree top level. If a tower is over 150-feet in height, and is closer to an airport then it must comply with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), State Aeronautics, and County Aviation painting and lighting standards. Towers will be allowed only the maximum height necessary to operate transmitting and receiving equipment. Any tower over 150-feet tall must be supported with guy anchors unless the City determines that a guyed tower has a greater negative visual impact. 7. APPLICATION CONTENTS FOR A NEW TRANSMISSION TOWER: this section lists those items and documents required with an application for a new transmission facility. 8. NONIONIZING ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION MER) STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES: this section provides two kinds of standards - one based on NIER calculations and measurements for most commercial uses, and one based on tower distance from nearby habitable structures for the remaining commercial NIER sources. NIER sources are those frequencies in the lower two-thirds of the electromagnetic spectrum and include all radio, television, and microwave frequencies as well as ordinary household current and radar. NIER is distinguished from ionizing electromagnetic radiation (IER) - cosmic, atomic, and x-ray - by its lack of energy to ionize, or alter, the molecular structure of living tissue. Although the short- and long-term damage to humans resulting from exposure to even low levels of IER is well documented, potential health hazards associated with some NIER exposure is a subject of controversy among health scientists. MEMOLC.012 ,r V) The City of Indio's ordinance is minimal in its treatment of towers and antennas and is as follows: "Radio, television, and microwave stations may be permitted by conditional use permit in all residential zones and by design review approval in C & M Zones." Riverside County does not have a specific ordinance dealing with towers. However, they have an extensive ordinance for wind energy turbines. In addition, the County has alternative procedures for projects exceeding height limitations. These procedures require that public hearing notices include the height of the towers, turbines, or whatever structure is applied for. Section 15.2 of the County W-2 Zone addresses tower heights as follows: "One family residences shall not exceed 40-feet in height. No other building or structure shall exceed 50-feet in height, unless a height up to 75-feet for buildings, 105-feet for other structures, or greater than 105-feet for broadcasting antennas is approved pursuant to Section 18.34 of this ordinance." Section 18.34 of the County Ordinance is as follows: "Section 18.34. STRUCTURE HEIGHT. When any zoning classification provides that an application for a greater height limit may be made pursuant to this section, the following alternative procedures may be used to determine if the request shall be granted: An application for a zone change may request a greater height limit in accordance with the limitations of the zoning classification. The specific height limit requested shall be included in all notices regarding the zone change and, if granted, the zoning placed upon the land shall specifically state the allowed height limit. 2. An application for a conditional use permit, public use permit, commercial Wind Energy Conversion System (WECS) permit or accessory WECS permit may include a request for a greater height limit in accordance with the limitations of the zoning classification. The specific height limit requested shall be included in all notices regarding the permit, and if granted the permit shall specifically state the allowed height limit. MEMOLC.012 4 3. For structures other than buildings, an application for a greater height limit in accordance with the limitations of the zoning classification may be made to the Planning Director to the provisions of Section 18.30 of this ordinance. If granted, the approved plot plan shall specifically state the allowed height limit. The City of Indian Wells does not have any policies dealing with the towers, beyond satellite dishes, ham radio antennas, and television antennas. The height limitations for antennas is 65- feet above grade in single family residential zoned areas or 30-feet above the height limitation allowed if located in a multi -family residential or commercially zoned area. CONCILUSION: The draft ordinance provides a comprehensive guideline for the City to follow. Staff recommends that the proposed ordinance be set for public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council for review and final action. RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests Council authorization to route the draft ordinance for comment and to schedule public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. Attachments: 1. Draft ordinance. MEMOLC.Q12 CHAPTER 9.218 TELEVISION, RADIO, AND MICROWAVE TOWER AND TELECOMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT SMG Sections: 9.218.010 Purpose 9.218.020 Definitions 9.218.030 Where Permitted 9.218.040 Applicability 9.218.050 Exemption 9.218.060 Approval Standards 9.218.070 Application Contents for a New Transmission Tower 9.218.080 Nonionizing Electromagnetic Radiation Standards and Procedures 9.218.010. PURPOS . The purpose of the ordinance is to address the following concerns: A. To minimize adverse visual effects of towers through careful design, siting and vegetative screening; B. To avoid potential damage to adjacent properties from tower failure through engineering and careful siting of tower structures; C. To lessen traffic impacts on surrounding residential areas; D. To maximize use of any new transmission tower to reduce the number of towers needed: E. To limit radiation emitted by telecommunications equipment so that it will not adversely affect human health; and, F. To allow new transmission towers in urban residential areas only if a comparable site is not available outside urban residential areas. 9.218.020. A. For the purpose of this Chapter, certain words and terms used herein are herewith defined. ORDDRFT.036 2 R. When not inconsistent with the context, words used in the present tease include the future tense; words in the singular number include the plural number and words in the plural number include the singular number. The word 'shall" is always mandatory and 00 merely directory. The word `may' is permissive. (Ord. 511(part),1982: County Ordinance 348 Art. 21 (part). - 1. Effective Radiated or Irradiated Power M or EIRPI. The power input to the antenna multiplied by the numerical power gain of the antenna relative to the dipole or isotropic radiator, respectively. 2. General -Pouladon. People who are not members of the family or employees of the owner or operator of a source of NIER or the owner or other users of the site of an NIER source. 3. Hand -Held -Source. A transmitter normally operated while being held in the hands of the user. 4. Hecht gf.Antenna Above Grade or Ground. The vertical distance between the highest point of the antenna and the natural grade directly below this point. 5. Highest Calculated NIER Level. The NIER predicted to be highest with all sources of NIER operating. 6. Intermittent. A radio. transmitter that normally operates randomly and for less than 15 continuous minutes. 7. portable Source. Transmitters and associates antennas that are moved from one point to another and operated at each location less than one month at a time. S. Sole -Source Emitter. One or more transmitters only one of which normally transmits at a given instant. 9. Source of &nionizing Electromagnetic Radiation. A source of NIER emitting between 100kHz and 300 GHz with an ERP or EIRP of more than one watt. 10. Transmission Tower. A structure principally intended to support a source of NIER and accessory equipment related to telecommunications. 11. Vehicular Source. A transmitter regularly used in vehicles that normally move about. 9.218.030 WHERE PERMITTED. Television, radio, and microwave towers and related equipment are permitted in any zone with a conditional use permit approved pursuant to Chapter 9.172. ®RDDRFT.036 3 ` br*' . I. j1•I" as .;. ;g�;:F• :dr ..,'O�t ..o,.� 9.218.040. A PP ICABHM. The following are permitted object to Sections 9.218.060 and 9.218.080: 1. VHF and UFH television. 2. FM radio. 3. Two-way radio. 4. Common carriers. S. Cellular telephone. 6. Fixed-point microwave. 7. Low -power television. 8. AM radio. An antenna and supporting structure for the following uses are permitted in any district if accessory to a permitted use and if they comply with applicable regulations of the district in which situated: 1. Ham radio. 2. Citizens band radio. 3. A telecommunication device that only receives an RF signal. 4. A sole -source emitter with more than one kilowatt average output. A source of nonionizing radiation can be attached to an approved tower or structure in any district if the planning director finds the source complies with Sections 9.218.040 and 9.218.080. 9.218.050. EMPTIONS. The following uses are exempt from this Ordinance: A. Portable, handheld, and vehicular transmissions. . B. Industrial, scientific, and medical equipment operating at frequencies designated for that purpose by the FCC. C. A source of nonionizing electromagnetic radiation with an effective radiated power of seven watts or less. D. A sole -source emitter with an average output of one kilowatt or less if used for amateur purposes. E. Marketed consumer products, such as microwave ovens, citizens band radios, and remote control toys. F. Goods in storage or shipment or on display for sale, provided the goods are not operated, except for occasional testing or demonstration. ORDDRF'T. 036 4 A. Existing or approved towers cannot accommodate telecommunications equipment if.. . 1. Planned equipment would exceed the structural capacity of existing and approved towers, considering existing and planned use of those towers, and existing and approved towers cannot be reinforced to accommodate planned or equivalent equipment at a reasonable cost. 2. Planned equipment will cause RF interference with other existing or planned equipment for that tower, and the interference cannot be prevented at a reasonable cost. 3. Existing or approved towers do not have space on which planned equipment can be placed so it can function effectively and at least in parity with other similar equipment in place or approved by the City. 4. Addition of the planned equipment to an existing or approved tower would result in VIER levels in excess of those permitted under Section 9.218.080. 5. Other reasons that make it impracticable to place the equipment planned by the applicant on existing and approved towers. B. Proposed towers or structures will be set back from abutting residential panels or public property or street sufficient to: 1. Contain on -site substantially all debris from tower failure. 2. Protect the general public from NIER in excess of that allowed in Section 9.218.080. 3. Preserve the privacy of adjoining residential property. The site is of sufficient size to comply with this standard in other ways if: underlying district. a. Accessory structures comply with the setback standard in the b. The tower base is set back: 1.) From abutting residential parcels or public property or street by a distance of 20 percent (20%) of the tower height or the distance between the tower base and guy wire anchors, whichever is greater. required in that district. ORDDRFT.036 2.) From abutting land in other districts by the rear yard setback r. 1-: v (L C. Guy wire anchors are set back: 1.) Twenty-five = feet from abutting residential parcels or public property or street. . 2. The rear yard setback from abutting land in other districts. C. The proposed tower is set back from other on- and off -site towers and supporting structures far enough so one tower will not strike another tower or support structure if a Mower or support structure fails. D. The proposed tower shall be designed structurally to accommodate the maximum number of foreseeable users. 1. The City can reduce the required shared opacity of a tower. a. If fewer or different telecommunications equipment should be accommodated based on: the number of FCC licenses foreseeable available for the area; kind of tower site or structure proposed; the number of existing and potential licensees without tower space; and space available on existing and approved towers; or b. If a tower necessary to provide for such sharing dominates and alters the visual character of the area adversely. 2. Generally antennas on a shared tower will be arranged as follows, except as needed to prevent electromagnetic interference or to accommodate topographic or other physical or functional constraints: a. Transmitting and receiving equipment serving similar kinds of uses shall be placed on a shared -use tower so one of the users in a group can operate roughly equal to other users in the group with similar equipment. b. Generally a TV tower will have two side -mounted and one topes mounted TV antenna or one top -mounted, one mounted below it, and one side -mounted. Triangular, T-shaped, or other platforms or candelabra may be used if required telecommunications equipment cannot be mounted as safely or economically without such structures. C. Microwave transmitters and receivers and FM and two-way radio antennas can be placed anywhere on a tower above surrounding obstacles. 9.218.070(E). ORDDRFT.036 3. The letter of intent to lease space on a tower complies with Section 6 E. The tower shall have the least practicable adverse visual effed on the environment. A tower complies with this standard if it complies with the following: 1. If the tower 10 feet or less in height, more than 10,000 feet from a feeder airport, and more than 20, eet from a major airport and has a galvanized finish or is painted silver or light blue above the top of surrounding trees and is painted green below treetop level. 2. If the tower is over 150 feet in height, less than 10,000 feet from a feeder airport, or less than 20,000 feet from a major airport, it shall comply with FAA and State Aeronautics division painting and lighting standards. 3. Towers shall not be artificially lighted unless required by the FAA or State aeronautics division. 4. Towers shall be the minimum height needed to comply with Section 9.218.060(D), (2), (a). 5. Towers over 150 feet in height shall be guyed unless the approval authority finds a guyed tower would not have a lesser negative visual effect. F. Traffic associated with the facility shall not adversely affect abutting streets. Vehicular access shall be limited to a collector street if the site adjoins both a collector and local street. G. At least two off-street parking spaces shall be provided for service vehicles. H. Existing on -site vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum extent practicable. 1. Where the site abuts residential parcels or public property or street, the site perimeter shall be landscaped as follows: 1. For all towers, at least one row of evergreen shrubs such as yellow oleander, Cape Honeysuckle, or other approved plants capable of forming a continuous hedge at least five feet in height within two years of planting shall be spaced not more than five feet apart within 15 feet of the site boundary. 2. For a tower greater than 150 feet tall, at least one row of evergreen trees with tree trunk not less than I1h inches diameter measured three feet above grade, and spaced not more than 20 feet apart and within 25 feet of the site boundary. 3. Within 25 feet of the site boundary for a tower less than 200 feet tall, and within 40 feet of the site boundary for a tower more than 200 feet tall, at least one row of evergreen trees or shrubs, at least four feet high when planted and spaced not more than 15 feet apart. ORDDRPT.036 7 4. Vegetation, topography, walls, fences, and features other than those listed above may be used if the City finds dial they: : a. Achieve about the same degree of screening. b. Do not affect the stability, security, or maintenance of the guy wires. C. Are needed for surveillance and security of structures. d. Are used for continued operation of agricultural uses. J. Accessory facilities in a residential district may not include offices, long-term vehicle storage, other outdoor storage, or broadcast studios, except for emergency purposes, or other uses that are net needed to send or receive transmissions, and in no event may exceed 25 percent of the floor area used for transmission equipment and functions. K. The proposed use shall comply with the applicable policies of the General Plan. L. The proposed use shall be consistent with applicable Federal and State regulations, based on the applicant's good faith effort to provide the information required in Section 9.218.070(D), 9.9218.070. APPLICATIO CQN3NTS FOR A NEW OR ADDMONS_ TQ TRANSMISSION TQWER(S). An application for approval of a transmission bower shall include: A. A site plan or plans drawn to scale and identifying the site boundary; tower(s); guy wire anchors; existing and proposed structures; vehicular parking and access; existing vegetation to be retained, removed, or replaced; and uses, structures, and land -use designations on the site and abutting parcels. B. A plan drawn to scale showing proposed landscaping, including species type, size, spacing, and other features. C. A report from a California registered engineer. The report shall: 1. Describe the tower and the technical, economic, and other reasons for the tower design; 2. Demonstrate that the tower complies with the applicable structural standard; 3. Describe the capacity of the tower, including the number and type of antennas that it can accommodate and the basis for the calculation of capacity; ORDDRFT.036 8 - f-'m. �J 4. For a tower in a residential district, show that the tower cc mpl Mrltb the capacity requested under Section 9.218.060(D) (12) or. S. Demonstrate that the proposed sources of VIER will comply wbh Section 9.218.080. D. The applicant shall request the FAA, FCC and State aeronautics division to provide a written statement that the proposed tower complies with applicable regulations administered by that agency or that the tower is exempt from those regulations. N each applicable agency does not provide a requested statement after the applicant makes a timely, good -faith effort to obtain it, the application will be accepted for processing. The applicant shall send a subsequently received agency statement to the Planning Director. E. For a tower in a residential district, evidence that the tower complies with Section 9.218.060(D) (1-3) and a letter of intent to lease excess space on the tower and excess land on the tower site except to the extent reduced capacity is requested under Section 9.218.060(D)(1- 2). 1. A letter of intent shall commit the tower owner and his or her successors in interest to: L Respond in a timely, comprehensive manner to a request, required under Sections 9.218.060(A), for information from a potential shared -use applicant; the tower owner may charge a party requesting information under Section 9.218.060(A) to pay a reasonable fee not in excess of the actual cost of preparing a response. b. Negotiate in good faith for shared use by third parties; an owner generally will negotiate in the order in which requests for information are received, except an owner generally will negotiate with a party who has received an FCC license or permit before doing so with other parties. y C. Allow shared use if an applicant agrees in writing to pay charges and to comply with conditions described in Section 9.218.070(l:)(1)(d). d. Ariake no more than a reasonable charge for shared use, based on generally accepted accounting principles. The charge may include but is not limited to a prorata share of the cost of site selection, planning, project administration, land costs, site design, construction and maintenance, financing, return on equity, and depreciation, and all of the costs of adapting the tower or equipment to accommodate a shared user without causing electromagnetic interference or causing uses on the site to emit NIER in excess of levels permitted under Section 9.218.080. 2. If a new tower is approved, the applicant shall demonstrate that the letter of intent is recorded in the Office of County Records before a building permit is issued. ORDDRFT.036 9 v i 't F. Written authorization from the owner of the site of the tower, a description of the guy wire anchors, and other features associates with the use. G. For a tower in an urban residential district, evidence that it complies with Section 9.218.060(A): 1. The applicant shall contact the owners of all existing or approved towers within the City of La Quinta with a top elevation like or higher than that proposed, except owners of those towers presumed unable to accommodate the proposed antenna. 2. The applicant shall provide each contacted owner with the engineer's report required under Section 9.218.070(C). 3. The applicant shall request each contacted owner to: a. Identify the site by address and legal description. b. Describe tower height and existing tower users. C. Assess whether the existing tower could accommodate the antenna to be attached to the proposed tower without causing structural instability or electromagnetic interference. d. If the antenna to be attached to the proposed tower cannot be accommodated on each existing tower, assess whether the existing tower could be structurally strengthened or whether the antennas, transmitters, and related equipment could be protected from electromagnetic interference and generally describe the means and projected cost of shaved use of the existing tower. H. For a tower in an urban residential district, evidence that it cannot practicably be accommodated at a particular site shall be provided as follows: 1. The applicant shall contact the owners of the site of all existing or approved towers if the base elevation of an existing or approved tower site is about the same or higher than the base elevation of the proposed site except owners of those towers presumed unable to accommodate the proposed antenna. 2. The applicant shall request each contacted owner to: a. Identify the site by address and legal description. b. Assess whether the site could accommodate the proposed tower without changing an existing or approved tower. ORDDRFT.036 10 rr v C. If the proposed tower cannot be accommodated on each existing tower site, assess whether the existing tower site could be changed to accommodate the proposed tower, and generally describe the means and projected cost of shared use of the existing tower site. 1. Responses i• other• • W. 1approval1 ►,i s. PROCEDURES. A. A source of nonionizing electromagnetic radiation (INTER) when combined with existing sources of NEER, shall not expose the general public to ambient radiation exceeding the mean squared electric or magnetic field strengths, or their equivalent plane -wave frwVace power density, for the frequency ranges and durations described in Table A and Sections 9.218.080(B)-(D); provided, within 90-days after a Federal or State NIER emission or measurement standard is adopted, the Planning Director shall schedule a hearing before the Planning Commission to consider whether the standards described herein should be changed. B. Before establishing a new source of VIER or changing an etingNNlE so c in a way that increases the amount of radiation pattern of NIER, an applicant submit the following information certified by a California registered electrical engineer. i. The name and address of the owner of the transmitter and antenna. 2. The location of the antenna, including address, geographic coordinates, height above grade. 3. The manufacturer, type and model of antenna and antenna radiation patterns to the extent available. radiator. 4. Frequency and output of transmitter and direction of transmission. S. Power input to antenna and gain of antenna with respect to isotropic 6. Type of modulation and class of service. 7. Except for uses approved under Section 9.218.0"C), a scaled map and exhibits showing the following: ORDDRF'T.036 11 TABLE A. MAXIMUM PERMITTED AMBIENT NIER EI GSSION LEVELS' Frequency (MHz) Mean Squared Electric Field Strength= Mean Squared Magnetic Field Strength$ Equivalent -- Plane -Wave ' Power Densitys .01 to 3 80,000 O.S . . 20 3 to 30 4,000 0.025 180/frequency: 30 to 300 800 0.005 0.2 300 to 1,500 4,000 0.025 frequency/1,5W 1,500 to 3,000 41000 0.025 1.0 a. Horizontal and radial distance from the NIER source to the nearest point on the property line, the nearest habitable space regularly occupied by people other than those residing or worldng on the site, and the points on the property and off the property with the highest calculated NIER levels and elevations above sea level at those points. b. Ambient NIER levels in the frequency range of the proposed source measured at the four points identified as provided in Section 9.218.080(B)(7)(a). C. Calculated NIER levels after establishment or change of the proposed source at the four points identified in Section 9.218.080(B)(7)(a). S. If the calculated NIER level at any of those points listed is Section 9.218.080(B)(7)(a) is more than one-third the maximum NIER level permitted under Section 9.218.080, the proposed NIER source can be approved only subject to the conditions that the applicant measure NIER levels at those points after the source is established or changed, and that such measurements show the use complies with, or is changed to comply with, Section 9.218.080. - ' All standards refer to roof mean squared measurements averaged over one-half hour•, for averaging times less than one-half hour, the allowed power density is half the allowed power density for one-half hour. 2 • Mean squared electric field strength measurements expressed in volts squared per meter squared. 3 Magnetic field strength measurements expressed in amperes squared per meter squared. Equivalent plane -wave power density measurements expressed in microwatts per centimeter squared. ORDDRFT.036 12 C. A commercial, intermittent, sole -source emitter.with lea than one kilowatt average output may be approved without calculating or measuring NMR if the anft= for the emitter complies with the following separation standards. 1. An antenna with an effective radiated power of lea than 100 watts is at least three feet from the exterior of a habitable structure other than a structure on the site of the antenna and the highest point of the antenna is at least 10 feet from that exterior surface.' 2. An antenna with an effective radiated power between 100 and 1,000 watts is at least six feet from the exterior of a habitable structure other than a structure on the site of the antenna and the highest point of the antenna is at least 15 feet from the exterior surface. 3. An antenna with an effective radiated power between 1,000 and 10,000 watts is separated from the exterior of a habitable structure other than a structure on the site of the antenna as shown in Table 'B". TABLE B. MrUMUM SEPARATION OF HABITABLE STRUCTURE FROM COMMERCIAL INTERMTITFNT SOLE -SOURCE EMTITER fCff6^"u,P TreoA;2tPA PnWer rFTRPI Between 1.000 and 10,000 Watts) Minimum Separation from Highest Point of Antenna, in feet. Minimum Separation from Any Point of Antenna, in feeL Frequency (MHz) <7 11 5 7 to 30 frequency/0.67 frequency/1.5 30 to 300 45 20 300 to 1,500 780/sq. rt. frequency 364/sq. rt. frequency > 1,500 20 10 4. An antenna with an effective radiated power between 10,000 and 30,000 watts is separated from the exterior of a habitable structure other than a structure on the site of the antenna as shown in 'Cable 'C'. ORDDRPT.036 13 TABLE C. NNUAM SEPARATION OF HABITABLE STRUCTURE FROM COMIIMERCIAL INT RMT17M SOLE -SOURCE EM Tr= (Effective Irradiated Power tEIRPI Between 10,000 and 30,000 Watts) Frequency (MHz) ' Minimum Separation from Highest Point of Antenna, in feet. Minimum Separation from Any Point of Antenna, in feet. <7 17.5 5 7 to 30 frequency/0.4 frequency/0.91 30 to 300 75 33 300 to 1,500 1,300/sq. rt. frequency 572/sq. rt. frequency > 1,500 34 15 D. Measurements shall be made according to commonly accepted engineering practice, using VIER measurement equipment generally recognized as accurate to measure NIER at frequencies and power Ievels of the proposed source and existing ambient RF sources. ANSI standard C95.3, Techniques and Instrumentation for the Measurement of Potentially Hazardous Electromagnetic Radiation at Microwave Facilities, is one acceptable method of measuring NIER. The effect of contributing sources of NIER below the lower frequency limit of a broad- band measuring instrument may be included by separate measurement of these sources. VIER levels of less than 20 microwatts/square centimeter or the minimum sensitivity of the instrument being used, whichever is less, shall be treated as zero. 1. Measurements are made at a height of 1.5 meters above ground of at a greater height if habitation occurs at a greater height with lesser radial distance to the source. 2. Measurements shall be made when NIER levels are reasonably expected to be highest due to operating and environmental characteristics. 3. Measurements shall be accompanied by exhibits showing: a. The instruments used where calibrated within the manufacturer's suggested periodic calibration interval. b. The calibration method is used by or deprived from methods used by the National Bureau of Standards. C. The accuracy of the measurements and certification that the measurements were made in accordance with commonly accepted engineering practice. oxnn"T.036 14 Attachment 3 City Council Minutes 13 September 21, 1993 7. ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT OF EASEMENT DEED FOR RIGHT-0 AY PARCEL LOCATED IN DESERT CLUB DRIVE ALIG NT - DODCO/FEATHERINGELL. 8. ACCEPTANCE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY WITHIN TENTAAT RACT 23971 - LA QUINTA DEL ORO, UNITED SAVINGS BANK. 9. ACCEPTANCE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR INGTON STREET BRIDGE PROJECT. 10. APPROVAL OF ASSOCIATE ME AGREEMENT WITH UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT OF SOTE CALIFORNIA. 11. APPROVAL OF OVE AVEL FOR MAYOR PENA AND COUNCIL MEMBER MCCAR ND THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL CONFE NCEFRANCISCO OCTOBER 16-19, 1993. MOTION - was moved by Council Members Sniff/Bangerter to approve the Consent Calendar recommended with Item No. 2 being adopted by RESOLUTION NO.93-73 and Xm No. 3 being adopted by RESOLUTION NO. 93-74. Motion carried unaturnousiv. MINUTE ORDER NO. 93-189. STUDY SESSION 1. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF COMMUNICATIONS TOWERS AND RELATED STRUCTURES. Mrs. Mouriquand-Cherry, Associate Planner, advised that as directed by Council, a draft ordinance was prepared pertaining to the siting of communications towers structures and accessory equipment. The draft ordinance was modeled after a case study in Multnomah County, Oregon. Staff requested Council's authorization to route the ordinance for review and comment to outside agencies and schedule for public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council. In response to Council Member McCartney, Mrs. Mouriquand-Cherry advised that the tower height of 150 feet was based on the model ordinance from Oregon. Council concurred in leaving the tower height as an open issue until there has been further study within the Coachella Valley. Mayor Pena believed that their are conflicts dealing with ham radios, citizens band radios regarding set -backs. I 4 . City Council Minutes 14 September 21, 1993. Mr. Herman, Planning Director, advised that staff will research it further. In response to Council Member Perkins, Mrs. Mouriquand-Cherry advised that the industry has not been contacted for comment. Council directed staff to route the draft ordinance to the various agencies for their input. 2. DISCUSSION OF ON -STREET AND OFF-STREET PARKING ALTERNA IN VICINITY OF AVENIDA BERMUDAS/CALLE TAMPICO INTERSEC Mr. Speer, Ass't City Engineer, advised that the owner of Ace Hardware' ha equested the City to consider the possibility of allowing angle parking on the west sof Avenida Bermudas near the hardware store. Staff has prepared two angel parkalternatives in response to the request, which he proceeded to review with the C ncil. Additionally, a third alternative regarding parking near the hardware store is w possible as a result of the recent realignment of Calle Tampico. The northerly r ocation of Calle Tampico created a vacant area of excess right of way that is approx' ately 185' long by 70' wide. Currently, there is sufficient space for five parallel on- et parking spaces on the west side of Avenida Bermudas. Alternative A provid nine angel spaces; Alternative B provides seven angle spaces; and Alternative C pr ides twenty-six off-street spaces plus several additional on -street spaces on both Be Was and Tampico. Council Member Sniff was concerned ut angle parking because of backing out on to on -coming traffic and commented t the preferred Exhibit C because it was the safest, provided for a greater number f parking spaces, and would give definition to the downtown parking area. Council Member Perkins/ommented that he is oppose to angle parking and that Exhibit C is an excellent plan,Xoting that it fits in with the ultimate goal of the Village. Mayor Pena concuAed that Exhibit C is the best plan. Mr. Speer stod that staff will submit a proposal for. the installation of a parking lot at that locatio nd further research the ownership rights to that land. Mayor rena suggested reviewing this plan with the businesses in that area. concurred for staff to research this further and report back. 4udrey Ostrowsky, P. O. Box 351, expressed her delight in the direction Council was taking and asked that there be an exit on Navarro. Attachment AGENCIES TO CONTACT REGARDING PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR COMMUNICATION TOWERS AND RELATED STRUCTURES KMIR TV 72-920 Parkview Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 KECY TV 32-090 Rancho Vista Drive Cathedral City, CA 92234 CABLEVISION 329-6436 11-855 Palm Drive Desert Hot Springs, CA 92240 COLONY CABLEVISION 41-725 Cook Street Palm Desert, CA 92260 WARNER CABLE COMMUNICATIONS 1050 N. Palm Canyon Drive Palm Springs, CA 92262 L.A. CELLULAR 340-6364 73-608 Highway I I I Palm Desert, CA 92260 KESQ TV 42-650 Melanie Place Palm Desert, CA 92260 KVER TV 41-701 Corporate Way Palm Desert, CA 92260 MOTOROLA COMMUNICATIONS & ELECTRONICS 83-535 Peach Indio, CA 92201 DOCLC.010 1 V/ ROBERT F. CLEVELAND Federal Communications Commission Office of Engineering Technology 1919 "M" Street, N.W. Mail Stop 1300A2 Washington, D.C. 20554 DOUGLAS M. LONG, Manager California Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102-3298 RIVERSIDE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION EDA/Aviation Division French Valley Airport Aviation Center 37-552 Winchester Road Box 1,2&3 Murrieta, CA 92563 LARRY LEVINE PACTEL Cellular P. O. Box 19707 Irvine, CA 92713 SPRINGS AMBULANCE SERVICE 560 Williams Road Palm Springs, CA 92262 FBI 559 Palm Canyon Drive Palm Springs, CA 92262 IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE Border Patrol 45-620 Commerce Indio, CA 92201 SECRET SERVICE 255 E. Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 900 FL DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management 63-500 Garnet Avenue North Palm Springs, CA 922 DOCLC . 010 3 .,. KBEST & KUNA Radio Station 41-945 Boardwalk Palm Desert, CA 92260 KWXY Radio Station 68-700 Dinah Shore Drive Cathedral City, CA 92234 KCMJ Radio Station 490 S. Farrell Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 KCLB & KCLV Radio Station 1694 Sixth Street Coachella, CA 92236 KDES Radio Station 821 N. Palm Canyon Drive Palau Springs, CA 92262 KEZN Radio Station 72-915 Parkview Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 KPLM Radio Station 441 S. Calle Encilia Palm Springs, CA 92262 KPSI Radio Station 2100 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 JERRY L. ULCEK, Electronics Engineer Federal Communications Commission Office of Engineering & Technology Spectrum Engineering Division 2025 "M" Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 ✓ IEEE UNITED STATES ACTIVITIES BOARD 1828 "L" Street, N.W., #1202 Washington, D.C. 20036-5104 DOCLC.010 .6 RADIO AMATEUR CIVIL EMERGENCY SERVICE Mr. Bret Romer 73-401 Broken Arrow Trail Palm Desert, CA 92260 V RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE MARSHAL IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT DESERT SANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT COACHELLA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY SUNLINE TRANSIT COMPANY ✓ CALTRANS (DISTRICT 11) ✓ CITY OF INDIO CITY OF INDIAN WELLS `/ RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT RIVERSIDE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CITY OF COACHELLA ,�/ = C omm ea fs r e re l ve d DOCLC.010 4 Attachmen T44t 4 u�l'Gv 78.495 CALLS TAMPICO — LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 777-7000 FAX (619) 777-7101 September 30, 1993 SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 93-035, STANDARDS FOR COMMUNICATION TOWERS AND RELATED STRUCTURES Dear Sir/Madame: The City of La Quinta Planning and Development Department has drafted the attached proposed City Ordinance addressing the locating and development of communication towers and related structures. Your review and comments are requested on the ordinance. In addition, an initial environmental study pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the proposed ordinance is being conducted by City Staff. Your comments are requested with respect to: 1. Physical impacts the ordinance presents on public resources, facilities, and/or services; 2. Recommended measures: a) that you or your agency believe would mitigate any potential adverse effects; b) or should apply to the ordinance; c) or improvements to satisfy other regulations and concerns which your agency is responsible. Please send your response by October 29, 1993. If you have any questions concerning this letter or the proposed ordinance please contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, JERRY HERMAN PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR LESLIE MOURIQUAND-CHERRY ASSOCIATE PLANNER LC: ccs MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 `A LTRLC . 025 Attachmerd DATE: n-4 t a `t T,d4t 4 u��trc� 78495 CALLE TAMPICO — LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) M-7000 FAX (619) 777-7101 FROM: PLANNING i DEVELOPMENT DIVISION City Manager Assistant City Manager Public Works Director City Engineer Building i Safety Parks i Recreation Fire Marshal _Chamber of Commerce Imperial IrrigationD'ist. Southern California Gas Desert Sands School Dist. CV Unified School Dist. CV Water District S r A4kLi r �h Fd L% s Ay—a-s--te— Management %Principal US os ery ce Planner General Telephone Associate Colony Cable Planner Sunline Transit Associate Caltrans (District II) Planner _Agricultural Commission ,Planning CV Archaeological Soc. Director 3 BIA - Desert Council City of Indio/Indian Wells _CV Mount. Conservacy CV Recreation 6 Parks Riverside County: X Sheriff's Department Planning Department Environmental Health LA QUINTA CASE NO(S): 2-L% -1 3 � a5, 1 r" PROJECT DESCRIPTION: J ^ r l.. 6 er, m u 0 0 5 199 5 pC1 11 L-► d ? PROJECT LOCATION: C,-4 The City of La Quinta Development Review Committee is conducting an initial environmental study pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the above referenced project(s). Attached is the information submitted by the.project proponent. Your comments are requested with respect to: 1. Physical impacts the project presents on public resources, facilities, and/or services; 2. Recommended conditions: a) that you or your agency believe would mitigate any potential adverse effects; b) or should apply to the project design; c) or improvements to satisfy other regulations and concerns which your agency is responsible; and 3. If you find that the identified impacts will have significant adverse effects on the environment which cannot be avoided through conditions, please recommend the scope and focus of additional study(ies) which may be helpful. Please send your response by ae/ .14a-��• You are invited to attend the DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE meeting t La Quinta City Hall: Date: Time: Contact Person:Leslie ih ems' Comments made by: Title:Date: _ STATE OF CAUFORNIA - BUSINESS, TRANSPO ION AND MOUSING AGENCY Attachmern PETE WISW . Gow—, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 11, P.O. BOX 66406, SAN DIEGO. 92186.5406 819 688-6424 TDD Number October 7, 1993 Ms. Leslie Mouriquand-Cherry City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 OCT 12 lye, Q CITY OFF LA OUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT We have reviewed the following project, and have no comment at this time: Project Type: 20A 930935 Standards for Communication Towers BILL DILLON, Chief Planning Studies Branch cc: BDillon T/P File J0 The Gas Comp /- Attachment 8 City of La Quints 78-495 Calls Tampico La Quints, CA 92253 Attention: Leslie Mouriquano-Cherry Re: Communications Towers and Related Structures October 12, 1993 fT 15 1993 souhe Califor :s..wa-.evo. •er CITY GF LA L':.% A Gas Co any PLAN111N0 DE PA LA ENT kcdlJRd CA Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the above referenced item. Please note that Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the above Afat ,R,� adds,: named project is proposed. Gas service to the project could be provided from fi,X f"'" (AJna, dlrdl various location without any significant impact on the environment. The service ka . would be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made. You should be aware that this letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project, but only as an informational service. The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, The Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. We can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action which affects gas supply or the conditions under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised conditions. Typical demand use for: a. Residential (System Area Average/Use Per Meter) Yearly Single Family 799 therms/year dwelling unit Multi -Family 4 or less units 482 therms/year dwelling unit Multi -Family 5 or more units 483 therms/year dwelling unit These averages are based on total gas consumption in residential units served by Southern California Gas Company, and it should not be implied that any particular home, apartment or tract of homes will use these amounts of energy. b. Commercial Due to the fact that construction varies so widely (a glass building vs. a heavily insulated building) and there is such a wide variation in types of materials and equipment used, a typical demand figure is not available for this type of construction. Calculations would need to be made after the building has been designed. r— .d »A r We have developed several programs which are available, upon request, to provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy conservation techniques for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy conservation programs, please contact our Builder Services Manager, P.O. Box 3003, Redlands, CA 92373-0306. Sincerely, L. W. Toomoth Technical Supervisor LWT/blho Attachment 9 IVERSIDE COUNTY CIS BYRD, SHERIFF October 15, 1993 Sheriff 82-695 DR. CAR REON BLVD. • INDIO, CA 92201 Leslie Mouriquand-Cherry Associate Planner City of La Quinta Planning & Development Division 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta CA 92253 RE; 20A 93-035 Dear Ms. Mouriquand: (619) 94@-@gW lass The Sheriff's Department sees no problem with this Sincerely, Project. CCO-I--SS BYRD, SHERIFF ;Pei • - C Ronald F. Dye, Captain Indio Station Commander CB: RD:gt :� Y . Attachment 1> T I M I W A R M I R t A R L i October 13, 1993 Associate Planner City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Al 'a f O C T 18 1. . Re: Your Letter of September 30, 1993 Attention: Ms, Leslie Mouriquand-Cherry I appreciate the City of La Quinta thinking of us during your Zoning Ordinance Amendment; however, we do not conduct any business within the City of La Quinta. In consequence, this amendment would have no influence on our business operations. If you have any other questions or need further information, please don't hesitate to contact me at 320-1595. Regards, Maynard E. Jary nen Technical Operations Manager MEJ/j garner Cable 1050 \urth Palm Lumrm Pubs �prinF. (: 1 9__b_' Tel 019.3_'(1.8N1) Fea 1,N. ;_' t : "h't Attac hMOnt IEEE UNITED STATES ACTIVITIES Promoting Career and Technology Policy Interests of Electrical, Electronics & Computer Enginee United States Activities Board October 20, 1993LH T� Technology Policy Council Leslie Mou r i and -Che r ry (� ♦ (i OCT 2 5 16v N� Aerospace R&D Policy Communications & Associate Planner 1 r Information Policy City of La Quinta Defense R&D Policy 7 8-49 5 Calle Tampico CITY Gs: LA GUINT.A Energy Policy Engineering R&D Policy La Qu int a, CA 92253 PLANNING 0EI'AATM, ENT r Health Care Engineering Policy Man 8 Radiation Dear Ms. Mouriquand-Cherry, Government Activities Council Congressional Felows This is in response to your request for comments in Washington Internship for your letter dated, September 30, 1993, SUBJECT Students of Engineering legislative Report Request for Review of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 93- NabonalGovemmentActivities 035, Standards for Communication Towers and Related Stale GoverrmenlActivities Structures. We appreciate the opportunity to respond Technology Policy Conference US. Competitiveness to your request. Member Activities Council IEEE -USA's Committee on Man and Radiation's (COMAR ) Awards B Recognition primary area of interest is the biological effects of Communications Comm Employment Assistance non -ionizing electromagnetic radiation, examining an IMPACT interpreting the biological effects and presenting Opinion Survey findings in an authoritative manner. Your request is PrecollegelegeEducation Private Practtaners Task Force consistent with the solicitations we have received from ProlessronaiPerspective other municipalities. Salary Survey Professional Activities Council I am forwarding for your information three position issue in part E. for Engineers (PACE) statements that discuss the stated , National Engineers Week 9.218.010, of the ordinance draft. The three PACE Regional & Divisions] ActivitiesSection PACE Information/Workshop position statements are 1) Biological Effects of Power - Student Professional Awareness Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields, 2) Human Exposure to Microwaves and Other Radio -Frequency Caner Activities Council Antt•Drscnmmation Electromagnetic Fields, and 3) Human Exposure to Mobile Career Maintenance &Development Ettues Radiofrequency Fields From Portable and Telephones and Other Communications Devices. These may Intellectual Property Licensure 8 Registration prove helpful to you in further proceedings on the Manpower proposed ordinance. Pensions I would also like to offer the assistance of members of COMAR, Pat Polson, and John Osepchuk, Chairman of 1EEE-USAOR1Ce COMAR, for personal assistance should the need arise: (202) 785.0017 'Information Line" Recording (202) 785.2180 Dr. Peter Polson Dr. John Osepchuk 18985 Tuggle Avenue Raytheon Research Division FAX (202)785.0835 Cupertino, CA 95014 131 Spring Street (408) 257-3376 Lexington, MA 02173 (617) 860-3041 r-. J v IEEE -USA. 1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 1202, Washington, DC 20036-5104 The institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. Again, I appreciate the opportunity this matter. Please do not hesitate I may be of further assistance. Vcy, E. rey Technology P61icy Council IEEE -USA cc J. Osepchuk T. Suttle B. Wangemann encl to be of assistance to you in to contact me if you believe Attachment 1: %di®AmeteurCivilE mergencyService Eastern Riverside County 10/23/93 Jerry Herman Panning dt Development Director City of La Quints 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Mr. Herman, Brett Romer, N6NLN 73-401 Broken Artow Trail palm Desert, CA 92260 Home: (619)346-9291 Work: (619)776-7408 pager: (619)773-8227 Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your proposed zoning ordinance, arnendment 93-035. I have asked Dr. Don Doughty, W6EEN, P.E., to review the material and respond with his suggestions His thouglts and suggestions are attached Yours truly, Brett Romer Emergency Coordinator, Coachella Valley Deputy Chief RACES Officer, Eastern Riverside County 0Ct 2 5 0993 C4 OF LA OUIM"'k L9931013.DoC �- ,,; v i W 6 E F N DONALD L. DOUGHTY 424)5 BYRON PL BERMUDA DUNES. CA 9=1 October 21, 1993 To: Brett Romer, N®NLN From: Don Doughty, WHEN, P.9� Re: PROPOSED City of La Quanta rdInane* Amendment 93-035. This to a cursory review and I would welcome the opportunity to meet with the drafting agency to review these issues. 1. This amendment definitely applies to Amateur Radio Antennas. That they are "permitted" is confusing inasmuch as the question of "subject to" is not addressed. 2. There is an Amateur exemption for running 1 kw or less. No mention of whether this is PEP or RMS average, or how this reconciles with the "permitted" language noted above. 3. The problem may be, for Amateur Radio, that, in the Definitions section, standards for non -ionizing radiation are set which limit the level to an ERP of 1 watt. This is contradictory with the exemption noted in 2 above. This is a very low standard (tight) and IS NOT supported in the literature. Rather than introducing the Standard for non -ionizing radiation in the Definitions Section, why not refer to the Table on page 12. which is properly founded. 4. page S. Section B. 1. This is also restrictive and depends entirely on how the restricition is applied. 1}istory tells us that when towers fail. not to often, they generally fall well within a distance equal to about 25% of the tower height. Section B. 3. a. & b. appear to mitigate, but there is plenty of ambiguity. The guy wire setback requirement. is subsection c., is excessivs. 5. The bulk of the proposed Ordinance appears to be appropriate for the regulation of commercial antennas, and appears to be mainly concerned with the effects of Electromagnetic Radiation oft habitable structures, given certain minimum Structural and Land Use performances. 6. 1 personally believe the city, and its residents. it uld be better served, with respect to this proposed Ordinance, a ateur Radio SPECIFICALLY facilities, EXEMPTEDs,fromwthis ore any antenna s. and equipment were antenna Ordinance as regards Land Use and Zoning. b. Structural matters were left to the Uniform Building Code. c. Land Use matters and Mitigation Requirements were put in the appropriate Zoning Ordinance. or identified as those kinds of issues and thus subject to some sort of design process, rather than "certain trees shall". etc.. language. d. Organizational contradictions concerning non -ionizing radiation were eliminated, and perhaps adding a section on IONIZING radiation. Ptpase let we know if there is anything more I can, or should, do Attachment 1 Cll[TY O][= INIDI400 Community Development Department October 26, 1993 Leslie Mouriquancl-Cherry, Associate 11a11nPr City of La Quinta Planning & Development Division 73-495 Calle 'Tampico La Quanta, CA. 92253 nD 6!�X, An ry i► 0 C T 2 6 1993 C►I f -V I PIAN�t,tr^ �1,.�Nt:IItTA RE: ZOA 93-035 (Now Standards for Comm►mic0icns 'T'oworG) Dear Leslie: 71he City o..' Indio is receipt of tho draft zoning ordinance amendment sent to us regarding co►►unun!cations towers MId "Plated structures. t)ur Community Development Department staff commends City cif Is Qllinta staff involved in this zoning ordinance amendment. It seems to be a comprehensive amendment on a topic of increasingly greater concern to local governments as the t.elecomnunications industry conti►►►►es to Pxpand. Some sections (i.e., Nonionizing Elvetromagn-?Vc Radistion Standards and Procedures) of the proposed amendmont, however, appear to be very technical and may be difficult for most of tho plI)ry to understand. Given, however, that this telecommunications topic is inherently very technical, perhaps there is no easy way of Pomn►uni""119 technical aspects of the topic in a more user friendly, plain English language form -it. Thank you for the opportunity to let mir deparimevt oowment on this zoining ordinance amendment. Sincerely, Francise Urbina Assistant Planner cc: Henry J. Holienstein, AICP, Community Tevelopment Director v CITY OF INDIO • 100 CIVIC CENTER MALL • P.O. DRAWER 1788 • INDIO, CA 92202 DEPARTMENT TELEPHONE NUMBERS, ALL IN 619 AREA CODE CIT`i' CLERK 342.6570 • CITY MANAGER 342.6580 • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/REDEVELOPMENT 342-6500 FINANCE PUBLIC ERRVICESIEEN INEERING 334HUMAN 6530 ' CITY HALL FAX 342 65556 CITY YARD p 3474317 Attachment 1 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 Leslie Mouriquand-Cherry City of La Quinta 78-496 Ca.11e Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 Dear Ms. Cherry: January 13, 1994 IN REPLY REFER TO: Imo" ! Yi 1� •� .K 2 a �- •,'e1�,�' �� �. JAN 1 8 1994 I am writing you in response to our phone conversation on January 6, 1994. The following are some comments and suggestions regarding your proposed City Ordinance addressing the locating and development of communications towers and related structures. This analysis was performed by a staff Electronics Engineer. 1. On page 4, Section 9.218.080, you have not included private radio carriers such as Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR). 2. On page 12, Section 9.218.080(B), some of the units are incorrect in the Notes under Table A. The mW/ama should be mW/cm2 . 3. On page 12, Section 9.218.080(B), the source of Table A is not the Federal Communications Commission, it is the IEEE C95.1-1991. 4. On page 13,Section 9.218.080(C), average output needs clarification, for example: do you mean averaged over time? 5. On page 13, Section 9.218.080(C)(1-4), effective radiated power should be effective isotropic radiated power. 6. On page 13, Section 9.218.080(C), Table B, EIRP is not Effective Irradiated Power, it is Effective Isotropic Radiated Power. 7. On page 14, Section 9.218.080(D)(1), In our studies, the Commission uses a height of 2 meters, not 1.5 meters. 10. On page 14, Section 9.218.080(D) (1) (b) , the word "deprived" should be "derived." L0 l Leslie Mouriquand-Cherry (2) I have enclosed for your information a copy of the last position statement adopted on January 9, 1990 by the Commission concerning federal preemption of state and local RF radiation standards. If you have further questions feel free to call me at (202)653-8152. Enclosure Sincerely, M. David M. Szypulski Electronic Engineer Office of Engineering & Technology Ci Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) National Association ) cf Broadcasters j Petition for Issuance of a j Declaratory Ruling to Preempt ) State and Local Regulation of ) RF Radiation Standards that ) Affect Communications Services ) to the Public ) FCC 90-10 37837 Adopted: January 9, 1990 ; Released: January 11, 1990 By the Commission: 1. Before us for consideration is a petition for declaratory ruling filed by the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) on March 31, 1986, requesting that we preempt state and local regulation of radiofrequency (RF) radiation standards that affect communications services to the public. Also before us are numerous comments and reply comments supporting or opposing NAB's petition. 2. In its petition, NAB states that state and local RF radiation standards arbitrarily limit or preclude communications services to the public. In particular, NAB argues that a proliferation of state and local RF radiation regulations is impeding the development and introduction of new technologies and services. Because, according to NAB, these actions directly conflict with the Commission's goal of fostering interstate communications, NAB asks that we preempt state and local RF radiation standards more stringent than the RF radiation guidelines established by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).l 1 The ANSI guidelines are used as processing guidelines under our environmental rules. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.1307(b). 2 3. We do not believe that preemption of state and local RF radiation standards is warranted at this time. The Commission has previously declined to preempt state and local regulation of RF radiation. See Responsibility of the Federal Communications Commission to Consider Biological Effects of Ra iofre uency R-adiation When Authorizing the Use of Ttac�io requenccyDevices, 100 FCC 2d 543, 557-558, reconsideration nied, 58 RR 2d 11_288, 1131 (1985). The record before us in this proceeding does not provide a basis for altering our previous decisions. Any specific problems warranting action by the Commission can be brought to our attention on a case -by -case basis. 2 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the petition for declaratory ruling filed by the National Association of Broadcasters on March 17, 1986 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Donna R. Searcy Secretary 2 We note that the Environmental Protection Agency previously proposed the development of -federal RF guidelines (EPA Docket No. A-82-43). The Commission has supported EPA action in this area (see letter from Chairman Patrick to EPA Administrator Thomas, November 29, 1988), and we continue to do so. In this regard, our staff is in continuing contact with EPA's staff on this important issue. Ir <i S-d .) TO: FROM DATE: Attachment 1 TRANSMITTAL MEMO X CITY MANAGER X PARKS DEPARTMEMT BUILDING & SAFET CODE ENFORCEMENT FIRE MARSHAL •ZC CITY ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR X JERRY HERMAN -9 STAN SAWA L>ana ld DouG toLy RssoCr&I-e- 1'laone A Pr, ne-1 pa l P/an.?e., PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - Leslie Cherry SUBJECT: PROJECT REVIEW CASE: > ja F JAN 14 1994 1 t.�.v.Tanx�.va�+�.rc�_::'.✓-X�'LroO�4S S+an 619r d s ,r7mfrc;41 1 vnmunt4(ctf� Fc) w e-rs af, lee taled St ruc4 Lases ]PIC,EASE REVIEW AND PROVIDE ANY COMMEwrrS YOU MAY HAVE OPT THE A`rrrACHED ITEM BY F'c brua�v IS /494 COMMENTS. 4 - • C . I �0 NDME N 2 5 1994 Attachment TRANSMITTAL MEMO X CITY MANAGER PARKS DEPARTMEMT X BUILDING & SAFETY CODE ENFORCEMENT -X CITY ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR X JERRY HERMAN STAN SAWA JA t �, FIRE MARSHAL A%/ QkA r 4 l d Ra1V' cgq'r. = C�UMC�Y it s s ce r & fG Pla rn n e, FIT., - FROM: ROM• PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - Lesl ie Cherry DATE: �� rf r a r T21_T 1 q FEB 0 1 1994 SUBJECT PROJECT REVIEW ' r'e v -s1. S CASE: S+an Q Err7munr,(a4-1 � Fc)Lz Prc A,, d )ee laced St rue- 4areS PLEASE REVIEW AND PROVIDE ANY COMMENTS YOU MAY HAVE ON THE A-r-rACHED ITEM DV L re 6rLjctj,u IS lQ4y_ COMMENTS: NOCOMIMIENT I. Background Attachment 17 Environmental Assessment No. 93-270 Case No. TWW-035 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Name of Proponent City of La Quinta 2. Address & Phone Number of Proponent 619-777-7125 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California, 92253 3. Date Checklist Prepared January 21, 1994 4. Agency Requiring Checklist City of La Quinta 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable 20A 93-035, Standards for Commercial Communica Towers and Related Structures II. Environmental Impacts (Explanation of "yes" & "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) YES MAYBE NO 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: X a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or over covering of the soil? X c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features. X e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X 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? X g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure or similar hazards? rnPm. nn4 /rq -1- YES MAYBE NO 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: X a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? X b. The creation of objectionable odors? X c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or _.+. temperature or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: X a. Changes in currents or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? X b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? X c. Alterations to the course or flow of -- flood waters? X d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? X e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? X 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? X h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? X i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? FnRv. nnq /rs -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 X 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? 9. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a X substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 8. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: X a. Increase in the rate of use of any 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? X 10. Population. Will the proposal alter the — location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? v L3 cr%au nno /rc -14- 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 in any of the altered governmental services following areas: X a. Fire protection? -- X b. Police protection? X c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X e. Maintenance of public facilities 6 roads? X ' X f. Other governmental services? 14. Energy. Will the proposal result in: X a. Use of substantial amount of fuel or energy? X b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy, or require of energy? the development of new sources f"a v ,1 rnam nno /rc -4- YES MAYBE NO 15. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a X need for new systems, or substantial - alterations to the following utilities: X a. Power or natural gas? X b. communications systems? X c. Water? -" X d. Sewer or septic tanks? ----- X e. Storm water drainage? X f. Solid waste and disposal? 16. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: X a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding :rental health). 17. X Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or to the or will the proposal view open public, result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 18. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an X impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 19. cultural Resources X a. Will the proposal result in the alter- ation of or the destruction of a pre- historic or historic archaeological site? X b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? X c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? X d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? rnRm - nn4 /rs -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? I- FnRM.009/CS -6- 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 IMPACT REPORT is required. January 21, 1994 j Date 4-nj'lature f Pre arer FORM.009/CS -7- CITY OF LA QUINTA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 93-270 ADDENDUM ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 93-035 STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES COMMUNICATIONS TOWERS AND RELATED GENERAL DESCRIPTION: A need for regulations governing the siting and construction of commercial communications towers has been identified by the City Council for the City of La Quinta. The proposed ordinance has been drafted to provide such regulation as may be allowed at the local level of government. This ordinance can be implemented in conjunction with the regulations of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) . Commercial towes ordinance structures, The ordinance does not regula tee structures regulated by tamateur ham radio Yu antennas or equipment . The proposed ordinance will apply citywide, and provide a comprehensive guide and set of standards for the approval of commercial towers for various types of antennas, transmitters, receivers, and equipment buildings. The types of users of commercial towers include VHF and UHF television, FM radio, Two-way radio, Common carriers, Cellular telephone, Fixed-point microwave, Low -power television, AM radio, and specialized mobile radio. There are several users that would be exempt from the particular ordinance, but may be regulated by other sections oft he Mble, handheld and The exempt users include: Amateur ham radio equipment; p vehicular transmission; industrial, scientific, and medical equipment operating at frequencies designated for that purpose by the FCC; a source of nonioning electromagnetic radiation with an average output of one kilowatt or less if used for amateur purposes; marketed consumer products, such as microwave ovens, citizens band radios, and remote control toys; and goods in storage or shipment or on display for sale, provided the goods are not operated, except for occasional testing or demonstration. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Explanation of responses to Initial Study Checklist and recommended mitigation measures. 1. EARTH This ordinance will regulate commercial towers throughout the City of La Quinta. With the installation of tower structures and equipment buildings, there will be disruption, displacement, compaction and over -covering of the soil as tower sites are prepared. It is not anticipated that there will be any unstable earth conditions or EALC.01 changes in geological substructures resulting from the installation of such towers. Similarly, there will not be any significant changes in topography or ground surface relief features. Towers would not be allowed to be installed where there would be destruction, covering, or modification of any unique geologic or physical features. There are no beaches, rivers, or oceans in or near La Quinta to be effected by tower installations. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure or similar hazards due to the installation of commercial towers is not anticipated as towers would not be permitted to be located on sites with these potential hazards, without conducting a geologic/seismic study. If towers are installed in populated areas, there is the risk of falling towers and antennas from large earthquakes and liquefaction activity. Setback requirements are found in the proposed ordinance that will provide a safety buffer from falling tower structures. Mitigation Measures: 1) Any installation of commercial towers within the City of La Quinta shall meet the provisions of the Uniform Building Code Section 2312 (d) 2 in order to comply with seismic safety requirements. 2) All structures shall be designed according to current Uniform Building Code requirements. 2. AIR The City of La Quinta is located within the Southeast Desert Air Basin (SEDAB) and is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) . The climate is characterized by high temperatures, low annual rainfall, and low humidity. Prevailing northwesterly winds funnel from the Los Angeles area into the Coachella Valley often transporting oxidants, sulfates, and nitrates into the airshed of the City. Although the local contribution to air quality is not substantial, the Coachella Valley area does violate state and federal standards for ozone. In addition, particulate standards are often exceeded because of wind -transported desert soils. The primary air quality concerns in the air basin are particulate matter (dust) and ozone. The PM10 standard is exceeded as a result of activities in the Coachella Valley which contributes to fugitive dust. The Coachella valley has the potential for generating significant fugitive dust as the area consists of alluvial materials and sand deposits . The air mass from the South Coast Air Basin contributes to the PM10 violations, but the majority of the problem is caused locally by urban development and agricultural activities . Suspended particulates (PM10) are generated from either a pollution source or are formed in the atmosphere as a result of chemical reactions driven by sunlight. In 1990, SCAQMD prepared a State Implementation Plan for PM10 to define control measures to reduce the local contributions to the PM10 violations and to bring the Coachella Valley into compliance with federal and State ambient air quality standards. Control measures are directed toward five categories of emissions:) open area wind erosion; (2) unpaved roads, including farm roads; (3) pawed roads including storage and movement of fine particulates; (4) construction and demolition activities; (5) agricultural operations. Local government agencies are responsible for implementation of most of the control measures. Air quality will not be significantly impacted by the installation of commercial communications towers. There will be no gaseous emissions form the towers that could contribute to the deterioration of the ambient air quality. However, there could be PM10 generated from construction activities related to the installation of a tower and support structures. Similarly, no odors are emitted from such equipment. The towers regulated by this proposed ordinance will be tall, thin structures that cannot alter the air movement, moisture, or temperature in the local or regional climate. Some types antennasaand the antenna, however, the amount will not be thermal energy immediately significant enough to alter the climate. Construction activities may result in air pollutant sources that may deteriorate ambient air quality. Thesesources are fstationary and include emissions from on -site construction activities and fuel combust Mitigation Measures: 1) Grading and construction shall comply with all applicable City ordinances, including the PM10 Ordinance. 2) Tower sites graded but not immediately constructed upon shall be planted with a temporary ground cover to reduce the amount of open space subject to wind erosion. 3. WATER The Coachella Valley Water District provides domestic water, irrigation and sewer service to the City of La Quinta. Irrigation water is provided to the City via the Coachella Canal. The canal, which loops through the City on the west side of Lake Cahuilla County Park and PGA West, receives its supply of water from the Imperial Reservoir on the Colorado River north of Yuma, Arizona. Water is used to irrigate golf courses, agricultural areas, and to recharge the underground aquifer. Private wells are also found within the City that provide both domestic and irrigation water. Drainage in many parts of the City has been altered by flood improvements, however, in the event of a major storm some areas of the City could experience flooding conditions. For the most part, the nature of the soils in the City allow for rapid permeability. The proposed tower ordinance is not anticipated to have any effect upon the surface or ground water quality in the City. The rate of absorption and drainagepatterns in the area are not expected to significantly a fican l change structbecause of the installation of commercial communications Mitigation Measures All future installations of commercial communications towers and related structures shall comply with all applicable and nuisance water aWaterchella Valley result ng fromgrading and co struction regarding storm activities and from post -development. E nc.oi . ,i 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The City of La Quinta is located within a Sonoran Desert Scrub environment. This environment is generally noted as containing plants which have the ability to economize water, go dormant during periods of drought, or both. Dominant plants include: Creosote Bush, Bur -sage, Ocotillo, Barrel Cactus, Jumping Cholla, Smoketree, Mesquite, Four -wing Saltbush, Agave, and Desert Lavender. Continual development and agricultural activity has disrupted much of the natural plant environment within La Quinta. Relic plant communities can occasionally be found along fence rows, between fields, and in remaining dune areas. Mammalian species common to this area are small nocturnal animals, such as mice, kangaroo rats, desert cottontail, jack rabbits, and coyotes. Reptiles are numerous, including the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard. Mitigation for the disruption of this lizard's habitat is provided by payment of a set fee if the project site is located within the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Preserve Development Fee Area. It is highly unlikely that any new species of animals would be introduced into the City as a result of the installation of a commercial communications tower. It is possible that there could be an impact upon native plant species resulting from the installation of commercial communications towers and related structures. New plant species could be introduced into the tower area as a result of landscaping requirements. It is also a possibility that there will be a reduction in agricultural land as new towers and related structures are constructed. The typical tower site requires only an acre or two of area, which would not significantly threaten a plant community. Areas where unique, rare or endangered plan or animal species are known to exist are identified in the Master Environmental Assessment and the General Plan. Any application for a tower would require that the City prepare an environmental assessment to determine the impact of that specific project upon any biological resources. M_ iti�ation Measures 1 Any application for approval of the installation of a commercial communication tower and/or related structure shall have an environmental assessment prepared to determine any significant impact upon biological resources . 5. NOISE The significant noise sources in the City of La Quinta are generated primarily from automobile and truck traffic. The existing areas of the City which are subject to high noise exposure are primarily along major street corridors. Rural areas with low traffic volumes typically experience noise levels ranging form 35 to 55 dB (a) , depending on the time of day . Commercial communications towers could be located in either developed or undeveloped areas of the City. The tower structures emit little, if any, noise. However, the vehicular traffic noise associated with the on- going operations of the tower would be minimal as the towers are only manned during inspection and maintenance trips, usually by one or two persons. Construction of a tower may require temporary traffic volume increases and noise increases during ated that the installation and operation of towers will the daytime. It is not anticip have any significant impact on the existing ambient noise levels within the City . ZALC.01 Mitization Measures: None feasible. 6. LIGHT AND GLARE It is possible that federal requirements for towers of certain height and in certain locations may require a tower to have aviation strobe lights as a hazard warning. Equipment guidelines might have outdoor security lighting as well. However, any security lighting will be subject to the Dark sky Ordinance and any other ordinance regulating light fixtures and glare. It is not anticipated that there will be any significant impact from lighting associated with the installation of a commercial communication tower. Mitigation Measures: 1. Applications for towers that will have any type of utdoallurrenor tting will iordinl es be required as a condition of approval to comply pertaining to light and glare. 7. LAND USE The proposed ordinance is not anticipated to result in any significant alteration of the present or future planned land use in the City of La Quinta. It is possible that the installation of a commercial communications tower may be found objectionable by adjacent property owners, who may oppose approval by the City. Opposition based on aesthetic issues must be tempered with the knowledge that if an applicant is denied approval for the installation of a tower or antenna equipment at two different locations, the applicant can then appeal to the FCC to preempt the local decision and obtain federal approval to install a tower at the best suited location as far as transmission and reception requirements, regardless of aesthetic or land use concerns. Mitieation Measures: None feasible 8. NATURAL RESOURCES The proposed ordinance may impact three categories of natural resources: for concrete, mineral, and water; 2)construction-related resources (e.g. aggregate metals for tower structure, other building materials); 3) scenic vistas and views. Specific areas within the City with known mineral resources have been identified in the General Flan and Master Environmental Assessment. Applications for towers will be required to have an environmental assessment prepared as part of the staff review process. Specific mitigation measures can be required on a case -by -case basis . Impacts upon construction -related resources will not be significant on a project -by - project basis. There is no feasible mitigation for this issue. mc.01 0 Mitigation Measures: None feasible. 9. RISK OF UPSET The identified potential risks of upset associated with the installation of commercial communications towers and related structures includes tower failure and biological effects from radiation emissions. Tower failure is addressed in the required setbacks for locating a tower. It has been noted that approximately the top 25% of a tower will fall during a failure as opposed to the entire tower falling over. Many towers are secured by guy wires to add stability to those towers that are very high. However, it is always possible that an entire tower could fall over during a seismic event or major storm. The ordinance requires the applicant for a tower approval to submit documents from a California certified structural engineer stating that the tower structure is designed to minimum standards. A proposed tower will be required to comply with Uniform Building Code and other requirements for structural integrity and installation. Any related equipment structures will also be required to comply with all applicable building codes. Mitigation Measures: 1. All tower structures and related structures shall be required in the Conditions of Approval to comply with all local and other governmental regulations and codes governing structural integrity, site installation, and construction. 10. POPULATION The proposed ordinance is not anticipated to have any significant impacts on future development and settlement in the City of La Quinta. It is possible that a lower density of residential development may result adjacent to a tower, due to the perception that there are dangerous emissions from antennas, transceivers, and microwave dishes or aesthetic concerns. Mitigation Measures: None feasible. 11. HOUSING The proposed commercial communication tower ordinance is not anticipated to result in any effect in existing housing or to create a demand for additional housing. The towers sites are unmanned and therefore will not provide any additional employment to attract new residents to the City. With each application for approval of a tower, an environmental assessment will be prepared that will among all other issues consider this issue. If there is a proposal to remove housing in order to create a tower site, then there could be an impact, although not a significant impact, as tower sites are typically relatively small in area. RAM01 Mitigation Measures: None Feasible . 12. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION With the installation of commercial communications tower facilities there will be very little vehicular traffic generated from the on -going operations. During construction of the tower, there could be several vehicles on the project site for a short period of time. However, after completion, the towers are unmanned unless subject to inspection or maintenance. The ordinance will not result in any impacts to waterborne, rail, or air traffic, as these modes of transportation do not exist in the City of La Quinta. There are no rivers, railroads, or airports in the City. Thermal Airport, located to the east of the City, is not near enough to La Quinta to cause concern about towers impacting an airport influenced area as defined in the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan. Mitieation Measures: None feasible. 13. PUBLIC SERVICES The proposed commercial communications tower will have minimal effect on fire or police protection services. Schools will not be impacted as there will not be any generation of new students by the installation of a tower facility. Similarly, parks and other recreation facilities will not be impacted. Towers would not generate park users, thus no park fees would be assessed nor would parkland be dedicated in lieu of payment of park fees. The maintenance of public facilities and roads would not be significantly impacted by the installation of towers. If a tower were erected in a remote location and a private road had to be built to access the tower, then that project would be required to have a comprehensive environmental review prepared for consideration. Maintenance of a private road would be the responsibility of the applicant or property owner, unless that road were dedicated to the City as a public street. Other governmental services that could be impacted as a result of this proposed ordinance would not be significantly effected. Therefore, no feasible mitigation measures apply to this issue. Mitization Measures: None feasible. 14. ENERGY The proposed ordinance will not in itself require the expenditure of energy or fuel. Any development of commercial communications towers will require the expenditure of energy in the form of fossil fuels . On -going operation of a tower will require WQC. of electricity of aas in known amount - It is not anticipated that there will be a substantial increase demand upon existing sources of energy, or that new sources of energy will need to be developed. Mitigation Measures : None feasible. 15. UTILITIES The installation of commercial communications towers will not result in the need for new or substantially alteedthelado tlon of this proposed ordinstems. No adverse ance act upon utility providers is anticipated fromP Mitigation Measures None feasible. 16. HUMAN HEALTH The proposed ordinance contains a section pertaining to nonioning electromagnetic radiation (NIER) standards and procedures. calculations and measurementsrfo for commercial es two kinds of standards, one based on NEIR uses, and one based on tower distance from nearby habitable structures for the remaining commercial NIER sources. NIER sources are those frequencies in the lower two-thirds of the electromagnetic spectrum and include all radio, television, and microwave frequencies as well as ordinary household current and radar. NIER is distinguished from ionizing o ionize or alt r the molecular struct etic radiation (IER) - ire of living tissue. X- ray - by its lack of energy Although the short-term and long-term damage to humans resulting from exposure to even low levels of IER is well documented, potential health hazards associated with some NIER exposure is a subject of controversy among health scientists. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) states that measurements have shown that ground -level power densities recommended due to microwave directional antennas are normally a thousand times or more below recommended safety to protection he FCC now guides for uses the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) p purposes of evaluating environmental impact from the radio frequencies from 300kHz to 100 GHz. Data shows that the human body absorbs radio frequency energy at some frequencies more efficiently than at others. The most restrictive limits are in the frequency range of 30 to 300 MHz where maximum levels of 1 mW/em squared as averaged over any six minute period of exposure, are recommended. This recommendation is baseddetermination 4 wattper kilogram (4rW/kgd. for hazardous biological effects was approximately A safety factor of ten was then onorated to arrive at the ordinance incorporates final these protecton protection guidelines. Thep posed guidelines. ZALC. Ol L Mitigation Measures: 1. Each applicant for a commercial communications tower facility is required by the proposed ordinance to submit certified documents stating that all equipment complies with the FCC and ANSI standards for radio frequencies. 17. AESTHETICS It is possible that towers will result in some degree of obstruction of scenic vistas or views open to the public. It is also possible that towers may create an aesthetically offensive site open to the public. Depending upon the type of antennas and supports that would be used on a tower, the aesthetic impact could be minimal or significant. Whip antennas are very thin and become almost invisible in the sky. Microwave dishes and array antennas will be seen for some distance. The height of the tower structure will be a factor in the aesthetic impact. A very tall tower located in an open site or atop a ridge will be more visible than one located closer to the mountains on flat ground. A detailed assessment of the aesthetic impact of each tower will have to be made on a project -by -project basis. Little can be done to screen a tall tower structure, however, the equipment buildings can be screened with block walls, berming and/or landscaping. Federal preemption of local decision is a possibility when an applicant for approval of a tower or additional antenna equipment to an existing tower is denied two different locations. The applicant can appeal to the FCC for preemption and possibly obtain approval to install a tower or add additional antennas if the FCC approves the appeal. Thus, City denial on the basis of aesthetics, among other issues, can be disregarded if the FCC approves a preemption. Mitigation Measures: 1. Block walls, landscape screening or other screening methods shall be required around equipment buildings when appropriate . 18. RECREATION The proposed ordinance is not anticipated to have any impact upon the number of recreation facilities or the quality of recreation in La Quinta. Mitigation Measures: None feasible. 19. CULTURAL RESOURCES There are known prehistoric and historic sites within the City of La Quinta. The La Quinta area has a high potential for the discovery of additional cultural resources in undeveloped areas. It is possible that future tower locations could have cultural deposits on them that would have to be properly located, documented and mitigated prior to any site disturbance or construction. MMC.oi V i L 3 Mitigation Measures: 1. All future tower projects shall be required to have a reconnaissance survey conducted early in the planning review process. The recommendations of the survey report shall be made part of the project conditions of approval. The requirements of Appendix K of the California Environmental Quality Act shall be complied with. 2. All project applications within the City of La Quinta shall be forwarded for review and comment to the Coachella Valley Archaeological Society. 20. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The proposed commercial communications tower ordinance could result in the potential to reduce the habitat of wildlife species, 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. These issues will be considered through the environmental review process as individual applications are submitted to the City. The appropriate feasible mitigation measures will be required as a part of project conditions of approval. The proposed ordinance will not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long term goals. The ordinance will not have cumulative impacts of a significant nature. Potential impacts that have been identified in this document can be mitigated with feasible measures that will lessen individual impacts to a level of insignificance. The proposed ordinance is not anticipated to result in environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. EMC. of BI *1 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 1994 CASE NO: PRECISE PLAN 94-481 APPLICANT: DENNIS AND GLORIA O'MALLEY REQUEST: ESTABLISHMENT OF A LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOME (DAY CARE SERVICES FOR 7 TO 12 CHILDREN MAXIMUM IN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME). LOCATION: 54-881 AVENIDA RAMIREZ (IN THE COVE AREA) ZONING: SR (SPECIAL RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: PURSUANT TO SECTION 1597.46 OF THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE (HEALTH AND SAFETY), LARGE FAMILY DAYCARE HOMES ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT SINCE THEY ARE A NONDISCRETIONARY ACTION. REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS: Based on the State Health and Safety Code, the City cannot prohibit large family day care homes on lots zoned for single family dwellings. Although it is the State Department of Social Services responsibility to regulate the operation of a large family day care homes, the City does have some limited authority in prescribing reasonable conditions regarding traffic control, parking, noise, and spacing/concentration of large family day care homes. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS: Section 9.42.020 (SR Zone) of the La Quinta Municipal Code lists large family day care homes as an allowable use subject to obtaining precise plan approval. PROTECT PROPOSAL: The applicant's presently operate a licensed small family day care home from their residence which allows up to six children. The applicants now wish to expand their facility to a large family day care home which allows from 7-12 children, provided a second aide is employed. The applicants have submitted information indicating that their operating hours are Monday through Friday 7:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. PCST.167 The subject property is a double lot (100' X 100') developed with a three bedroom residence of approximately 1,110 square feet. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: As required by State law, the property owners within 100 feet of the subject property were notified of this request. Normally, this request would be approved by the Planning and Development Director. However, any of the property owners notified may request a hearing prior to approval. Ms. Mary Peterson, who owns a vacant lot behind the subject property on Avenida Carranza, has requested a hearing. Ms. Peterson indicates in her letter that she is concerned about the noise because her property is directly behind. Ms. Peterson has verbally indicated that although the lot is vacant at the present time, she does intend to build on it in the near future. The letter from Ms. Peterson is attached for your review. ANALYSIS: The issuance of this precise plan permit by State law is a nondiscretionary action with the City allowed to prescribe reasonable standards, restrictions, and requirements regarding traffic, parking, noise control, and spacing/concentration of day care homes. 2. Normally, the Planning and Development Director would have the responsibility of reviewing this permit. However, due to the request by a nearby property owner, review by the Planning Commission is needed. 3. The State Legislature has found and declared that: A. It has the responsibility to ensure the health and safety of children in family homes that provide day care. B. That there are insufficient numbers of regulated family day care homes. C. That there will be a growing need for child day care facilities due to the increase in working parents. D. Many parents prefer child day care located within their neighborhoods in family homes. E. There should be a variety of child care settings including regulated family day care homes as suitable alternatives for parents. F. That the program to be operated by the State should be cost effective, streamlined, and simple to administer in order to ensure adequate care for children placed in family day care homes, while not placing undue burden on the providers. G. That the State should maintain an efficient program of regulated family day care homes that ensures the provision of adequate protection, supervision, and guidance to children in their homes. PCST.167 4. At the Planning Commission meeting of January 25, 1994, the Planning Commission approved a large family day care home on Avenida Villa. That facility is approximately one half mile away from this proposed location. 5. To minimize outdoor noise impacts generated from the facility, the outdoor play should be limited to mid -day hours. 6. To minimize to the extent feasible, traffic and parking impacts from the proposed activity, the following should be considered: A. The driveway area should remain clear of residential/applicant vehicle parking and be reserved strictly for drop off/pick up during child care operation. All resident vehicles, provided there are two or less should be parked within the carport during the child care operation. B. All on -street parking and loading of all user vehicles should be restricted to the area in front of the subject property whenever possible, if the driveway is not used. The operator generally has no control of this. FINDINGS: 1. The project is not subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. 2. The issuance of Precise Plan 94-451, a permit to operate a large family day care home, is a nondiscretionary action. 3. A large family day care home will operate in accordance with Chapter 3.6 (Family Day Care Homes) of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California. 4. The City of La Quinta has authority to prescribe reasonable standards, restriction, and requirements regarding project traffic, parking, noise control, and spacing/concentration of day care homes. RECONEVIENDATION: Based upon the above analysis and findings, the Planning Commission shall approve Precise Plan 94-4511 by Minute Motion 94- , subject to the attached conditions. Attachments: 1. Location map 2. Information from applicant regarding the child care facility 3. Letter from adjacent property owner dated February 7, 1994 4. Conceptual site plan layout for residence including floor plan PCST.167 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRECISE PLAN 94-481 FEBRUARY 22, 1994 1. Operation of the large family day care home shall be Monday through Friday 7:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. 2. Outdoor play shall be limited to backyard area and not occur prior to 9:00 A.M. or after 4:00 P.M. 3. The driveway area shall remain clear of resident/applicant vehicle parking and be reserved for clientele pick up/drop off during child care operations. All resident vehicles, to the extent feasible, shall be parked within the carport during the child care operation. 4. The applicant shall obtain the proper license pursuant to State law requirements prior to operation of the large family day care home. PCST.167 4 ATTACHMENT 1 I POMERO �o ® w.et ® � o 7�• yN 24 t e 24O ..oi O / b so .4,00_ 0.23 * Z J RZ5* 2 !N 0 3$Ac 23 ®2 • $ ioo 23Q O 2 O3 03 M 2 22 Q 3 4 140 22 90 @5 > N © 5 N ©5 20@ ® 5 k ' ?0� /© 5 06 �6 /9© ® 94 � .301 � W 09 ®9 /6® 0-9 ti •' /6O ®9 'O /0 m ® /0 /523Ac+ /0 W /5 (� /O Q // /4 O/ ®// /4@ ® d to �e • Q23 v r AV my /3 Q © /2 s. �. 00 /3 a24 /2 �. ! t I••N If ff + Irr-vf -j MATE —��—, ; sr I2 CALL E so+• 222s CASE No. LOCATION MAP ORTH PRECISE PLAN 94-481 1 SCALE: ATTACHMENT Gloria O'Malley Child Care ,�;�( CONTRACT 1�pl I agree to pay $ per week for child care for I understand that the normal operating hours for the care are 7 A.M. thru 5 P.M. weekdays. I under- stand that I will be charged $2.00 pr hour (billed to the nearst 1/2 Hour) for additional time care is provided outside normal operating hours. I will be provided a billing each Friday morning that is due and payable that evening. The billing will list all charges due and amounts paid year to date for my records. In addition I have read the attached rules and agree to abide by them. - a (Parent's Signature) (Date) I Gloria O'Malley agree to accept into my home for Day Care. I agree to be punctual in taking and sending your child off at the prearranged times. I will be reliable and give advance notice (3 weeks) when my home will be closed for vacations, holidays, doctor's ap- pointments, etc. In the event of an emergency or illness I will help to locate a subsitute provider who can care for your child. I will provide a mid morning snack, lunch and mid -afternoon snack. I will come to you with problems or questions that effect your child in my home and will make time available to you for concerns you may have in regards your childs care. I will do my best to insure quality child care and to look after the welfare, health, and growth of your child. This is an Isaiah 54:13 "And all thy children shall be taught of the Lord; and great shall be the peace of thy children." Day Care. I� 64 " �II (Providers Signature) (Date) �� ✓1 M44 -_46 41 Gloria O'Malley Child Care SIGN IN e All forms must be returned and completely filled out before a child enters my care. All forms are subject to yearly renewal and must be kept up to date. The parent -provider contact may be terminated at the providers discretion with one week's notice if it is felt that continued care of a particular child might be detrimental to the child or the day care program. Uilon arrival in the morning it is the responsibility of the parent or person sending child to care to come into the house and sign in the child and post the time of arrival and upon leaving the parent or person picking up the child must sign out the child and post the time out. A sheet for these purposes will be provided by the kitchen telephone daily. The provider must be notified verbally also upon arrival and pick up. ` Payment obligation is based on the hours you agree to use child care, not necessarily actual hours of attendence. Payment is due if you agreed to use certian blocks of time wether or not the child actually attends during those hours. We provide a morning and aftemoos snack and ask that each child bring their own lunch. We make special days for birthdays so you may bring cake, cookies, or other treats to help celebrate. Please !et provider knowin advance what you have planned. Parents who want their children to eat special foods must provide these foods. Childrens belongings should all be labeled with the childs name. Provider is not respon- sible for lost or damaged items. Please do not send your child to day care barefoot. Scratches and scrapes are inevitable when children play and will be treated with antiseptic and a band -aid. For anything more serious you will be notified r �� p [avi f it -.mot4 a ea& Ajasadan ATTACHMENT la Qulnia, C'ablowda 92233 - :PAf 914 rco/� 39�— 7L � ATTACHMENT 4 I-P Z 00 40eaf-I,' &A ve4TY°lae BI *2 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 1994 CASE NO: PLOT PLAN 92-494 (TIME EXTENSION #1) APPLICANT: THE LUBE SHOP (PETER STURGEON) ARCHITECT: GARY KNUTSON, ARCHITECT REQUEST: APPROVAL OF A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLOT PLAN TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF AN AUTOMOTIVE LUBRICATION SHOP AND COIN OPERATED SELF CAR WASH. LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF ADAMS STREET APPROXIMATELY 350 FEET NORTH OF HIGHWAY 111 WITHIN THE ONE ELEVEN LA QUINTA CENTER. ZONING: C-P-S (SCENIC COMMERCIAL) ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: A NEGATIVE DECLARATION (EA 92-248) WAS APPROVED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS APPLICATION ON JANUARY 26, 1993. THIS EXTENSION OF TIME DOES NOT PROPOSE ANY CHANGES AND THEREFORE THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HAS DETERMINED THAT NO FURTHER ASSESSMENT IS NECESSARY. BACKGROUND: This plot plan application was originally approved by the Planning Commission on January 26, 1993, and accepted by the City Council at its meeting of February 2, 1993. The approval was for one year with a one year time extension available. The applicant has submitted a request for a one year time extension. The applicant indicates that he has been unable to start construction due to lengthy delays in dealing with Wal-Mart and Transpacific Development. However, he feels that he will soon be able to begin construction. PCST.168 1 PROTECT DESCRIPTION: The automotive lubrication center is designed as drive-thru facility with three lubrication bays. The self service car wash is located on the west side of the lubrication bays and has facilities to wash three cars at any one time. A detailed description of the operation and building is contained in the attached staff report to the Planning Commission dated January 26, 1993. ANALYSIS: The Planning and Development Department feels that a one year time extension for this request is acceptable. The applicant feels he will be under construction within the next year and extensions of this nature have been granted in the past. The existing Conditions of Approval have been circulated to the applicable agencies for review. No modifications have been recommended to the conditions by any outside agencies or other City Departments. The Planning and Development Department staff feels that the conditions are acceptable with the exception of minor modifications to wording due to the deletion of the Design Review Board. RECOMMENDATION: By Minute Motion 94- , approve a one year time extension for Plot Plan 92-494, subject to the attached conditions. Attachments: 1. Draft Conditions of Approval for time extension 2. Letter of request dated January 21, 1994 3. Copy of Planning Commission staff report for January 26, 1993 PCST.168 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - DRAFT PLOT PLAN 92-494, EXTENSION #1 - THE LUBE SHOP FEBRUARY 22, 1994 * Amended by the Planning Commission February 22, 1994 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT: 1. The development of this site shall be generally in conformance with the exhibits contained in the file for, Plot Plan 92-494, unless otherwise amended by the following conditions. *2. The approved plot plan shall be used within one year of Planning Commission time extension and shall expire on January 26, 1995; otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. "Be used" means the beginning of substantial construction which is allowed by this approval, not including grading which is begun within the one year period and thereafter diligently pursued to completion. 3. All applicable conditions of SP 89-014 and Parcel Map 25865 shall be complied with as necessary. 4. An exterior lighting plan for the parking lot area and building shall be approved by the Planning and Development Department prior to issuance of a building permit. Lighting fixtures shall be down -shining and shielded to eliminate glare onto adjacent streets for parking areas. 5. Should mandatory recycling be required at any time in the future, recycling bins shall be provided within the existing masonry enclosure. If an inadequate enclosure does not exist, a new enclosure shall be constructed by the applicants/operators. 6. Equipment utilized for vacuum islands shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Development Department. Staff will be looking for architectural compatibility with structure. Included in vacuum island should be trash can which is architecturally compatible with the facility. 7. Location of any exterior sinks shall be shown on final working drawings and approved by the Planning and Development Department. 8. Location and design of handicap stall shall be subject to final approval of City at time of plan check. CONAPRVL.073 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 92-494, Extension #1 - The Lube Shop February 22, 1994 9. The gates on the trash enclosure and storage facility shall be constructed of metal, be solid, painted to match the adjacent enclosure, and mounted on steel poles embedded in concrete. 10. End spaces on the south side of the car wash area shall be widened to be 11-feet wide as required by Code. 11. Final site plan which is submitted with working drawings shall include parking spaces, driveway aisles, planters, etc., which are existing or proposed immediately surrounding the site. 12. 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. 13. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City adopted infrastructure fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 14. 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 - City of La Quinta Public Works Department - City of La Quinta Planning and Development Department - Desert Sands Unified School District - Coachella Valley Water District - Imperial Irrigation District - Waste Management of the Desert Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above mentioned agencies shall be presented to the Building Department at the time of application for a building permit for the proposed project. CONAPRVL.073 2 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 92-494, Extension #1 - The Lube Shop February 22, 1994 CITY FIRE MARSHALL: 15. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 1750 gpm for an hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 16. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super hydrant(s) (6" x 4" x 2 1/2"), located not less than 25-feet nor more than 165-feet from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways. 17. Applicant/developer shall be responsible for obtaining underground/aboveground tank permits from both the County Health and Fire Departments. 18. Install portable fire extinguisher per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2AlOBC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 19. Install Knox Lock Boxes, Models 4400, 3200 or 1300, mounted per recommended standard of the Knox Company. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval of mounting location/position and operating standards. Special forms are available from this office for the ordering of the Key Lock Boxes. This form must be authorized and signed by this office for the correctly coded system to be purchased. 20. If the facility requires Hazardous Materials Reporting (Material Safety Data Sheets) the Know HAZ MAT Date and Key Storage Cabinet, Model 1220 or 1300 with tamper switches shall be used. If the building/facility is protected with a fire alarm system or burglar alarm system, the lock boxes will require a "tamper" monitoring. 21. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted. PUBLIC UTILITIES: 22. All conditions of the Coachella Valley Water District as noted in their letter dated December 1, 1992, on file in the Planning and Development Department shall be met. 23. All conditions of Imperial Irrigation District in their letter dated December 1, 1992, in file in the Planning and Development Department shall be met. 24. Final trash enclosure location and design shall be reviewed and approved by Waste Management of the Desert. Trash enclosure shall comply with requirements of Waste Management of the Desert, including provision of concrete pad in front of trash enclosure. CONAPRVL.073 3 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 92-494, Extension #1 - The Lube Shop February 22, 1994 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS: *25. The exterior colors utilized on the building shall match those used in the shopping center and be approved by &a f Planning and Development Department at the time working drawings are submitted. *26. A preliminary landscaping plan showing the existing meandering sidewalk shall be prepared and submitted to the Planning and Development Department for review and approval prior to final working drawings for the landscaping and irrigation being prepared. Plant material shall be the same or similar to that used along the perimeter or parking lots areas of the project. Landscaping immediately adjacent to the building in high visibility may be modified to reflect the desires of the applicant. The landscaping plans shall show the location of the power poles and utility lines along the east side of the site, and all utility pads, transformers, fire hydrants, etc. Irrigation system to use drip system as much as possible. 27. A screen wall as shown on site plan dated January 15, 1993, shall be installed along the northeast corner of the site. 28. Business signs for the project shall be approved prior to issuance of a building permit. Signage shall comply with approved sign program for the shopping center. ENVIRONMENTAL: 29. Within 24 hours of approval by the City Council, applicant shall submit to the Planning and Development Department a check for $25.00 (payable to County of Riverside) for "de minimis" Notice of Determination to comply with the State Department of Fish and Game fee requirements. 30. All mitigation measures as noted in Negative Declaration shall be complied with. CONAPRVL.073 Stan Sawa City of La Quinta P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA. Dear Mr. Sawa; I am requesting of the building wash in the One 92-494. an extension on plans for a Lube Eleven La Quinta 01 /21 /94 the city council's approval Shop and coin operated car Shopping Center Plot Plan We have been unable to start construction under the term of the Council's approval due to lenghty delays dealing with Walmart and Transpacific Development. We are however moving along rapidly now towards constuction. Our building plans are almost completeand we will be submitting them to the city for permits shortly. I am requesting an extension therefore of one (1) year to allow us time to go through the permit and bid process. Sincerely; he Lube Shop, Inc Peter Stu eon President Dr/ve Thru 0!l Change Centers 68-815 Ramon Road 9 Cathedral City, California 92234 . (619) 328-0480 FILE C81 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMIMSSION MEETING DATE: JANUARY 26, 1993 CASE NO.: PLOT PLAN 92-494 (EA 92-248) APPLICANT: THE LUBE SHOP (PETER STURGEON) ARCHITECT: GARY KNUTSON, ARCHITECT REQUEST: APPROVAL OF PLANS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF AUTOMOBILE LUBRICATION SHOP AND COIN OPERATED SELF CAR WASH IN THE 111 LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER. LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF ADAMS STREET APPROXIMATELY 350 NORTH OF HIGHWAY 111. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: MIXED REGIONAL COMMERCIAL WITH A NON-RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY. ZONING: C-P-S (SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL) SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: C-P-S - PART OF SHOPPING CENTER. SOUTH: C-P-S - SHELL SERVICE STATION AND ANOTHER PAD BUILDING WHICH ARE PART OF THE SHOPPING CENTER. EAST: C-P-S - VACANT LAND. WEST: C-P-S - PARKING AREA FOR SHOPPING CENTER. DETERMINATION: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 92-248 WAS PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS APPLICATION. THE INITIAL STUDY INDICATES THAT NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WILL OCCUR WHICH CANNOT BE MITIGATED. THEREFORE, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED AND IS PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION. PCST.104 1 BACKGROUND: The site is one of the pad locations approved by Specific Plan 89-014 (Transpacific Development Company). The Applicant wishes to construct and operate an automotive lubrication shop and coin operated self car wash on the property which is located approximately midway between the new Wal-Mart and Highway 111 adjacent to Adams Street. Presently, the Applicant operates a similar lubrication shop in Cathedral City. Generally the services consist of oil changes, checking of vital fluids, chassis lubrications, and maintenance inspections. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The automobile lubrication operation is designed as a drive-thru facility with three lubrication bays which are entered from the south and exited to the north. There are no automobile hoists or lifts involved. Cars are driven onto racks and worked on from excavated pits below the cars. The self service car wash is located to the west of the lubrication bays and is attached as part of the same building. The cars again enter from the south and exit to the north. Across the aisle will be six parking spaces which can be used for drying the automobiles. Additionally, three vacuum islands are placed adjacent to these spaces. Due to the nature of the uses, the building is laid out in a long "L" shape with a small office area at the southeast end of the building. Adjacent to the office portion of the use, there is an outdoor covered patio area provided. At the northeast end of the building is an outdoor storage area for used oil and filters (to be recycled). North of the building at the westerly end is an enclosed trash enclosure in a planter area. North of the easterly end of the building a six foot high masonry wall is provided to provide visual screening and buffering from the proposed preschool to the north. This wall is located within a planter area. The total building square footage is proposed to be 3,740 square feet with the lubrication shop portion consisting of 2,560 square feet and the car wash portion consisting of 1,180 square feet. CIRCULATION PATTERN: To the south of the site runs a driveway which leads from the parking lot to Adams Street. Driveway access from this aisle is provided to the site. To the west of the project runs a driveway aisle running north to south. To both the north and south of the building, driveway aisles will connect to this parking aisle. To the north of the site, parking spaces and a large planter area adjacent to Adams Street are to be provided. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN: The building has been designed to be compatible with the shopping center. The architect has designed it to be architecturally similar to the approved Shell service station at the corner of PCST.104 2 Adams Street and Highway 111 to the south. Both of these uses will be visible from Adams Street. The building is basically a flat roof structure which utilizes partial arches and stepped wall treatment. In the center of the south elevation between the car wash and lubrication shop is one rounded arch feature which is similar to that utilized within the shopping center. The exterior materials are proposed to be a combination of stucco and split -face block walls and facias with split -face columns and some tile accents. The three lubrication bays would be provided with painted roll -up doors to match the adjacent block columns. For the most part, materials and colors match or are very similar to those used in the shopping center. This project proposes to introduce split -face block to the shopping center. To date, this material has not been utilized for any of the projects. The split -face block is proposed to be painted. LANDSCAPING: As a part of the site plan, the Applicant has shown some conceptual landscaping. The plan shows locations and species of trees which are proposed to be utilized. The trees utilized 'are ones that are proposed for use within the shopping center area. The plan shows a curbside sidewalk. The sidewalk which was recently installed is a meandering sidewalk. Therefore, the landscaping plans when they are fully prepared will need to take into account the meandering sidewalk. Additionally, the power poles and utility lines which run adjacent to Adams Street will need to be shown on the plans and will influence the landscape design with regards to location of large trees. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION: The Design Review Board reviewed this request at their meeting of January 6, 1993. The Design Review Board did discuss the architectural style and project but had no major problems with the proposal. The Design Review Board on a 7-0 vote moved to recommend approval of the project subject to conditions pertaining to approval of the sign program, exterior colors, landscaping plan approval, trash enclosure relocation (this relocation has been done on most recently submitted site plan), and provision of screen walls (this has been incorporated in most recently submitted site plan). ANALYSIS: The Planning and Development Department feels that the basic project is conceptually acceptable. Staff does believe that colors utilized on the project should exactly match those used in the shopping center. The incorporation of split -face block in this project is acceptable to Staff provided it is approved by the master developer. While it has not been proposed to be utilized in any previous approvals, Staff does feel that due to the long linear nature of the project it could be utilized in some of the buildings along the easterly side of the project to improve the existing architectural look of the easterly end of the shopping center. PCST.104 3 By Minute Motion 93- , approve Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts and Plot Plan 92-494, subject to the attached conditions. Attachments: 1. Location map 2. Site plan and elevation plans 3. BRvifeamenW Study 4. nts and agencies 5. of Aeval PCST.104 4 6¢ ` r DAY—CARE • �/' Mo sP ', ti� `. 10 0 ;® , '•® .' 6' ° °• ' o ° SHE II a STATION ` %�{ . • p � ,,. !'`/) o1 CAR WASH QQ se V j ®.Pc 1 (PAD st+o , . 10-500 16 dOO 9000 Sf o sop PO 10E'S1• i �� S /00' �00-000 .* 'Nt v alp do ..dom - I-� APPROI S I GNAI V161niTY hnAIOAPp q2-4g4 ` j z § . � | | _ � ■ z , t k � | � |■ |k �, � „ � � | ■=|lB,�'�! �;. � ■ § al,J!§# |� 311 ■■ � { ! ! � ■ � � | §)| ■�--.-- �|<.� -- 21 ■| 1 11 Itt�e =�= !:f 2v d3�= a � 078 n: s43 as i Q € aj C 888Y y y 3_ 11 Wo f 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 February 8, 1994 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER 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. B. Staff Present: Planning Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Assistant City Manager Tom Genovese, and Department Secretary Betty Sawyer. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS - A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-010: a request of Mr. & Mrs. Jack Eldridge for approval to convert an existing attached 21/2 car garage into a second unit (Granny unit) for living purposes for an individual 62 years of age or older, pursuant to the City's R-1 Zoning Code standards. 1. Planning Director Jerry Herman presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. There being no questions of staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened the public hearing. Mr. Juan Ochoa, representing the applicant, stated he was available to answer any questions. 3. Commissioner Ellson commended Mr. Ochoa on the detailed information provided in his application. She wished all applications were as complete. 4. There being no further questions and as there was no further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the public hearing. PC2-8 1 Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 1994 6. Commissioners Ellson/Abels moved and seconded to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 94-003 approving Conditional Use Permit 94-010, subject to conditions. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Adolph, Ellson, Marrs, Abels, and Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. B. Amendment to the Redeveloment Plan - Project Area #1; a request of the City for an amendment to Project Area #1. 1. Assistant City Manager Tom Genovese presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. There being no questions of staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened the public hearing. There being no public comment Chairwoman Barrows closed the public hearing. 3. Commissioner Abels disclosed that he resided and owned property at 49- 990 Avenida Montero which is not within the Redevelopment Project area and owned no other property within the City of La Quinta. 4. Commissioner Ellson disclosed that she resided and owned property at 80- 082 Palm Circle which is not with the Redevelopment Project area and owned no other property within the City of La Quinta. 5. Chairwoman Barrows disclosed that she resided and owned property at 53- 277 Avenida Diaz within the Redevelopment Project Area #1 and owned no other property within the City of La Quinta. 6. Commissioner Don Adolph disclosed that he resided and owned property at 55-105 Riviera within the Redevelopment Project Area #1 and owned no other property within the City of La Quinta. 7. Commissioner Don Marrs disclosed that he resided and owned property at 76-950 Avenida Fernando within the Redevelopment Project Area #1 and owned no other property within the City of La Quinta. 8. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that due to the large percentage of residential homes that are within Project Area #1, there is such a great percentage in that area that there is considered to be no conflict for the PC2-8 Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 1994 three Commissioners that own property in that area because their interest is no different than "the public" generally in this particular circumstance due to the large number of residential homes within Project Area #1. 9. There being no further discussion, Commissioners Marrs/Adolph moved to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 94-004 approving the Preliminary Plan for the La Quinta Redevelopment Project as proposed to be amended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Adolph, Ellson, Marrs, Abels, and Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. IV. PUBLIC COMMENT: - None IV. BUSINESS SESSION - None VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Commissioner Abels asked that the Minutes be corrected on Page 4 Item #9 to spell his name as "Abels". There being no further corrections to the Minutes of January 25, 1994, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Ellson to adopt the minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved. VII. OTHER A. Commissioner Adolph inquired the status of the illegal signs. Staff stated they were reviewing the signage on Highway 111 with the Code Enforcement Department and upon completion of that review, appropriate action would be taken. VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, a motion was made and seconded by Commissioners Adolph/Abels to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on February 22, 1994, at 7:00 P.M. at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chambers. This meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission was adjourned at 7:12 P.M., February 8, 1994. PC2-8 3