1994 10 25 PC2
�u&rC4(j
FN OF
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California
October 25, 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 94-024
Beginning Minute Motion 94-034
CALL TO ORDER - Flag Salute
ROLL CALL
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.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Item ................ CONTINUED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 94-
044
Applicant ......... City of La Quinta
Location .......... City-wide
Request ........... Amendments to Chapter 9.145 - Hillside Conservation Zone
and to Chapter 9.146 - Transfer of Development Rights
Action ............. Request to continue
2. Item ............... PLOT PLAN 94-540
Applicant ......... Starlight Estates, Inc.
Location .......... In the Starlight Dunes Subdivision, on the north side of Fred
Waring Drive, west of Starlight Lane
Request ........... Review and approval of three new models for construction
Action ............. Resolution 94-
PC/AGENDA
3. Item ................ TENTATIVE TRACT 28034
Applicant ......... Neil Kleine
Location .......... North of 58th Avenue, 300 feet west of Madison Street
Request ........... To subdivide ± 19 acres into 25 estate single family lots in a
R-1-10,000 Zone District
Action ............. Resolution 94-
BUSINESS ITEMS - None
1. Item ................ INTERPRETATION OF DEFINITION OF CHURCH
FACILITY
Applicant ......... Rick Johnson Companies
Request ........... Approval to allow a chapel/mortuary (non -cremation) in
conjunction with a church
Action ............. Minute Motion 94-
CONSENT CALENDAR
Approval of the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of October 11, 1994.
OTHER
1. Commissioner report of City Council meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
STUDY SESSION
Tuesday, October 25, 1994
Study Session Room
4:00 P.M.
1. All agenda items
PC/AGENDA
PH #2
DATE:
CASE NO.
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
ZONING:
BACKGROUND:
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
OCTOBER 25, 1994
PLOT PLAN 94-540 (COMPATIBILITY REVIEW)
STARLIGHT ESTATES (GARY CONACHAN, VICE PRESIDENT)
APPROVAL OF THREE NEW MODELS FOR CONSTRUCTION IN
THE STARLIGHT DUNES TRACT (TRACT 23773)
NORTH OF FRED WARING DRIVE, WEST OF STARLIGHT
LANE IN STARLIGHT DUNES
R-1-9,000
Tract 23773 was originally approved in March, 1989, for Rick Johnson Construction. The
subdivision divided approximately 45 acres into 156 single family lots. To date, the first
phase which consists of 48 developable lots and the retention basin has been developed with
47 single family residences by the original developer, Rick Johnson Construction. None of
the other approved lots have been recorded or constructed upon. The original developer has
gone bankrupt with the current applicant obtaining the balance of the 101 lots.
Four models were approved for the original tract as follows:
FRONTIER
APOLLO
PHOENIX
HORIZON
Square Foot
2,084
2,525
2,647
3,332
Number of
Bedrooms
3
4
4
.4
Number of
Garages
2-car
3-car
3-car
3-car
Number of
units built
9
24
9
5
PCST.193 1
PH #2
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: OCTOBER 25, 1994
CASE NO. PLOT PLAN 94-540 (COMPATIBILITY REVIEW)
APPLICANT: STARLIGHT ESTATES (GARY CONACHAN, VICE PRESIDENT)
REQUEST: APPROVAL OF THREE NEW MODELS FOR CONSTRUCTION IN
THE STARLIGHT DUNES TRACT (TRACT 23773)
LOCATION: NORTH OF FRED WARING DRIVE, WEST OF STARLIGHT
LANE IN STARLIGHT DUNES ..
ZONING: R-1-9,000
BACKGROUND:
Tract 23773 was originally approved in March, 1989, for Rick Johnson Construction. The
subdivision divided approximately 45 acres into 156 single family lots. To date, the first
phase which consists of 48 developable lots and the retention basin has been developed with
47 single family residences by the original developer, Rick Johnson Construction. None of
the other approved lots have been recorded or constructed upon. The original developer has
gone bankrupt with the current applicant obtaining the balance of the 101 lots.
Four models were approved for the original tract as follows:
HORIZON
FRONTIER
APOLLO
PHOENIX
Square Foot
2,084
2,525
2,647
3,332
Number of
Bedrooms
3
4
4
.4
Number of
Garages
2-car
3-car
3-car
3-car
Number of
units built
9
24
9
5
PCST.193
Some time during the construction of the original project, the Horizon unit was increased in
size from 2,084 square feet to 2,144 square feet. The Frontier model was increased from
2,525 square feet to 2,693 square feet according to a revised sales brochure. The Building
and Safety Department records do not differentiate which models were built under the
original or larger square footages. They only note the original square footage for all of the
units which were built.
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW:
Due to the City compatibility review requirements, this case has been submitted to you as a
minor design deviation referred from the Planning Director. We have notified all property
owners within the subdivision and within 300-feet of the subdivision boundaries, informing
them of the proposed request.
The smallest unit proposed by the applicant is 2,007 square feet which is 3 % smaller than the
square foot Horizon model. The largest model proposed is 2,793 square feet which is
below the largest Phoenix model of 3,410 square feet. This minor design deviation pertains
to the revised floor plan and resulting exterior elevations. While there are some similarities,
staff felt the Planning Commission should review and approve the new models.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL:
The applicant is proposing to construct three different model units. The proposal is as
follows:
ALTAIR
VEGA
ANTARES
Square Foot
2,007
2,536
2,793
Number of
Bedrooms
3
3
4
Number of
Garages
3-car
3-car
3-car
The smallest unit at 2,007 square feet is 3.7% smaller than the smallest existing unit. The
largest unit proposed at 2,793 square feet is between the existing Apollo and Phoenix units in
size.
The floor plans and resulting elevations for the new units are completely different than the
existing units. Architecturally, the proposed units are a Spanish/Mediterranean design which
the existing homes are. The architectural materials and colors will match those used for the
existing homes. Spanish "S" roof tiles will be used. Exterior stucco colors range from a
off-white to a light tan. Exterior trim colors range from a beige color to a medium tan.
PCST.193 2
Garage doors are proposed to be sectional metal roll -up doors with lites or window provided
in them. The existing units use non -window sectional metal roll -up doors.
The applicants have divided their 101 lots into six phases (labeled II-VII on Attachment #2).
The models will be located on Lots 1, 2, and 3 of Phase VII which is on Galaxy Drive just
north of the original model homes. Construction is proposed to begin with Phase II and III
(see Attachment #2). Phase II is adjacent to Fred Waring Drive with Phase III adjacent to
the existing retention basin near the northeast corner of the site. The applicant's have not
developed a plotting plan or schedule for the project. They intend to provide a mix of units
based on sales. They have indicated there will be no two-story units adjacent to Fred Waring
Drive or abutting any existing single family residence within the tract as required by the
Compatibility Ordinance.
ANALYSIS:
As previously indicated, the proposed units fall within the size allowances of the
Compatibility Ordinance. The primary reason for this review is to determine architectural
compatibility with the existing units. The applicant has submitted the plans to the Starlight
Dunes Homeowners' Association for review. Staff has received a letter from E.W.
Schumacher, President of the Association, indicating that they have reviewed and approved
the three model units (see Attachment #3). Staff feels that architecturally the plans are
generally acceptable. Staff does have several small concerns that need to be addressed.
Those concerns are as follows:
1. The existing units are all provided with normal eave overhangs. One of the Altair
units and two of the Altares units indicate stucco boxed eaves which essentially
provide no overhang. The applicant has indicated that these can be modified if
required.
2. For the most part, the new units provide more glass area facing the street. While
attractive, heat gain and solar intrusion is a concern.
3. The side and rear elevations of all of the proposed units are relatively plain and do
not provide any type of architectural pop -outs. The existing units do provide these.
4. The existing units are provided with block walls on the side and rear yards and
wrought iron gates. These should be required for the new units as well.
5. As part of the compatibility review, the Planning Commission has a right to impose
limits on the type and number of particular unit to be construction. As indicated, the
applicant wishes to construct the units based on sales demand in order to avoid a
backlog of unsold units. The only consideration is that if only the smallest units were
built it would minimize the number of larger units in the tract.
PCST.193 3
6. In recent reviews, the Planning Commission has required rear patio covers or trellises
for those rear yards facing south and west. The original units do not have this
requirement, however a number of units have built patio covers as an after -market
addition.
As previously indicated, the Homeowners' Association have approved the units. According
to the letter the approval was unconditional with no limitations on the number of unit or
other stipulations.
Staff feels that the proposed units with minor concerns as discussed above, are acceptable.
The units are architecturally compatibility and provide a size range compatible with the
existing units.
RECOMMENDATION:
By Minute Motion 94- , move to approve Plot Plan 94-540, subject to the attached
Findings and Conditions.
Attachments:
1. Location map
2. Tract map exhibit
3. Letter from Starlight Dunes Homeowners' Association
4. Draft Conditions of Approval
5. Plan exhibits
PCST.193 4
ATTACHMENT 1
R/s 15,3
II I � • i ! � yb2d /,
5361
R- t- 9000
WAR ING
-20.000 40
�v v~i R —I c z.
,-
ELI-
��
8.000 R - I
i
MILES 12,000
e� F
12,c
R,3 R-1
Y. --• .�.. W ti
r.
t
-�-s, c-p-s ry -WAR D
-- — N
LOCATION MAP
t!yNORTH
CASE No.
TRACT 23773 SCALE
PHASE ' TRACT NO.
2
23773-2
3
23773-3
4
23773-4
5
23773-5
6
23773-6
7
23773
9
LOTS ATTACHMENT 2
17
7 JN 85-01-00
20
24 Z Z — 2 0 sc
u=• t •2oa•
13 .3-31-94
101 TOTAL
s may be combined)
.. - ..�_-- --..- - - ._._.___- Sf- -..�___.__...._....._._____
ATTACHMENT 3
starlight Dames Homeowners association
Post Office moll 13989 Palm Desert, CA 92261
September 30, 1994
Planning Commission
City of La Quints
P. 0. BoH 1504
La Quanta, CA 92253
File: New Construction - Starlight Dunes Tract
Gentlemen:
This Is to inform you that the Board of Directors of the Starlight Dunes
Homeowners Association, at a special meeting held on September 30,
1994, approved the design of three residences (identified as "The Altalr",
"The Antares", and "The Uega"), which Starlight Dunes Estates, Inc. plans
to construct to the Starlight Dunes Tract.
Uery truly yours,
Starlight Dunes Homeowners Association
E. W. Schumacher, President
10
11
0 C T 04 199,41
�..,:..
CITY OF LA 0!,ir:TP
PLANWN,; DEPARTMENT
ATTACHMENT 4
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
STARLIGHT ESTATES (TRACT 23773)
OCTOBER 25, 1994
FINDINGS:
1. The architectural aspects of the development will be compatible and not detrimental to
other existing units in Starlight Dunes based on the following conditions.
2. The proposed homes are comparable in size to the existing Starlight Dunes homes. No
impacts are anticipated provided the minimum house size in the tract is 1,400 feet or
greater.
3. No two story homes will be built next door or behind any existing single family home.
4. The Starlight Dunes Homeowners' Association has reviewed and approved the proposed
plans as submitted.
GENERAL CONDITIONS:
1. All units shall be provided with a minimum 18-inch roof eave.
2. On all side and rear windows and doors stuccoed pop -outs shall be provided, where space
is available, subject to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department.
3. All side and rear yards shall be provided with block walls to match the existing block
walls in the tract.
4. Gates leading into the back yard shall be the same as those for the existing single family
homes.
5. A trellis or patio cover shall be provided for each single family residence where the rear
of the unit faces west or south. The trellis or patio cover shall be a minimum depth of
four feet and be constructed over all sliding glass or french door openings and any glass
window greater than 4' X 4'. A concrete porch shall be provided under the door the
same size as the trellis or patio cover.
6. A landscaping and irrigation plan for all lots shall be submitted to the Community
Development Department for review. The plan shall be provided as required by the
Community Development Department.
7. The Hawn area for each front yard shall either be Hybrid Bermuda or Rye depending
upon season when it is installed.
CONA?RVL.139 1
Conditions of Approval
Plot Plan 94-540 - Starlight Estates
October 25, 1994
8. All plants with the exception of the lawn, shall be drought tolerant and be watered by
either emitters or bubblers.
9. All trees shall be double staked to prevent wind damage.
10. Two trees shall be provided for each single family lot with one tree to be 24-inch box
in size with the second tree to be 15-gallon in size. In cases of corner lots, the exterior
side yard shall be planted with three additional minimum 15-gallon trees.
11. The concrete driveway shall include expansion joints and a broom finish (or better)
texture. All requirements of the R-1 Zone shall be met during plan check.
12. The front yards of all lots, and in addition the exterior or street sideyard of a corner lot,
shall be landscaped from the residence to the property line, edge of curb, or sidewalk
whichever is furthest from the residence.
13. All shrubs shall be a minimum of 5-galls in size with species and design to be consistent
single family residences.
14. All provisions of Ordinance 220 regarding Water ]Efficient Landscaping and Irrigation
shall be met. The final landscaping and irrigation plan shall be reviewed and approved
by the City, Coachella Valley Water District, and Riverside County Agricultural
Commissioner. All landscaping shall be continuously maintained in a health and viable
condition by the developer and subsequent property owner.
15. All requirements of Tentative Tract 23773 shall be met during map recordation or
building plan check.
16. Two-story homes shall not be constructed adjacent to Fred Waring Drive or adjacent to
the side or rear of any existing single family residence.
17. Approval of units for this project includes the following:
a. The Altair - 2,007 square feet; The Vega - 2,536 square feet; and the Antares -
2,793 square feet.
CONAPRVL.139 2
ATTACHMENT 5
PROPOSED UNITS
n
^ i ri
RZ?
g }
d
f
FiC►
ror .It
a
a
a
} i[ll'
'=_Lz
c,
m
---I I
(xh
Vr
rt
V 3
to
LL
1 �
E=a
p TOP1:
KITCHEN
OMMI
gp..ff
I
t�
L I •/ ING ROOM
D' x 1;'-r
NOOK
W-10' x 5'-6'
FAMILY ROOM
6-b' x tTW
DEN/5EDROOM . 4
IW-O' x 0'-'Y
W
BATH 3
LAUNDRY
04
J
6
z
A
Sx
f
z f
w
�
m
x #
1
lu
m
}
k
1 � -
� a
a
m
ly
o
o
r
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: OCTOBER 25, 1994
CASE NO. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28034
APPLICANT: NEIL KLEINE (FOR MR. JOHN GOGIAN)
PROPERTY
OWNER: EDWARD WOODBRIDGE (PARCELS IN ESCROW)
ENGINEER: JOHN H. HACKER AND ASSOCIATES
REQUEST: APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE APPROXIMATELY 19 ACRES OF
PROPERTY ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 58TH AVENUE AND 300-
FEET WEST OF MADISON STREET INTO 25 SINGLE FAMILY
ESTATE LOTS FOR FUTURE DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY
HOMES.
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DU/AC)
ZONING: R-1-10,000 (ONE FAMILY DWELLING)
SURROUNDING ZONING/
LAND USES: NORTH:
R-1-10,000/LA QUINTA SCULPTURE PARK
SOUTH:
OUTSIDE THE CITY OF LA QUINTA
EAST:
R-1-10,000/SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
WEST:
R-1-10,000/RESIDENCE WITH DATE GROVE
BACKGROUND:
The development application was submitted on August 15, 1994. The applicant has
requested the subdivision of approximately 19 acres into 25 estate custom lots single family.
The site is located 300-feet west of Madison Street on 58th Avenue consists of two parcels.
The two parcels were annexed into the City in 1992.
Site Background
The existing site is vacant and void of any significant landscaping or prehistoric remains.
The site was reviewed by Dr. Christopher E. Drover on September 10, 1994, for cultural
prehistoric remains based on staff's written request and his conclusion was that the site did
not contain any significant historic or prehistoric sites. A copy of the final report has been
attached to your packet.
PCST.190
The existing property has partial street improvements installed along the south side of the site
(i.e., 58th Avenue). The two lane road provides access to the south side of PGA West, The
Quarry, the Ranch of the 7th Range, Lake Cahuilla, and an existing home. However, most
of the surrounding properties surrounding this property are vacant at this time. The roadway
is approximately 20-feet wide at this time.
58th Avenue is designated as a primary arterial in the City's adopted General Plan. The
ultimate design width of the street is 100-to 110-feet. The applicant will be required to
dedicate and improve the frontage of the site to conform to the requirements of the City's
General Plan. The applicant is aware of this City requirement. The parkway will include
sidewalk, however, the City's equestrian facilities are planned for the south side of 58th
Avenue in the City's adopted General Plan.
Environmental Setting
The site is in a Groundshaking Zone (Zone 3). This category means groundshaking during
an earthquake can be felt by most people, but the shaking is not considered hazardous
because newly built units are required to be designed to withstand infrequent seismic activity.
The intensity scale goes from one to 12 with 12 being the highest or severe rating number.
The site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. An inferred fault does pass
through the subject area, but the fault is considered inactive (Source: MEA 1992) based on
the City's updated General Plan of October, 1992.
The parcels are in a Zone X on the City's Flood Insurance Rate Map. A Zone X is an area
determined to be outside the 500-year flood area. No environmental hazards exist at the site
which would affect the ultimate development of the property.
Site Design
The applicant is proposing a private gated community with one access point into the project
from 58th Avenue, a public street. The lots will have access to the private, circular street
which is centrally oriented on the 19-acre site.
Each of the 25 lots are greater than 19,000 square feet and a few of the lots exceed 43,000
square feet. The average size is one half acre. The project will have an overall density of
1.3 dwelling units per acre.
The lots are generally 100-feet in width by 150-feet in depth except for Lots 8 and 16, which
have smaller street frontages. These two lots are classified as flag lots. All lots have direct
frontage onto the proposed private street. No common recreation lots are proposed inside the
project.
Development Product
The applicant has stated to staff that his intentions are to subdivide the site and sell the lots to
either developers or private buyers. Eased on the sales program, no plans have been
submitted detailing the type or style of homes to be built in the tract. Conditions have been
PCST.190
proposed to require the applicant to prepare Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC &
R's) for the project which will establish the development framework for each lot and give the
future landowners' the legal by-laws to function as an independent private community. The
CC & R's will address the following design elements:
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
9.
h.
i.
j•
k.
1.
Landscaping and irrigation
Fences, walls, and hedges
Satellite dishes and other communication reception antennae
Solar energy system and collectors
Private recreation facilities (i.e., tennis courts)
Recreational vehicles parking and storage
Roof materials
Exterior colors, etc.
Mail delivery
Exterior lighting
Overnight parking
Real estate signs
The City's R-1 Zoning standards and compatibility ordinance will apply to the tract.
General Plan/Zoning
The site is designated by the Land Use Element of the General Plan as an area designated for
2-4 units per acre (Low Density Residential). The category encourages one or two-story,
single family detached homes on large lots or clustered one or two-story, single family
attached homes surrounded by large open space areas.
The parcels are Zoned R-1-10,000 which is consistent with the Low Density Residential
designation. The applicant's ]lot sizes exceed the City's minimum design standards.
Public Notice
The case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on October 14, 1994, and all adjacent
landowners were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice ten days prior to the public
hearing as required by the City's Municipal Code. No negative comments were received
from the adjacent property owners.
Public Agency Review
Staff mailed to all affected public agencies a copy of the applicant's development plan on
August 25, 1994. To date, no negative responses have been received. All agency
transmittals received are attached and are made part of the proposed Negative Declaration.
PCST.190
Cr
Previous Development Application
In 1992, the ten acre property to the east of this site received approval from the City to
subdivide into four lots (Parcel Map 26924) of 1.95 acres or larger. The tentative map was
approved prior to the parcel being annexed to the City. This parcel was included within the
boundaries of Annexation #8 in 1992, which comprises ± 140 acres.
Environmental Assessment
Staff has prepared an Environmental Assessment in order to analyze the effects of this
proposal under current standards and guidelines. Attached for your review and consideration
are the guidelines. Also attached is the Environmental Checklist prepared by staff. Please
be advised that all recommended mitigation measures are included as Conditions of
Approval. Based on the completed environmental analysis, staff is recommending the filing
of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project.
Storm Water Retention
The applicant's storm water will be retained on each lot and in the 20-foot wide landscape
parkway along 58th Avenue. The applicant will be required to submit a Hydrology Report
to the Engineering Department for their review analyzing the impacts of seasonal rain on the
site. However, from a conceptual standpoint, staff believes the program will be adequate
because the design program is similar to the Orchard project on 50th Avenue, east of Park
Avenue.
Private Streets
The applicant is proposing a 32-foot wide street system for the project. The City's General
Plan requires a 36-foot wide street based on Table 2 of the Circulation Element. Prior to the
adoption of the General Plan in 1992, the City did permit a few projects to have 32-foot
private streets if the Fire Marshal and City Council. determined no major impacts would be
created based on the provisions of the City's Subdivision Ordinance. The 32-foot wide
streets are no longer permitted since the adoption of the General Plan (see tract Condition
#39).
Paleontological Survey
In 1992, the City Council approved three specific plans for Landmark Land Company. The
projects were generally in the immediate area of this case and included development of
residential condominium units on golf course fairways. These projects and their companion
EIR's noted that paleontological finds might be uncovered in this area since the properties
were located in the ancient lake bed area of Lake Cahuilla (Salton Basin). The
paleontological survey, which was done for the Landmark properties implied that an indepth
study should be done to ensure that significant finds are not distributed or destroyed by
future development of the area. The standardized wording for this Condition is:
PCST.190
"Prior to any site disturbance or grading, the applicant/developer shall initiate
a lake bed delineation study to be based upon the paleontological survey
contained in Specific Plans 90-015, 016, and 017 FEIR (Appendix "G"). The
study shall determine the extent of the ancient lake bed for purposes of
implementing a data recovery program within the limits of the delineated lake
bed. This delineation study shall be submitted to the City for approval.
Paleontological monitoring of grading shall be required for cuts made during
construction activity. Full time monitoring shall be required, given the
ubiquitous distribution of paleobiological remains on the project site. The
mitigating shall be done under the supervision of a qualified vertebrate
paleontologist knowledgeable in both paleontological and archaeological
sampling techniques.
This program shall include a report identifying contact personnel who will be
working on -site, the proposed time schedule for grading monitoring, the
qualifications of the person(s) assigned to do such monitoring and the method
to be used in reporting on compliance to the City. This report shall be
approved by the City prior to the developer authorizing any work on the
program itself. "
Condition #62 is recommended to comply with the provisions of Specific Plans 90-015, 016,
017.
Staff Comments
The project has been designed to encourage custom estate single family homes because the
lots are greater than 19,000 square feet. The proposal is consistent with other proposed large
lot projects in the southeasterly section of the City. Those areas which are either in the
equestrian overlay or are in the R-1 10,000 or R-1 20,000 zoned area.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolutions 94- and 94- , recommending to
City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 28034 and concurrence with the proposed
Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact subject, to the attached Conditions
of Approval.
Attachments:
Draft resolutions with conditions
PCST.190
RESOLUTION 94-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE
TRACT 28034 - TO CREATE A 25-LOT SINGLE
FAMILY SUBDIVISION
TENTATIVE TRACT 28034
NEIL KLEINE
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on
the 25th day of October, 1994, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request
of Neil Kleine to create Tentative Tract 28034, a land division into 25 single family lots with
a private street system in the R-10,000 Zone on property located north of 58th Avenue, and
west of Madison Street, more particularly described as:
PORTION SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 21, T6S, R7E,
S.B.B.M. (APN: 761-090-013, AND 014)
WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" as amended (Resolution 83-68) in that the Planning Director has proposed a mitigated
Negative Declaration for the project to mitigate any impact the project may have on the
area; 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 recommend approval of said project:
1. The proposed tentative tract is consistent with the goals and policies of the La
Quinta General Plan and Subdivision Ordinance.
2. The tentative tract is compatible with the existing and anticipated area development.
3. The project will be provided with adequate utilities and public services to ensure
public health, safety, and welfare.
4. That the use is consistent with the provisions of the City of La Quinta Municipal
Code.
5. The project will not impact the abutting streets as they are designed to carry the type
and quantity of traffic generated by this project and the surrounding properties.
RESOPC.102
6. Approval of this proposal will not result in a significant adverse impact on the
environment due to mitigation measures contained in the proposed Negative
Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
Commission in this case.
2. That it does hereby recommend adoption of the mitigated Negative Declaration
pursuant to the attached Environmental Assessment 94-283.
3. That it does hereby recommend approval of Tentative Tract 28034 with conditions
as set forth in this Resolution and attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
La Quinta Planning Commission, held on the 25th day of October, 1994, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
DON ADOLPH, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director
City of La Quinta, California
RESOPC.102
�nry
�� a
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28034 (KLEINE)
OCTOBER 25, 1994
GENERAL:
l . Tentative Tract Map 28034 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 within two years of City
Council approval unless extended pursuant to the City's Subdivision Ordinance.
3. Tract phasing plans, including phasing of public improvements, shall be submitted for
review and approval by the City Engineer and the Planning and Development Department
prior to any grading permit for development.
4. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit for construction of any building or
use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances
from the following public agencies:
- City Fire Marshal
- Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit)
- Planning and Development Department
- Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
- 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.
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.
CONAPRVL.105 1 Pala "W
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT:
7. Applicant shall construct, or enter into an agreement to construct, the on- and off -site
grading, streets, utilities, landscaping, on -site common area improvements, and any other
improvements required by these conditions before approval of the final map(s) under this
tentative tract map.
Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing structures
or obstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements.
8. If tract improvements are phased with multiple final maps, off -site improvements (i.e.,
streets) and tract -wide improvements (i.e., perimeter walls and landscaping, common
drainage basins, and perimeter landscaping) shall be constructed or secured prior to
approval of the first final map unless approved by the City Engineer.
9. The City Engineer may consider proposals by the applicant to stage the installation of
off -site and common -area improvements with development of two or more phases within
the tentative map.
The applicant shall pay cash or provide security in guarantee of cash payment for
required improvements which are deferred for future construction by others.
Deferred improvements for this tract include:
A. Avenue 58 - one half of 86-foot full width improvement including raised,
landscaped median, and 8-foot meandering sidewalk.
B. Traffic signal at Avenue 58 and Madison Street - 6% of the cost to design and
construct.
The applicant's responsibility for deferred improvements may be satisfied through
participation in a City major thoroughfare improvement program if this development
becomes subject to such a program.
DEDICATIONS:
10. The applicant shall dedicate public street right of way and utility easements in
conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans,
and as required by the City Engineer.
Dedications required of this tract include:
A. Avenue 58 - sufficient right of way to achieve 55' half width
CONAPRVL.105 2 Page 2 of 14
C!n9
11. The applicant shall dedicate 10-foot-wide public utility easements contiguous with and
along both sides of all private streets.
12. The applicant shall dedicate a 20'-wide common -area setback lot along Avenue 58. The
minimum width may be used as average width for a meandering wall design.
13. Applicant shall vacate vehicle access rights to Avenue 58 from abutting lots. Access to
Avenue 58 shall be restricted to the main tract entry and emergency access locations.
14. Applicant shall dedicate any easements necessary for placement of and access to utility
lines and structures, park lands, drainage basins, common areas, and mail -box clusters.
15. Applicant shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any portion of this
property between the date of approval by the City Council and the date of recording of
the final map unless such easements are approved by the City Engineer.
TRACT DESIGN:
16. Development of the project site shall comply with the approved tentative tract map
(Exhibit A), as contained in the Community Development Department's file for Tentative
Tract 28034, and the following conditions, which conditions shall take precedence in the
event of any conflict with the provisions of the tentative tract map.
17. Any minor changes in lot mix, sizes, lines, or shapes, or street alignments, shall be
reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department prior to any final
map approvals for recordation.
18. A noise study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer, and be submitted to
the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to final map
approval. The study shall concentrate on noise impacts on the tract from perimeter
arterial streets, and recommend alternative mitigation techniques. Recommendations of
the study shall be incorporated into the tract design. The study shall consider use of
building setbacks, engineering design, building orientation, noise barriers (berming,
walls, and landscaping, etc.), and other techniques so as to avoid the isolated appearance
given by walled developments.
19. A minimum six -foot -high, solid masonry wall shall be provided along the tract boundary
prior to a building permit being issued.
20. 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 shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning and Development
Department.
Applicant shall submit plans for street lighting along roads, if any, for review and
approval by the Planning and Development Department.
(' 10
CONAPRVL.105 3 Page 3 of 14
BUILDING AND SITE DESIGN:
21. The development of custom, single-family lots shall be governed by the following:
A. The applicant shall establish a Design Review Committee to review and approve
all development within Tentative Tract 28034. The main objectives of this
Committee shall be to assure that building architecture, building materials and
colors, building height and setbacks, and landscape design follow appropriate
design themes throughout the tract. Procedures and operation of the committee
shall be set forth in the Tract's CC & R's.
B. Applicant shall establish within the CC&R's site design standards appropriate to
the custom lots, including but not limited to, front, side and rear setbacks, lot
coverage, etc. Standards shall be reviewed and approved by the Community
Development Department as part of its review of the CC&R's, but be no less
restrictive than the R-1 Zone standards, as appropriate.
C. Property lines and perimeter walls for all residential units shall be located at the
top of the graded slope for each parcel.
D. Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for any house within the project, the
required landscaping/groundcover shall be installed and appropriately maintained.
Type of planting, method of installation, and maintenance techniques shall be
subject to plan approval by the Planning and Development Department.
E. All roof -mounted equipment shall be screened from view at all sides by design
of the house.
F. No two-story units shall be allowed within 150-feet of Avenue 58. The maximum
height of the residential unit within 150-feet of Avenue 58 shall be 21-feet.
G. The minimum dwelling unit (living area) size for all residential units shall be
1,400 square feet (excluding attached or detached parking garage).
H. 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.
I. All roofing material within the project shall be clay or concrete tile barrel. The
color of the roof tiles shall consist of desert hues.
J. All residences/dwellings are required to have illuminated building address number
per the La Quinta Municipal Code.
CONAPRVL.105
4 Page 4 of 14
GRADING°
22. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes (i.e., grading), 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. 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 Community Development and
Public Works Departments and consistent with the approved Fugutive Dust Control plan.
23. The applicant shall comply with the City's Flood Protection Ordinance.
24. 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 and mitigation measures of Environmental Assessment 94-283
and Tentative Tract 28034, which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of a grading
permit. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall prepare and
submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating
compliance with those conditions of approval and :mitigation measures of Environmental
Assessment 94-283 and Tentative Tract 28034, which must be satisfied prior to the
issuance of a building permit. Prior to final building inspection approval, the Applicant
shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director
demonstrating compliance with all remaining Conditions of Approval and mitigating
measures of Environmental Assessment 94-283 and Tentative Tract 28034. The Planning
and Development Director may require inspections or other monitoring to assure such
compliance.
25. A grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer. The plan shall be
submitted on 24" x 36" media and must meet the approval of the City Engineer prior to
final map approval.
The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report. The soils
engineer and/or the engineering geologist shall certify to the adequacy of the grading
plan. A statement shall appear on the final subdivision map that a soils report has been
prepared for the tract pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health and Safety Code.
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 tract phase and lot number and shall be cumulative if the data is submitted
at different times.
C: I
CONAPRVL.105 5 Page 5 of 14
26. A thorough preliminary engineering, geological and soils engineering investigation shall
be conducted. The report of investigation ("the soils report") shall be submitted with the
grading plan.
DRAINAGE:
27. 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. The tract shall be graded to receive storm flow from adjoining property at
locations that have historically received flow.
28. Storm water run-off produced in 24 hours during a 100-year storm shall be retained on
site in the common retention basin. The tributary drainage area for which the applicant
is responsible shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets.
29. In design of retention facilities, the percolation rate shall be considered to be zero unless
Applicant provides site -specific data that indicates otherwise. Retention basin slopes shall
not exceed 3:1. The maximum retention pool shall not exceed six feet in depth.
30. A trickling sand filter and leachfield shall be installed to percolate nuisance water in
conformance with requirements of the City Engineer. The sand filter and leach field
shall be sized to percolate 22 gallons per day per 1,000 square feet of drainage area.
31. The design of the tract shall not cause any change in flood boundaries, levels or
frequencies in any area outside the tract.
UTILITIES:
32. All existing and proposed utilities adjacent to or on the proposed site or shall be installed
in underground facilities. High -voltage power lines which the power authority will not
accept underground are exempt from this requirement.
33. 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.
34. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District
as required in their letters of September 8, and October 3, 1994, on file in the
Community Development Department.
STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS:
35. The City is contemplating adoption of a major thoroughfare improvements program. If
the program is in effect at least 60 days prior to recordation of this map, this project
shall be subject to the provisions of the ordinance. The ordinance is intended to distribute
the cost of major thoroughfare construction evenly and fairly on undeveloped land at the
time the land is subdivided or developed for beneficial use.
CONAPRVL.105 6 Page 6 of 14
If the ordinance is not adopted 60 days prior to recordation of this map, Applicant shall
construct street improvements within and contiguous to the tract as listed below.
36. Improvement plans for all on- and off -site streets and access gates shall be prepared by
a registered civil engineer. Plans shall be submitted on 24" x 36" media. 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 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.
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, including site and building
construction traffic. The minimum pavement sections shall be as follows:
Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" a.b.
Collector 4.0"/5.00"
Secondary Arterial 4.0"/5.00"
Primary Arterial 4.5"/6.00"
Major Arterial 4.5"/6.00"
5.5"/6.50"
If the applicant proposes to construct a partial pavement section for use during
development of the tract, the partial section shall be designed 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 centralized mail
delivery units approved in design and location by the U.S. Post Office and the City
Engineer. Mid -block street lighting is not required.
38. The City Engineer may require miscellaneous incidental improvements and enhancements
to existing improvements as necessary to integrate the new work with existing
improvements and provide a finished product conforming with City standards and
practices. This may include, but is not limited to, street width transitions extending
beyond street centerlines.
39. The following street improvements shall be constructed to conform with the General Plan
street type noted in parentheses:
A. Private Residential - 36 feet wide with curb and gutter along both sides.
40. Access points and turning movements of traffic shall be restricted as follows:
A. Main entry drive -right in/right out only.
CONAPRVL.105 7 Page 7 of 14
LANDSCAPING:
41. The applicant shall provide landscape improvements in the setback lots along the
following streets:
A: Avenue 58
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 curbs along public streets.
42. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements
of the City Engineer. Unless otherwise approved by 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.
43. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots, common retention basins and park
facilities shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. Plans shall be submitted
on 24" x 36" media.
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.
44. The applicant shall insure that landscaping plans and utility plans are coordinated to
provide visual screening of above -ground utility structures.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
45. Schedule B 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 660 feet apart. Minimum fire
flow shall be 1000 gpm for 2 hours duration at 20 psi.
46. 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."
47. 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.
CONAPRVL.105 8
Page S of 14
48. 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.
49. 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.
50. Parking on interior streets shall be limited to one side only.
QUALITY ASSURANCE:
51. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the
approval of the City Engineer.
52. 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 al work with approved
plans, specifications and applicable codes.
53. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record
drawings of all plans signed by the City Engineer. Each sheet of the drawings shall have
the words "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" clearly marked on each
sheet and be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy
of the drawings.
MAINTENANCE:
54. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous maintenance of landscaping and
related improvements in landscaped setbacks, retention basins and other public or
common areas until those areas have been accepted for maintenance by the City's
Landscape and Lighting District or a homeowner's association (HOA). The applicant
shall maintain all other improvements until final acceptance of improvements by the City
Council.
55. 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.
P.
CONAPRVL.105 9 Page 9 of 14
MANAGEMENT:
56. Prior to the 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 homeowner's 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.
FEES AND DEPOSITS:
57. The California Fish and Game Environmental filing fees shall be paid. The fee is
$1,250.00 plus $78.00 for the Riverside County document processing. The fee shall be
paid within 24 hours after review by the City Council.
58. Applicant shall pay all fees and deposits required by the City for plan checking and
construction inspection. The fee and deposit amount(s) shall be those which are in effect
when the applicant makes application for the plan checks and permits.
MISCELLANEOUS:
59. Plans for grading, drainage, streets, lighting, landscaping & irrigation, parks, gates, and
perimeter walls are not approved for construction until they have been signed by the City
Engineer.
60. Appropriate approvals shall be secured prior to establishing any construction or sales
facilities, and/or signs on the subject property.
61. 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.
CONAPRVL.105 10 Page 10 of 14
62. Prior to any site disturbance or grading, the applicant/developer shall initiate an on -site
paleontological survey based on the information contained in Specific Plans 90-015, 016
& 017 FOR (Appendix "G"). This delineation study shall be submitted to the City for
approval.
Paleontological monitoring of grading shall be required for cuts made during construction
activity. Full time monitoring shall be required, given the ubiquitous distribution of
paleoniological remains on the project site. The mitigating shall be done under the
supervision of a qualified vertebrate paleontologist knowledgeable in both paleontological
and archaeological sampling techniques. This program shall include a report identifying
contact personnel who will be working on -site, the proposed time schedule for grading
monitoring, the qualifications of the person assigned to do such monitoring and the
method to be used in reporting on compliance to the City. This report shall be approved
by the City prior to the developer authorizing any work on the program itself.
63. A qualified archaeologist shall be on -site during any grading work, and shall comply with
the Cultural Resources Study done for the project on September 18, 1994.
64. Prior to final map approval by the City Council, the applicant shall meet the parkland
dedication requirements as set forth in Section 13.24.030, La Quinta Municipal Code,
by paying parkland fees in lieu, as may be determined in accordance with said Section.
CONAPRVL.105
11
Page 11 of 14
RESOLUTION 94-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA,
CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION
A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 94-283
FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28034 AND
RECOMMENDING THE MITIGATION
MONITORING PLAN FOR THE PROJECT.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 94-283
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28034 (KLEINE)
WHEREAS, an Initial Study/Environmental Assessment (hereinafter "EA") has
been prepared and circulated, pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act of 1970 as amended (hereinafter "CEQA"); and,
WHEREAS, it is the policy of the State of California and the City of La Quinta,
in accordance with the provisions of CEQA, as amended (Public Resources Code, Section 21000
et seq.), and the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA, as amended (California
Administrative Code, Section 15000 et seq.), that the City shall balance the benefits of a
proposed project against its avoidable environmental risks; meaning that if the benefits of a
proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse
environmental effects may be considered acceptable; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta has read and
considered all environmental documentation comprising the EA, has found that the EA considers
all potentially significant environmental impacts of the project, is complete and adequate, and
fully complies with all requirements of CEQA; and,
WHEREAS, prior to action on the EA, the Planning Commission has considered
all significant impacts, and mitigation measures, and has found that all potentially significant
impacts on the project have been lessened or avoided to the extent feasible.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta does hereby recommend a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for
EA 94-283 subject to the mitigation measures contained in the EA and the Mitigation Monitoring
Plan for the project.
RESOPC.103 1
ran
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission, held on this 25th day of October, 1994, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
DON ADOLPH, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director
City of La Quinta, California
RESOPC.103
XT
i
Vacant I Vacant Vacant
0 �.
Future o Future Expansion '
Expansion
PGA West PGA West
O 6 La Quintal
I`
Vacant Sculpture Park �.•
7.0',
T-t'454AcN*
463AcW4
53 A. Nd
m
e�
e
r
r
r
r
"p
Q
'
LL
LL
IL
LL
O
CAPori
fb,4
.
Q)
N
iAc
3AtGr
SAcGr
C
C
43
U
U
U
6/At NI i
: 4 6/Ac NI
•r
•r-
•�"
•�
RS
Ri
fd
se+•s,•a.••
AVE.
+t
s�9
127
O
1
e34
Vacant
APN: 761-090-013,014
S1/2 of Section 21, T6S R7E
Owner: Edward A. Woodbridge
Engineer: John H. Hacker and Assoc.
AMAIW990• a 5F
CASE No. Location Map
Tentative Tract Map 28034
Neil Kleine
r Ak
NORTH
T
SCALE : nts
CM OF U QMZ1
ENVIRONMENTAL OfECK= F004
I. BACKGROM
1. Name of Proponent:
2. Address_ and Phone Number of Proponent:
L L
3. Date of Checklist:
4. Agency Requiring Checklist: w,I LL
S. Name of Proposal, if applicable:
ENVIR0*1ENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanation of all "Yes" and "Maybe- answe:,s is required
on attached sheets.)
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
Yes Maybe No
a. Unstable earth conditions or in chan-g—ts in
geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, compacti= or
overcovering of the soil?
c. Change in topography or groin ! surfaze
relief features?
d. The destruction, covering or modifi=ation of
any unique geologic or physizal fea-----es?
e. Any increases in wind or water eros:= of soils,
either on or off the site?
f. Changes in deposition or ercsion Of __-IRch, sands,
or changes in siltation, dep:sition :7 erosion
which may modify the channel Df a riyer or
stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay,
inlet or lake?
g. Exposure of people or propen-y to g--:-Dgic
hazards such as earthquakes, lands:iLes, mud-
slides, ground failure, or sinilar 1--ards?
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deteriz=tion of
ambient air quality?
The creation of objectionable odors?
c. Alteration of air movement, noisturee ZT
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally'
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course -:- direction
of water movements, in either marine = fresh
waters?
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of sizface water runoff?
c. Alterations to the course of flow cf :Flood
waters?
d. Change in the amount of surface water in any
water body?
e. Discharge into surface waters, or im any
alteration of surface water quality, in-
cluding but not limited to tempers=
dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow
of ground waters?
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or %r4-Tb-
drawals, or through interception of am
aquifer by cuts or excavations?
(3)
Yes Maybe No
h. Substantial reduction In the amount of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies?
_ $'
i. Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding or
tidal waves?
4",
4.
Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or number
of any species of plants (including trees,
shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic
plants) ?
b. Reduction of _.e numbers of any unique,
rare or enda:.gered species of plants?
c. Introduction -.f new species of plants into
an area, or result in a barrier to the
normal replen:.s1.ment of existing species?
d. Reduction in 1-::eage of any agricultural
crop?
S.
Animal Life. Wi:" uhe proposal result in:
a._ Change in the diversity of species, or numbers
of any species of animals (birds, land animals,
including ref_iles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms, is _ects or microfauna)?
4---
b. Reduction of _.e numbers of any unique, rare,
or endangere! species of animals?
_ L
c. Introduction cr new species of animals into an
area, or res, in a barrier to the migration
or movement cf animals?
d. Deterioratio:. :o existing fish or wildlife
habitat?
6.
Noise. Will the _:oposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
7.
Li t and Glare. Will the proposal produce new
light or glare?
8.
Land Use. Will t::e proposal result in a substantial
alteration of the present or planned land use of an
area?
9.
Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in tye rate of any use of any natural
resources?
b. Substantial depletion of any renewable
natural resoi ce?
L="
10.
Risk of 2eset. Ices the proposal involve a risk
57 an explosion c: the release of hazardous sub-
stances (including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
11.
Population. Will the proposal alter the location,
ism ution, ders ity, or growth rate of the
human population of an area?
J
12.
Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing,
or create a demani for additional housing?
13.
Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
,
vehicular moi—event?
,r
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking?
G-
(4)
c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation
systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation
or movement of people and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrians?
12. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered govern-
mental services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance of F.ublic facilities, including
roads?
f. Other governmental services?
_:. Energy. Will the Froposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing
sources of energy, or require the development
of new sources of energy?
_:. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need
for new systems, or substantial alterations to
the following utilities:
a. Power or nature: gas?
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)?
b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards?
Aesthetics. Will t:.e proposal result in the
obs— truction of any scenic vista or view open to
the public, or will the proposal result in the
creation of an aesthetically offensive site open
to public view?
__. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact
upon the quality or quantity of existing recrea-
tional opportunities?
=. Archeological/Historical. IVill the proposal result
in an alteration of a significant archeological
or historical site, structure, object or building?
:_. Mandatory Finding of Significance.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially re-
duce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self sustaining levels, threaten to eliainate a
plan 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?
Yes wybe No
L
(S)
Yes Maybe No
b. Does the project have tl?e potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, en-
vironmental goals? (A short-term impact on the
environment is one which *emirs in a relatively
brief, definitive period of time while long-term
impacts will endure well 4--to the future.)
c. Does the project have impacts which are indi-
vidually limited, but cur—"stively considerable?
(A project may impact on ::: or more separate
resources where the impa:: an each resource is
relatively small, but where the effect of the
total of those impacts on _.e environment is
significant.)
d. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substan::s: adverse effects on
human beings, either dire:::y or indirectly?
III. DISCUSSION OF EWIRO'QNLtiTA:=1•ALUATION
IV. DETERMINATION
(To be completed by the Les' 4gency)
On the basis of this i=::ial evaluation;
I find the pr:pos.: project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on : e em•:r:::ment, and a I EGATINT DECLARATION will
be prepared.
I find that alth::b. the proposed protect could have a
significant effe:: r the environment, there will not be
a significant efie:: in this case because the mitigation
measures describe_ s an attached sheet have been added
to the project. A tZGATIVE DECLARATION MILL BE PREPARED.
I find the propose! project MAY have a significant effect
on the environment, and an EhVIRO*1ENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required.
Date: 7 /' ... �
w-
y Signature
%RL ,
CITY OF LA QUINTA
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
CASE NO. TTM 28034 (EA94-283)
Neil Kleine
GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
The applicant has proposed a low density residential subdivision
(25 lots) on +19 acres on property Zoned R1 (One Family Dwelling).
The property is located north of Avenue 58, and west of Madison
Street.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
EXPLANATION OF "YES" AND "MAYBE" QUESTIONS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
1. EARTH:
a. Unstable Earth Conditions or Changes in Geologic
Substructures? (Checked "Maybe")
The soil on this property has been classified as
Coachella series (CsA). This type of soil has permeability; is
well drained; and, can be used for crop production or homesite
development. The site is vacant but has been used for agriculture
in the past. The applicant desires to pursue development of the
site with urban services (i.e. single family dwellings). The
development of the site will involve grading and recontouring of
the existing land features. However, all work will be done in
conformance with the final Geotechnical Report required by the
Engineering Department during final plan review.
b. Disruption, Displacement, and Compaction of Soil?
(Checked "Yes")
Earth moving to support the project will be done as part
of the grading plan,, and no on -site work shall be done until a
study has been prepared which identifies the cut and fill needs of
the site.
C. Change in 'Topography or Relief Features (Checked No")
The general elevation of the site is approximately 40
feet above sea level. The site is in a Zone 3 Seismic/Geologic
Hazard area as noted by the City's General Plan. A Zone 3 is an
area with moderate shaking qualities but less severe than a Zone 12
(highest level). It is categorized as: "effect on people: felt by
most people indoors. Some can estimate duration of shaking. But
many may not recognize shaking of building as caused by an
earthquake, the shaking is like that caused by the passing of light
trucks.
e)E
Earth moving to support the project will be done as part
of the grading plan, and no on -site work shall be done until a
study has been prepared which identifies the cut and fill needs of
the site.
d. Modification of Unique Physical Features (Checked "No"
No unique physical characteristics exist at the site.
e. Increase in Soil Erosion (Checked "Maybe")
Preventative measures to minimize seasonal flooding and
erosion should be incorporated into site grading plans (e.g.
phasing of grading) and provisions shall be made with the Coachella
Valley Water District and the City regarding on or off -site
drainage.
f. Effects on Beach Sands, Channels, Rivers, Streams, Ocean,
Bay, Inlet, or Lake (Check "No")
The site is 1/4 mile east of Lake Cahuilla, a local
recreational reservoir. However, development of this site will in
no way hinder the current or future use of this regional facility.
g. Exposure to Geologic Hazards (Checked "Maybe")
The project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo
Special Study Zone, but it could be affected by potentially active
faults nearby since this site lies within the Riverside County
Ground Shaking Zone 3 based on distance from causative faults and
soil types. The effects of ground shaking will be mitigated by
seismic design requirements and procedures outlined in the City's
Uniform Building Code, and the Geotechnical report to be prepared
by the developer.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
1). Grading of the site shall occur pursuant to the approval of
the future grading plan as specified by the City's Engineering
Department. All work shall be conducted in a manner so that it
does not disturb other abutting properties unless off -site
agreements have been made and/or approved. The grading quantities
have not been submitted, but it is assumed that most of the earth
moving at the site (contouring) will occur on the premises and that
importation will also occur to develop the single family pad sites.
2). The site is greater than 5 acres, therefore, a National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit is required
prior to any on -site grading. The permit process was enacted in
1992 by the State Water Resources Control Board to insure that any
storm discharges associated with a construction activity was
examined by the Board. The permit requires all property owners
to: eliminate or reduce non -storm water discharges to storm sewer
systems or other waters, develop and implement a storm water
pollution prevention plan, and perform inspections of storm water
pollution prevention measures (control practices).
3). The site shall meet the provisions of Uniform Building Code
Section 2312 (d) 2 because the project lies within a Seismic Zone
4. It is recommended that all structures be designed according to
current Uniform Building Code requirements.
2. AIR•************�**********,t********************************
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air
quality? (Checked "Maybe")
The City's Environmental Hazards Element identifies on -
site soils as being a wind erosion hazard. This is a concern as
the Coachella Valley exceeds federal air quality standards for
particulate matter.
In accordance with the City's Air Quality Element, the project was
evaluated to determine if the project would have a significant
adverse impact on air quality. The South Coast Air Quality
Management District's significance threshold includes residential
projects of 160 or more units or 177 acres per day. As the
proposed project involves construction of a smaller project than
noted above, it does not exceed the significance criteria threshold
for air quality impacts.
The project site is located within the Southeast Desert Air Basin
(SEDAB) and is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD). With the proposed
construction, there may be air pollutant sources which may
deteriorate ambient air quality. These sources are stationary and
mobile sources. Stationary source considerations include emission
from on -site construction activities and natural gas combustion.
Mobile source consideration include exhaust emissions resulting
from short term construction activities and long term generation
associated with the project.
b. The creation of objectionable odors? (Checked "No")
The project is not of a type which would create
objectionable odors. No impacts are anticipated.
C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature or
any change in climate, either locally or regionally? (Checked "No")
The single family subdivision is not of a type, design or
density which would significantly alter air movement, moisture, or
temperature. It is anticipated that the climate would not be
either locally or regionally altered.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
1). Adequate watering techniques shall be employed to partially
cr.� C
mitigate the impact of the construction generated dust.
2). Areas graded but not immediately constructed on shall be
planted with a temporary ground cover to reduce the amount of open
space subject to wind. erosion.
3). Grading and construction shall comply with all applicable City
Ordinances (PM10, Chapter 6.10) and the requirements of the Air
Quality Management Plan (Rule 403).
3. WATER: ****************************************************
a. Change in currents or the course of direction of water
movements, in either marine or fresh waters? (Checked "No")
None are proposed by the development of the site.
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (Checked "Yes")
With the proposed construction it can be expected that
there will be a change in the absorption rate (due to impervious
surfaces), drainage patterns and amount and rate of surface water
run-off. The project proponent will provide an on or off -site
retention/detention basin (off -site if approved by the City
Engineer) for the collection of storm water and nuisance water run-
off.
This area might be subject to liquefaction. Liquefaction is the
term which is used when the ground water table is very close to the
surface, and during an earthquake the ground has a tendency to
vibrate building structures from their respective foundations and,
thus causing ground failure and other adverse side -effects.
Further on -site investigation will be necessary by a qualified
engineer during plan check consideration.
The site has an X flood insurance rating (FIRM). This means that
the area is outside a 500 year flood plain and special measures are
necessary to insure that any site improvements are designed to
prevent damage to any structure or building by periodic flooding.
C. Alteration of Flood Water (Checked "No")
The project will not modify or alter any existing
improved flood water channels nor affect Lake Cahuilla.
d. Change in the Amount of Surface Water (Checked "No")
Similar to existing conditions, after project
construction surface water runoff will be captured either on -site
or diverted off -site through engineered designs. Thus, the change
in the amount of surface water is not expected to be significant.
e. Alteration of Surface Water Quality (Checked "No")
Cn9
Stormwater runoff project improvements may contain small
traces of urban pollutants (e.g. oil, fertilizer, etc.) which can
be accepted into the on or off -site retention basin(s). All
solutions shall be prepared by the licensed engineer and approved
by the City and the local water agency.
f. Alteration of Groundwater Direction (Checked "No")
The project would not alter the direction of existing
groundwater resources nor impact its flow rate.
g. Change in Groundwater Quantity (Checked "Maybe")
The proposed residential development would cause an
incremental increase in the demand for groundwater, which would be
provided by CVWD via an existing distribution system. The
additional withdrawals are not considered to be significant.
h. Reduction in Public Water (Checked "Maybe")
The development of the site will reduce the amount of
water available for public consumption. It is assumed that each
unit can or will consume approximately 350 gals./day which means
the project could use 8,750 gals./day based on 25 units. However,
these amounts are not inconsistent with other types of residential
developments in the City and nothing unusual is anticipated by the
development of the site with this residential project.
i. Exposure to people or property related hazards such as
flooding or tidal waves (Checked "Maybe")
The project will not modify or alter the existing
regional flood protection improvements.
This area might be subject to liquefaction. Liquefaction is the
term which is used when the ground water table is very close to the
surface, and during an earthquake the ground has a tendency to
vibrate building structures from their respective foundations and,
thus causing ground failure and other adverse side -effects.
The site has an X flood insurance rating (FIRM). This means that
the area is outside the 500 year flood plain and special measures
are necessary to insure that any site improvements are designed to
prevent damage to any structure or building by periodic flooding.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
1. The project shall comply with all applicable City requirements
regarding storm water and nuisance water. The developer shall
complete a hydrology study, prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer.
The study will identify the increased water run-off quantities
which will be generated at the site by analyzing the assumed
quantities in an undeveloped state and factoring this against the
development proposal. Based on this study, the project engineer
0
shall design the necessary on or off -site drainage basins
(retention/detention) which will contain storm water run-off from
the property and allow gradual dissipation of the water into the
ground. Measures which might be warranted are: earthen retention
areas, elevated building pads, etc.
2. Very ]Low flow (1.6 gallon) toilets shall be installed pursuant
to Public Health Code Section 17921.3.
4. PLANT LIFE• ***********************************************
a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any
species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops,
microflora and aquatic plants? (Checked "No")
The subject site is presently vacant and void of any
significant plant life. The site was previously used for Date
production. No impact is anticipated by the development of this
site.
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of plants? (Checked "No")
The City adopted a Master Environmental Report in 1992, and in this
document, the adopted plan does not indicate a presence of any
endangered species of plant(s).
C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or
result in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing
species? (Checked "No")
The subject site is presently vacant and void of any
significant plant life. No impact is anticipated by the
development of this site.
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? (Checked
"No")
The site is not being used for agricultural purposes at
this time eventhough the site could be well suited for this type of
enterprise based on soil conditions. No impact is anticipated by
the development of this site.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None required.
5. Animal Life: **********************************************
a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any
species of animals (birds, land animals, including reptiles, fish
and shellfish, benth.ic organisms, insects or microfauna)? (Checked
"No") No protected animal species exist on the property at this
time which would hinder the development of the site. This is based
on the City's (city-wide) adopted Master Environmental Assessment
C 1_
prepared for the City in 1992.
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or
endangered species of animals? (Checked "No")
The subject. site is not located in an area defined as a
Fringed -Toed Lizard Habitat area (a Federally protected species).
It has been therefore determined that mitigation fees shall not be
required of the applicant to develop this site.
C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or
result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals?
(Checked "No")
The development of the site with residential units will
bring the introduction of domestic animals into this area.
However, the types of animals will be similar to those normally
associated with urban living (e.g. cats, dogs, etc.). No unusual
species are proposed and, therefore, no impact is expected by the
development of this site.
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat?
(Checked "No")
No impacts are anticipated by the development of the site
on either fish or wildlife habitats because the site is not in the
Fringed -Toed Lizard Habitat area nor are there any marine animals
on the property.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None required except the provisions of
the Municipal Code shall be complied with.
6. NOISE•
a. Increases in existing noise levels? (Checked "Maybe")
Because of the proposed construction and subsequent operation of
the residential project, it can be expected that there will be some
increase in the existing noise levels on the site. Most of the
noise generated will be from motorized traffic coming to and from
the site. The developer has proposed a six foot high masonry wall
along the frontage of the site for security purposes but the wall
will also benefit the noise reduction to the units which are in
close proximity to Avenue 58.
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (Checked
"Maybe")
The existing noise levels along Avenue 58 are below 50dba because
of the limited number of developments west of Madison Street at
this time. This measurement was taken in 1992 during the General
Plan Update. Levels greater than 60 Db (CNEL) require mitigation
by the developer in order to bring the project into the required
City standard of less than 60 dB for outdoor areas and less than 45
dB for inside areas based on projected build -out figures. A noise
study has not been prepared, but the Applicant will be required to
provide a study prior to any on -site construction.
MITIGATION MEASURES: As required by the General Plan, this
project shall prepare a noise analysis to minimize noise impacts
for the future residents. The City's General Plan Guidelines for
indoor and outdoor noise shall be met. A comprehensive study shall
be submitted to staff for review prior to the issuance of any
building permit. The study shall use existing and projected
traffic levels along Avenue 52 and Madison Street project noise
levels, and then determine ways to reduce road noise impacts on the
future residents. Possible mitigation measures can include:
berming, landscaping, acoustic walls, or other measures deemed
necessary by the licensed acoustic engineer. The final mitigation
plan shall be reviewed by the Planning Department.
7. LIGHT AND GLARE:
Will the proposal produce new light and glare? (Checked "Yes")
It is anticipated that the building(s) and/or parking
lot/landscaping will include lighting. However, at this time, much
of the material has riot been submitted to staff. During the plan
check process of this case in the future the applicant will be
required to gain approval of this material from the City's Planning
and Building Department prior to construction permit issuance.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
1). All lighting will have to comply with the City's "Dark Sky
Ordinance". Additionally, light sources shall be shielded to
eliminate light glare and off -site spillage onto abutting vacant or
developed properties.
2). A lighting plan shall be submitted for any private street
lights. The plan shall include a photometric study of the
lighting which analyzes the necessary footcandle light intensity,
height and spaces of the light poles, type of lighting fixtures,
and any other pertinent information which is necessary to assure
City compliance (i.e. Dark Sky Ordinance). The light poles should
be less than 10 feet in overall height.
B. LAND USE(S):
Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the
present or planned land use of an area? (Checked "No")
The General Plan has designated the property as Low Density
Residential (2-4 units per acres) and the existing Zoning of the
site is R1 (One Family Dwelling). No land use changes are proposed
by the applicant.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None is required.
9. NATURAL RESOURCES: ******************************************
a. Increase in the rate of any use of any natural resources?
(Checked "Yes")
As with any development, the project would require water, natural
gas, and electricity, which are all considered natural resources.
The proposed project, however, would not increase the rate of use
of these resources more than any other similar residential and
commercial development. The project is not of type, size or
density that could substantially deplete any non-renewable natural
resource.
No major adverse impacts are anticipated with by the construction
of this project.
b. Substantial depletion of any renewable natural resource?
(Checked "No")
The project is not large enough to substantially deplete any non-
renewable natural resource based on the attached local agency
transmittals. Therefore, no major adverse impacts are anticipated
with the construction of this housing project.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None required. However, the applicant
shall meet all necessary requirements of the local serving agencies
as outlined in the attached agency comments or as mandated during
construction plan implementation. Building energy conservation
will largely be achieved by compliance with Title 20 and 24 of the
California Administrative Code. These standards are handled by
the Building and Safety Department during construction plan check
review.
10. RISK OF UPSET•**********************************************
Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the
release of hazards substances (including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset conditions? (Checked "No")
No adverse impact is anticipated due to explosion or release of
hazardous substances.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None required. However, all
construction activities whether or not they are permanent or
temporary shall meet all necessary safety standards of the Federal,
State and local government requirements.
11. POPULATION•************************************************
Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density,
or growth rate of the human population of an area? (Checked "Yes")
The developer is proposing 25 single :Family homes or 71 future
residents. The General Plan Update accounted for this increase
which is consistent with the City's long range plan.
It is not anticipated that the proposed project will have an
adverse or significant impact on population distribution, density
or growth rate in the area. The developer's intent is to provide
lots for sale to develop estate single family housing.
MITIGATION MEASURES: The developer shall be required to meet
all City R-1 development standards and the adopted provisions of
the Uniform Building Code provisions.
12.ROUSING•********,t**********,t*********************************
Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand
for additional housing? (Checked "No")
The development of the site as a single family housing project is
consistent with the policies of the City's General Plan. The City
encourages this type of project in order to retain the City's low
density character.
It is assumed that only minor incremental demands on City services
will be generated by the possible development of the site with
single family units; therefore, the development of the site would
have insignificant affects on the City.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None required.
13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION:*********************************
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement?
(Checked "Maybe")
With the proposed project it can be anticipated that there will be
a generation of additional vehicular traffic movement in the
immediate area. The City's Trip Generation book (1987, ITE Manual)
indicates that attached single family housing generates on the
average between 8-10 vehicle trips per day.
The developer will be required to install ultimate street
improvements along Avenue 58. The improvements will include:
curb, gutter, street median, sidewalks, etc.
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new
parking? (Checked "Yes")
The future homes will be required to have two on -site garage
parking spaces, and the developer is also proposing parking in the
wide private street for guest parking.
c. thru f - Effects upon existing transportation, movement of
people and/or goods, etc. (Checked "No")
MITIGATION MEASURES:
1). Compliance with all applicable City requirements regarding
street improvements of adjacent street(s). The level of off -site
improvements shall be commensurate to the magnitude of the project.
2). The developer shall provide adequate on -site parking spaces to
accommodate the proposed use per the requirements of the City's
Off -Street Parking Ordinance.
3). An eight foot wade meandering sidewalk shall be provided on
Avenue 58 for pedestrian/bike traffic.
14. PUBLIC SERVICES: ********************************************
Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for
new or altered governmental services (e.g. fire, police, schools,
parks or recreation, maintenance of public facilities, or other
governmental services)? (Checked "Maybe")
The project may create a need for additional fire protection,
police protection and maintenance of public roads in the area.
However, it is anticipated that any increases in this area will be
incremental, and further, should only have negligible impacts on
existing personnel or services. The site is approximately 2 miles
from Fire Station #32. Response times to the facility should be
within acceptable levels as prescribed by the fire personnel.
MITIGATION MEASURES: The applicant will be required to pays impact
fees which are in effect prior to the issuance of a building permit
for any of the future units.
15. ENERGY•*********y�*****,t*************************************
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? (Checked
"Maybe")
The project will consume 129,300 Kwh of electricity per year. This
number or amount is consistent with normal per unit figures for
this type of development but less than the amount consumed if the
applicant pursued a larger number of lots for the project based on
the R1-10,000 provisions. The Imperial Irrigation District
(provider) has not indicated that they cannot service the project
based on the applicant's request. However, the project will have
an incremental increase in the amount of available energy if the
project is completed.
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of
energy, or require the development of new sources of energy?
(Checked "No")
The project is not large enough to substantially deplete any non-
renewable natural resource. No significant impacts are
anticipated.
(11 ;l E
1
MITIGATION MEASURES: The applicant shall be responsible to submit
plans as required by each respective local agency and install the
future facilities as required to meet all safety standards in
affect at the time of the application.
16. UTILITIES:**** ** ******************************************
Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power/Natural Gas? (Checked "Yes") - Power service is
available at the subject site. IID power lines are currently
located on the south side of Avenue 58, and power will be provided
to the site based on IID requirements. All on -site electric
facilities will be placed underground from the source to each new
building site. The new facilities will not substantially alter or
affect any of the existing off -site utilities. Any impacts will
be less than anticipated by the City's General Plan.
Gas services are not avaiable in this area of the City. The
applicant or future residents will have to provide on -site
"propane" service as required by the City's Building and Safety
Department. Any impacts will be less than anticipated by the
City's General Plan.
b. Communications? (Checked "Yes"') - Telephone and cable
services will be available from extensions from nearby existing
facilities. Significant service alterations will not be necessary.
Any impacts will be less than anticipated by the City's General
Plan.
C. Water? (Checked "Yes") - Project implementation will
require upgrades or extensions to existing water facilities. The
project will comply with all water service extension measures
required by CVWD and no significant impacts are anticipated because
the project is not designed to use more water than other types of
single family projects. Any impacts will be less than anticipated
by the City's General Plan.
d. Sewer/Septic? (Checked "Yes") - The project will use an
off -site system pursuant to the letter from CVWD on October 3,
1994. The waste will be transfered to CVWD's forced main system in
Madison Street and be conveyed to the Mid -Valley Water Reclamation
Plant. The 25 unit project is expected to generate 200-300 gallons
per dwelling unit per day. No significant impacts are anticipated.
Any impacts will be less than anticipated by the City's General
Plan.
e. Storm water drainage? (Checked "Yes") - The Applicants
plans to contain storm water have been shown in concept on the
tract map exhibit. It includes both a parkway retention basin and
on -site single family lot retention. The Applicant will be
required to submit a hydrology plan to the City Engineer for his
review and approval. All storm drainage facilities shall be
developed by the developer. Any impacts will be less than
anticipated by the City's General Plan.
f. Solid waste? (Checked "Yes") - Project implementation
will not generate amounts of solid wastes which would require
substantial alterations to collection services and disposal
facilities. Each unit is expected to generate 9 lbs./day which 225
lbs./day for the entire complex. No significant impacts will
occur. Any impacts will be less than anticipated by the City's
General Plan.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
1). All necessary infrastructure improvements as mandated by the
City or any other public agency shall be met as part of the
development of this site. As mentioned before, the site will be
required to install appropriate drainage facilities which will
house storm water run. -of f during seasonal rain storms or to contain
nuisance water from both irrigation and surfaced areas (i.e.
parking lots, buildings, etc.). Off -site drainage will be allowed
if approved by the City Engineer.
2). Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant will
be required to pay the City's Infrastructure Fee. This fee will
help mitigate regional impacts of urban development.
3). The project shall comply with all requirements of the Fire
Marshal and the Riverside County Sheriffs Department. The School
District's mitigation fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of
a building permit.
4). Water, sewer, and electric service provisions shall be made
and secured prior to securing building permits.
5). On -site curb recycling programs shall be established for the
project similar to existing recycling programs which are on -going
in the Cove.
17. HUMAN HEALTH•************,******,�*************************
a. and b. - Creation of hazards or exposure to people of
potential hazards? (Checked "No")
No additional hazards are contemplated other than those
identified in Section 3 (water).
18. AESTHETICS:*************************************************
Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic
vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in
the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public
view? (Checked "No")
The site is presently vacant. The construction of buildings will
C12)8
disrupt the site and change the existing views of the Santa Rosa
Mountains. However, no two story homes will be allowed within 150
feet of Avenue 58. Two story buildings are permitted provided
they are not within 150' of Avenue 58. The project is compatible
with the surrounding area and the development should not impact or
affect the surrounding residential properties
MITIGATION MEASURES:
1). Single story buildings should be required along Avenue 58
(with 150') to meet the policy provisions of the City's General
Plan. Two story units should be allowed on the other portions of
the site per the Rl standards.
2). The development of the on and off -site landscaping program
should take into consideration the unique setting of this property.
The developer should consider vertical type plant material (Palm
trees, etc.) and the use of accent type trees (Jacarandas, etc.)
which will create view "windows" into the project but accentuate
the mountains to the west of the proposed buildings. Native
landscaping should be pursued. Private street lighting should be
discouraged wherever possible.
19. RECREATION•***************************************************
Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or
quantity of existing recreational opportunities? (Checked No")
No significant adverse impacts are anticipated in this area because
the future property owners will have access to the adjacent
mountains for passive recreational needs, but they will also have
access to any public facilities. Presently, Lake Cahuilla is in
close proxisity to the site, but owned and operated by the County
of Riverside. The reservoir can be used but residents are
required to pay a use fee.
At the present time, the City's facilities (parks) are free to use
by either City residents or surrounding residents. The facilities
are maintained by the City's annual assessment to its residents
(i.e., Landscape and Lighting District, etc.). However, the City
does have „
"fee for service recreational programs which are
presently handled by the City's Park and Recreation Department.
These special programs are held at the existing public schools or
other private/public facilities (i.e., Boys and Girls Club, etc.)
MITIGATION MEASURES: No major impact is anticipated because
the development will have its private recreational facilities.
However, the will be required to contribute the City's park fees to
assist off -site development of community facilities which can
benefit this development (or others in the City) as required by the
City's Subdivision Ordinance. This issue will be evaluated further
prior to recordation of the Subdivision Map with the City Council,
as required.
20. ARCHEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL:**************************************
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the
destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site?
(Checked "Maybe")
Due to the historical nature of the City, there may be an adverse
impact created by the construction of the project. An
Archaeological Assessment was done for the site by Mr. Christopher
E. Drover, Ph.D. in September (copy attached for the Commision)
which indicated that no significant remains were found on the site
based on his initial review of the property last month. However,
further investigative review will be required during the future on -
site grading activities.
MITIGATION MEASURES: Since a comprehensive archaeological survey
has been completed by a qualified archaeologist for the project,
and no major artifacts were found, the applicant will be required
to have a archaeologist present during any attempt to disturb the
site (i.e. site grading). Compliance with the results of the
archaeological survey is required.
21. MANDATORY FINDINGS: It is not anticipated that there will be
any adverse impacts by the project in the areas of plant and animal
life, long term environmental goals, cumulative impacts, or impacts
on human beings as long as the proposed mitigation measures are
incorporated into the conditions for the project.
Attached: Agency Comments
Developer's Letter
,y: Greg Trousdel
0
M
0
0
0
H
A
z
¢Q
U
UU
d
o
W
r� ,6
D' U
C7
a�
•' U
C14
O
z
�o
oz
��
pP4
w
�A
z
o• D "
E�
�
o C
PC
Cow
F"
arc
Uaa
C a
C400��
�I
H
A
z
U
UU
A �ci
U
U
U � U � �
va A
° o
.O3 •'�-' q U O •O�
Z U� ¢,B
o �
4 r, O
es"t w v� A i U U
04
Wz
�o
b
Oz o o c
O ti
cob�
~ � � PC
lu � C ~ •�' � bA ,� O tom•+ � SEA � .t"", c�
PC
PO o —PK ISO
PC
�u •'tip Faso PC
w E-'cn
^, ,.°•6n U�,a c�
PC
A r)
s :-
z
H
v� _
O -.
O y , • r,
O O�
U .,.., eC
�+
UU 4-+ �
Bcz
O
N
a..
0O�"
�
o
�
c 'o
H
�
U �
ow
a°
as
EW-+
A
z
a
U
Ox
UU
U
U
o
BOA 'Cc)
�U
E
00 p
O
O 4s ��'' O
4-4O
A o Cd u
O
z
�o
zz
a
o
3
o
3
�a P4
04
v�
...4,
oo
20
•�e�
�
awl 4=1
yea+,
��
•O
O.C.'N
� aG
�
Ow �
z
O
7
@
F���
'PC
0 u
F O
a
:.
Fro
m oo
s
.. 'o 4o
• • o „o
.
c
V
,rA
�
@
o
@•� TWAT
�.�
@•��
�03�
O
ri
p4
Oa3�
v�"
H
A
U
�A
U
U
raj
�d
a V00
cl
U
•,fir
zU
Ca
a
C7wx
.°
cis
cl
o .�
bn
.�
�
Q
U
o
O
w a
L5
0
c};
cd
W
cd •U
z �"
b
'� `d
b
c
Cd
�AUA
�
o
a'w
G
U
c~'d
40.
v�®
o
p n+�'+
�,
V
C
�.
Cd
c�
H
A
z
a
U
UU
U
�
AO
U
O'
.O
;-4. 4-4 a
w c7
Wz
Cd
d
aA
r 4 h
H
A
z
a
ox
UU
b
U
42
�U
V
U
z
�bo
O O
a ►z-1
�
U
U.
O
cqs
cn
'U },
a �
rA �5
by
0
W-^
A
W
..
�
w
�
�
�
o
cue
o
rA
N
H
z
a U
o
� i
O x
�
UU
UQ
cod
U
ate,
z
a�
b
cl
o
cl
4a
�n
E.1
.,
y
y r.+ a G, G.
F+
U
U w
�
W PO a� C+� G G.
� � y � PC�
►�
W �
v �
•i.
N
® v� 'C
� �n � � .� Aar.,
_.�
vN AT#
ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY
�1STRIC"�
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
POST OFFICE BOX 1058 - COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 - TELEPHONE (619) 3W2851
DIRECTORS OFFICERS
TELLISCODEKAS. PRESIDENT THOMAS E. LEVY, GENERAL MANAGER -CHIEF ENGINEER
RAYMOND R. RUMMONDS. VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTON. SECRETARY
JOHN W. MCFADDEN OWEN MCCOOK ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
DOROTHY M. DE LAY September 8, 1994 REDWINE AND SHERRILL, ATTORNEYS
THEODORE J. FISH
Planning Commission
City of La Quinta
Post Office Box 1504
La Quinta, California 92253
Gentlemen:
t� :._0163.1._ .
SEP 14 1994
r
Subject: Tentative Tract 28034, Portion of the
Southeast Quarter of Section 21, Township 6
South, Range 7 East, San Bernardino Meridian
This area is protected from stormwater flows by a system of channels and dikes,
and may be considered safe from stormwater flows except in rare instances.
The district will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in
accordance with the current regulations of this district. These regulations
provide for the payment of certain fees and charges by the subdivider and said
fees and charges are subject to change.
This area shall be annexed to Improvement District No. 55 of the district for
sanitation service.
The district will need additional facilities to provide for the orderly
expansion of its domestic water and sanitation systems. These facilities may
include wells, reservoirs, lift stations and booster pumping stations. The
developer will be required to provide land on which some of these facilities
will be located. These sites shall be shown on the tract map as lots to be
deeded to the district for such purpose.
If you have any questions please call Joe Cook, planning engineer,
extension 292.
Your very truly,
Tom Levy
General Manager -Chief Engineer
RR:lmf/e5/tt28034
cc: Don Park
Riverside County Department
of Public Health, Bermuda Dunes
TRUE CONSERVATION
USE WATER WISELY
ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY
S;t
C0A% 3P H2LL.A. VA1 LEES' FATER DISTR€C
POST OFFICE BOX 105a - COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 - TELEPHONE (619) 39&2651
DIRECTORS OFFICERS
'ELLIS CODEKAS, PRESIDENT THOMAS E. LEVY, GENERAL MANAGER CHEF ENGINEER
RAYMON 3 R. RUMMONDS, VICE PRESIDENT BERhARDIhc SUTTU'1, SECRETARY
JDHN W. eW DE L N OWEN MCCOOK, ASSjSTANT GeNERAL MANAGER
THEOOREJFISh October 3, 1994 REDWINEAND SHERR,LL,ATTORNEYS
TNEOOO�iE J FISh
Neil Kleine
78-710 Avenida La Fonda
La Quinta, California 92253
Dear Mr. Kleine:
Subject: Tentative Tract 28034
File: 0421.1
0721.1
OCT 12 1994 `� k
This letter is to clarify our meeting of September 21 with Jim Zimmerman and
Bob Ford of this district regarding the domestic water and sanitary sewer
requirements for your proposed 25-lot subdivisicn in La Quinta.
1. Domestic water. Construct approximately 4,500t feet of 18-inch diameter
domestic water pipeline East along Avenue 58 from the existing 24-inch stub -out
located at Avenue 58 and FCA West to the eastern bou-adary of your tract and
construct the necessary on -site pipelines in order to meet your fire flow and
domestic demand requirements.
The district will consider the difference in construction costs between an
18-inch diameter domestic water pipeline and a yet to be determined domestic
water pipeline for the 18-inch diameter domestic water pipeline along Avenue 58,
toward the dwelling unit charge of the water system backup facilities charge
less the supplemental imported water supply component (currently $719.40). The
district will determine the costs based on you providing three bids to the
district prior to the start of construction. The district will review and
approve these bids as a basis of costs using the lowest bid.
2. Sanitary sewer. Construct the necessary on -site sewer pipelines and a
minimum 6-inch PVC C-900 force main and manhole from your tract east to the
existing 18-inch PVC force main at Madison Street. The sewers shall be designed
so as to readily facilitate connecting with a corcmunity trunk sanitary sewer
pipeline.
The current sanitation capacity charge is $1,925.00 per lot.
TRUE CONSERVATION
USE WATER WISELY �" �
P,
r
rr Neil Kleine -2- October 3, 1994
The district will provide you with a temporary lift station to serve your
project. You will be responsible for providing electrical service to the site
and will provide the district with the necessary easements for the station.
The district will secure the lift station for 30 days. If we do not receive
confirmation from you within 30 days of the date of this letter, it will be made
available to others.
The current water system backup facilities caarge is $2,400.00 per lot.
All costs, fees and charges can change until they are paid. W suggest that you
obtain updates so ycur budget can be correct.
If -,ou have any questions or desire additional information please call Bob Ford,
development services technician, extension 265.
Yours very truly,
J
Tom Levy
General Manager -Chief Engineer
RF:lglel71kleine
CERTIFIED MAIL NO. Z 770 440 313
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
M r HELL; VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
THE KLEINE COMPANY
Building Contractor
78710 Ave. La Fonda
La Quinta, Ca. 92253
(619) 564-3455 Lic. #390365
8-15-94
Mr. Wallace Nesbit
Planner
City of La Quinta
Re. -Tentative tract map 928034
AUG 15 1994
Mr. Nesbit,
Enclosed with this letter is an application for a tentative tract map for a 19 acre parcel near
58th and Madison in La Quinta. The property is currently in escrow with the buyer being
Mr. John Gogian who I represent. Enclosed is a letter of authority from the current
owner, Mr. Edward Woodbridge, giving permission to pursue the application until the
close of escrow.
Our request is to create twenty five 1/2 to 1 1/4 acre estate lots in a gated community. I
believe this complies with current zoning and land use designations.
I have been meeting with Mr. Bob Ford at C.V.W.D. concerning water and sewer service
for our project. Water service is available and we will be involved with a new water main
on 58th on a shared cost basis with C.V.W.D. based on our line size needs and their
Master Plan line sizes. Sewer is not currently available however as per their request we
will install a "dry system" to the front of our project to hook into the sewer when it
becomes available. Septic systems (as per Co. Health Dept. guidelines) will be used until
then.
I also met with Mr. Tom Hutchinson concerning fire department criteria. Our site layout,
street widths, and turn radii meet or exceed current standards. The streets in the project
will be parking one side only. Our water system will be designed to meet required fire
flow.
if you have any questions or need any additional information please do not hesitate to call.
I look forward to working with you on this project.
S' I ---�
- e
e eme
�R
pis
i—
i/
s
s
t
9
s q
4
�
E
s
58th AVENUE
EJQSMG
9NOlE FAM LT "OK
B1 #1
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: OCTOBER 25, 1994
CASE NO. INTERPRETATION OF DEFINITION OF A CHURCH FACILITY
APPLICANT: RICK JOHNSON COMPANIES
LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF MILES AVENUE AND DUNE PALMS
ROAD
BACKGROUND:
The Community Development ]Department recently received a request from Rick Johnson
Companies for an interpretation. He indicates that he is contemplating coming involved with
an approved church site at the northeast corner of Miles Avenue and Adams Street in the R-1
Zone. Staff has researched the church approved for that corner and determined that the
approval has expired. However, a public use permit can be reapplied for.
The applicant is requesting an interpretation as to whether a mortuary (non -cremation) and a
chapel can be included on the church site. The applicant feels that these uses are compatible
since the chapel will be used as a place of worship.
Presently, the Municipal Code allows, "churches, temples, and other places of religious
worship" in any zone provided a public use permit is approved. The Municipal Code does
not state that a chapel and mortuary can be classified as a part of a church facility.
CONSIDERATION:
A factor to consider in making this determination is that both a church and mortuary/chapel
have services at various times. The major difference would be that a mortuary would
prepare bodies for burial or cremation, although no cremation would take place at these
facilities as proposed by the applicant. A mortuary is more of a commercial use since people
specifically pay for these services and are normally not members such as in a church.
Presently, mortuaries are a pennitted use in the C-P (General Commercial) Zone and the C-
P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) with a conditional use permit.
RECOMMENDATION:
By Minute Motion, the Planning Commission by utilizing the above -noted factors determine
whether a chapel/mortuary (non -cremation) can be considered part of a church facility, and
as such, included in a public use permit request.
Attachments:
1. Letter dated October 13, 1994
PCST.192
October 13, 1994
Jerry Herman, Planning Director
City of LaOuinta
P.O. Box 1504
LaWinta, CA 92253
RE; Mortuary Project
Dear Jerry;
As recently discussed, we are pondering involvement with a
4.6 acre parcel at the North East corner of Miles Avenue and
Adams Street.
As you are aware, the property Ls toned residential and ap-
provale were recently granted for a Church on the entire parcel.
it is our desire to modify those approvals to include a
10,000 aq. ft. Chapel and Mortuary (eon -cremation) to be located
on the Southerly potLion of the parcel. We feel this is a compa-
rable use since it, will be used as a place of worship. The bal-
&nce of the property will remain for church usage.
P.O. Box 329 • la Quint&. Calltomia 92253 0 (619) 772-6068 0 Fax 772-2939
Jerry Merman
Page 2 of 2
October 13, 1994
Based on the above, we respectfully ask for your interpreta-
tion as to the likelyhood of our success regarding the foregoing
approval modifications as well as the time frames required for
same.
Jerry, time is of the essence in these matters, so we would
ask for a quick respon9e as your time permits.
Respectfully
Rick Johnson
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California
October 11, 1994 7:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. The meeting was called to order at 7:02 P.M. by Chairman Adolph.
Commissioner Abels led the flag salute.
II. ROLL CALL
A. Chairman Adolph requested the roll call. Present: Commissioners Abels,
Anderson, Barrows, Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, and Chairman Adolph.
B. Staff Present: Planning Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell,
Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Department Secretary Betty Sawyer.
III. PUBLIC COMMENT - None
IV. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 94-044; a request of the City for amendments to
the Hillside Conservation Zone and Chapter 9.146.
1. Staff requested that this item be contirlued to allow the City Attorney time
to research the issue.
2. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Anderson to
continue ZOA 94-044 to October 25, 1994. Unanimously approved.
B. Plot Plan 94-533 (EA 94-285); a request of MCG Architects for Eisenhower
Hospital for approval of plans to allow construction and operation of an 8,635
square foot Immediate Care Facility.
1. Staff presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of
which is on file in the Community Development Department.
2. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Adolph opened the public
hearing. Commissioner Newkirk asked if the applicant could explain the
difference in the variation of the facade of the buildings as he felt the
elevation facing Highway Ill needed additional architectural treatment.
Mr. Mark Mikelson, representing MCG Architects, stated the examining
PC 10-1
Planning Commission Minutes
October 11. 1994
rooms were on the south elevation and they felt there was a need for
privacy. He stated if the Commission desired to have additional
treatment., they would provide.
3. Commissioner Anderson asked how medical waste was disposed of. Mr.
Michaelson stated it was kept inside until special pick-ups were scheduled.
4. Commissioner Butler asked why the handicap parking spaces were located
so far from the entrance to the building. Staff stated they would have to
meet the State standards and as this was an emergency care facility there
would not be a large amount of return patients. It was not felt that there
would be a lot of handicap patients.
5. Chairman Adolph asked if the handicap parking could be moved to the
main entrance. Mr. Mikelson stated it could be moved closer to make it
more accommodating. Staff noted a requirement to relocate the handicap
stalls and ramp on the west side of the building.
6. Commissioner Barrows stated she felt the landscaping along the Highway
III elevation should be increased. This would also help with the
plainness of the building. Mr. Mikelson stated they had no problem with
this and it would add additional shading to the building. Discussion
followed between the Commissioners and the applicant relative to
landscaping.
7. Chairman Adolph asked if staff could require the applicant to add more
architectural detail to the building. Staff stated it be added to the
Conditions of Approval. Discussion followed relative to what the
Commission would like to see.
8. Mr. John Garvey, a La Quinta resident living on Avenida Diaz, addressed
the Commission regarding his objection to a medical facility being built
between two fast food eating establishments. He did not feel this was a
pleasing place to build.
9. There being no further public comment, Chairman Adolph closed the
public hearing. Commissioner Anderson stated he understood Mr.
Garvey's concern but did not share his opinion. He felt the facility was
being constructed an adequate distance away from the food establishments.
10. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Barrows/Abels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution
94-023 adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact for Environmental Assessment 94-285 for Plot Plan 94-533.
PCIO-11 2
Planning Commission Minutes
October 11, 1994
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Anderson, Barrows,
Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Chairman Adolph.
NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
11. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Abels to adopt
Minute Motion 94-032 approving Plot Plan 94-533, subject to amended
conditions as follows:
a. Condition #23 be amended to require additional landscaping for
screening on Highway 111.
b. A new condition be added requiring additional architectural
treatment to the south side of the building to create dimension and
shading. The additional architectural treatment to be approved by
the Community Development Department staff.
12. Commissioner Anderson asked that the architect consider adding additional
architectural treatment to the north side as well. Commissioners
Barrows/Abels amended the motion to add the additional requirement.
Unanimously approved.
V. BUSINESS SESSION:
A. Subdivision Flags; a request of the City Council for discussion relative to
establishing a policy for the size, number, and height of temporary flags for use
in subdivisions.
1. Staff presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of
which is on file in the Community Development Department.
2. Commissioner Butler asked staff to explain what was meant by a rigid
flag. Staff explained where the flag is secured on more than one side to
keep it from waving in the wind.
3. Commissioner Abels stated that no more than 12 flags at one time and a
maximum of 20-feet in height and a square footage of 18-21-feet should
be required. He went on to explain that in his research, that flag sizes
were usually 1/3 of the pole height.
4. Commissioner Anderson stated that as far as an advertising device, flags
located at a project site are the lowest priority in regards to sales tools.
He felt the number, size, and height should be kept at a minimum.
5. Commissioner Barrows stated that the more flags there were the less of
an attention attractor they were.
PC10-11 3
Planning Commission Minutes
October 11, 1994
6. Commissioner Gardner stated he felt the flags drew peoples attention to
the site and possibly the City was too restrictive with respect to developer
demands. He felt 20-feet was an appropriate height for the flag poles
except in front of model homes. They should be six feet. Commissioner
Barrows agreed.
7. Commissioner Abels stated that the number of flags in front of Parc La
Quinta was ridiculous.
8. Commissioner Barrows stated that 16-feet on the interior of a residential
development was adequate and 20-feet on the exterior.
9. Chairman Adolph asked that the Commission agree on each of the items:
a.
The number of flags allowed:
12-feet maximum
b.
The pole height shall be:
20-feet perimeter
16-feet interior
C.
The flag size shall be:
18 sq. ft. on the perimeter
12 sq. ft. on the interior
d.
No rigid flags shall be allowed:
secured on no more than one
side
e.
Colors allowed:
No limit on the number of
colors allowed. No
fluorescent colors
f.
Text allowed:
No phrase or part of a phrase
read on multiple or sequential
flags.
g.
Time limit:
Flags shall be limited to a six
month time with allowance
for an extension of up to six
months.
h.
Number of flags:
No more than one flag per
pole is allowed.
i.
Structural requirements:
The height of the flag pole
shall be measured from finish
grade at the property line.
j.
Structural stability:
Shall be determined by the
lateral load and size of the
flag. Staff shall supply
applicants with the acceptable
standards.
PC 10-11 4
Planning Commission Minutes
October 11, 1994
10. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Butler to adopt Minute Motion 94-033
recommending the above requirements for subdivision flags. Unanimously
approved.
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. There being no corrections to the Minutes of September 27, 1994, it was moved
and seconded by Commissioners Anderson/Newkirk to approve the minutes as
submitted. Unanimously approved.
VII. OTHER -
A. Commissioner Newkirk reported on the Council meeting of October 4, 1994.
B. Chairman Adolph informed the Commissioner of the topics discussed during the
October 3, 1994 joint meeting with the City Council regarding the Housing
Element. Planning Director Jerry Herman stated the Council's concern that more
members of the Planning Commission were not in attendance. Commissioners
Abels and Gardner explained they were out of town at previous engagements and
were unable to attend.
C. Commissioner Abels informed the Commission of a project on the east side of
Jefferson Street in the City of Indio that would compete with the Del Webb
project
D. Commissioner Anderson informed staff that the City of La Quinta CityHall sign
needed to be fixed.
E. Commissioner Newkirk informed the Commission about how beneficial the
Planning Commission Workshop was that he and Commissioners Butler and
Anderson attended.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, a motion was made and seconded by Commissioners
Newkirk/Barrows to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission on October 25, 1994, at 7:00 P.M. at the La Quints City
Hall Council Chamber. This meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission was adjourned at
8:14 P.M., October 11, 1994.
PC10-11 5