Loading...
1991 08 13 PC,LAMING COMUS,SXON AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado La Quinta, California August 13, 1991 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 No. 91-023 Beginning Minute Motion No. 91-021 CALiL. TO ®]E21:3]E1:Z — Flag Salute ROLL CALL PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Item ................ CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - PUBLIC USE PERMIT 91-010 Applicant ........... Michael & Glenda Bangerter Location ............ South side of Sagebrush Avenue extension east side of Date Palm Drive Request ............. Proposed Preschool/Day-Care Center Action .............. Resolution 91- PC/AGENDA 1 2. 3. 4. 5. Item ................ CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-029, CHANGE OF ZONE 90-054, & SPECIFIC PLAN 90-015 Applicant ........... Landmark Land Company Location ............ Generally bounded by Airport Boulevard on the south, Madison Street on the west, 55th Avenue on the north, and Monroe Street on the east. Request ............. Request for approval of a 265 acre project, including golf course, and residential uses, incorporating 1060 residential units and consideration for certification of Final EIR. Action .............. To be continued Item ................ CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-031, CHANGE OF ZONE 90-056, SPECIFIC PLAN 90-016 Applicant ........... Landmark Land Company Location ............ Generally bounded by 52nd Avenue on the south, Jefferson Street on the west, 50th Avenue on the north and the All American Canal on the east. Request ............. Request for approval of a 327 acre project, including golf course, residential and commercial uses, incorporating a 21 acre commercial site and 1208 residential units and consideration for certification of Final EIR. Action .............. Minute Motion 91- Resolutions 91- , 91- , 91- , Item ................ GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-030, CHANGE OF ZONE 90-055, AND SPECIFIC PLAN 90-017, Applicant ........... Landmark Land Company Location ............ Area generally bounded by 57th Avenue alignment on the north, 58th Avenue on the south and bisected by Madison Street. Request ............. Request for approval of a 220 acre project including golf course and residential uses, incorporating 880 residential uses and consideration for certification of Final EIR. Action .............. To be continued Item ................ CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 26181 Applicant ........... Ray Troll Location ............ South side of Westward Ho Drive alignment +1400 feet west of Dune Palms Road Request ............. To subdivide 14 gross acres into 52 single family lots Action .............. Applicant has withdrawn application PC/AGENDA 6. Item ................ Applicant ........... Location ............ Request............. Action .............. PUBLIC COMMENT ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 91-017 City City wide Request to add Chapter 9.78 to the La Quinta Municipal Code relating to the prohibition of time share projects and uses. Resolution 91- 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. Persons wishing to address the Planning Commission should use the form provided. Please complete a form and submit the form to the Recording Secretary prior to the beginning of the meeting. Your name will be called at the appropriate time. When addressing the Planning Commission, please state your name and address. The proceedings of the Planning Commission meeting are recorded on tape and comments of each person shall be limited to three minutes. BUSINESS SESSION 1. Item ................ Applicant ........... Location ............ Request............. Action .............. 2. Item ................ Applicant ........... Location............ Request............. Action .............. 3. Item ................ Applicant ........... Location ............ Request ............. Action .............. NEW CART STORAGE SCREEN WALL Von's Market Plaza La Quinta, southwest corner of Washington Street & Highway 111 Approval of construction of a cart storage screen wall Minute Motion 91- MINOR TEMPORARY OUTDOOR EVENT 91-032 Thunderbird Artists Plaza La Quinta, southeast corner of Washington Street Approval to conduct art shows Minute Motion 91- Street Vacation 91-016 for SP 90-015 Landmark Land Company 55th Avenue and 56th Avenue (Airport Boulevard) approximately midway between Monroe Street and Madison Avenue Determination of General Plan consistency to vacate Rancho La Quinta Road and Paseo Del Rancho Minute Motion 91- PC/AGENDA 3 4. Item ................ Applicant ........... Location ............ Request............. Action .............. 5. Item ................ Applicant ........... Location ............ Request............. Action .............. CONSENT CALENDAR Street Vacation 91-017 for SP 90-016 Landmark Land Company North of 52nd Avenue, 360 feet west of the All American Canal and 1270 feet east of Jefferson Street Determination of General Plan consistency to vacate Kaylon Street Minute Motion 91- Sign Application 91-149 Mobil Oil Corporation Southwest corner of Avenida Bermudas and Calle Montezuma Approval of sign program and adjustments Minute Motion 91- Approval Minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held July 23, 1991. OTHER 1. Appointment of Design Review Board representative. 2. Discussion of joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting. ADJOURNMENT STUDY SESSION MONDAY, AUGUST 12, 1991 City Council Chambers DISCUSSION ONLY 3:00 P.M. 1. All Agenda items. ITEMS IDENTIFIED FOR FUTURE AGENDAS a. Height limits along Washington Street - Specific Plan Amendment b . Downtown Parking District - develop time line C. PGA West Specific Plan - review d . Commercial Noise Study - General Plan inclusion e. Guest houses, -• draft regulations f . Satellite Dishes - Commercial & Residential zones PC/AGENDA 4 PH-2 MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: AUGUST 13, 1991 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-029, CHANGE OF ZONE 90-054 & SPECIFIC PLAN 90-015 - LANDMARK LAND COMPANY The subject items were continued from your July 9th and 23rd meeting to a public hearing at tonight's meeting. Staff is requesting that this project be continued to your next scheduled meeting of September 10, 1991. Staff is still preparing conditions for this project. The Final EIR has been received from the project consultant and has included in your packet for review in the interim. MEMOWN.027/CS -1- PH-3 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: AUGUST 13, 1991 PROJECT: FINAL EIR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-031 CHANGE OF ZONE 90-056 SPECIFIC PLAN 90-016 APPLICANT: LANDMARK LAND COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA EIR CONSULTANTS: DOUGLAS WOOD & ASSOCIATES; NEWPORT BEACH ENDO ENGINEERING; EL TORO REQUEST: SPECIFIC PLAN AND LAND USE ENTITLEMENTS TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF A 1208 UNIT RESIDENTIAL GOLF COURSE COMMUNITY ON 327 ACRES, TO INCLUDE A 21 ACRE COMMERCIAL SITE WITH +320, 000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE. LOCATION: GENERALLY BOUNDED BY JEFFERSON STREET, 50TH AVENUE AND THE ALL AMERICAN CANAL AND 52ND AVENUE. (SEE ATTACHMENT #1) . GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: CURRENT; CITY OF LA QUINTA, LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-4 UNITS PER ACRE) ON 312 ACRES, AND SPECIAL COMMERCIAL ON 15 ACRES. PROPOSED; CITY OF LA QUINTA, LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-4 UNITS PER ACRE) ON 306 ACRES AND GENERAL COMMERCIAL ON 21 ACRES. GROSS DENSITY: 3.69 UNITS PER ACRE INCLUDING GOLF COURSE AND COMMERCIAL ACREAGE; 3.95 UNITS PER ACRE EXCLUDING COMMERCIAL ACREAGE EXISTING ZONING: A-1-10, R-1 C-P-S PROPOSED ZONING: R-2 & C-P-S ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: A DRAFT EIR AND FINAL EIR HAVE BEEN PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT. A NOTICE OF PREPARATION ON THE DRAFT EIR WAS CIRCULATED FOR COMMENTS ON ITS SCOPE DURING THE PERIOD OF JULY 17, 1990, TO AUGUST 22, 1990. THE DEIR ITSELF WAS SUBMITTED ON APRIL 23, 1991, AND ROUTED FOR COMMENT WITH THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION. THE SUSPENSE DATE FOR COMMENTS DUE ON THE DEIR WAS JUNE 7, 1991, PCST.005 1 WITH THE FINAL EIR (RESPONSES TO DEIR COMMENTS) INITIALLY SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW ON JULY 15, 1991. THE EIR PREPARED FOR SP 90-016 MUST BE CERTIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH C.E.Q.A. (A SECTION ON THE FINAL EIR FOR RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON CERTIFICATION IS PROVIDED LATER IN THIS REPORT.) PROJECT BACKGROUND: The subject project was submitted concurrently with Specific Plan 90-015 and Specific Plan 90-017, and their related cases. All three specific plans have been scheduled for tonight's agenda. Specific Plan 90-016 proposes a residential golf course community and approximately 21 acres of general commercial uses. 1208 units are proposed on 151 acres (overall 3.69 units per acre, 8.0 units per acre net density) . The commercial square footage projection from the EIR indicates 320,166 square feet of commercial space. The project golf course will "tie-in" to the approved Oak Tree West Citrus Course, west of Jefferson Street (refer to Attachment #2) . When this proposal was initially submitted, the subject property was still under County land use controls (see Attachment #3), but was located within the City of La Quinta sphere of influence, and had been additionally included into a City annexation proceeding (Annexation #5) . This annexation was subsequently approved and became effective on January 30, 1991. As a result, the County land use designations were superseded by the previously approved City land use designations, which are currently in effect. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed specific plan encompasses approximately 327 acres, of which 151 acres will be committed to establishment of 1208 residential units, 155 acres will be for golf course and related uses, and 21 acres will be commercial uses. The following applications are proposed to implement the project: 1. General Plan Amendment 90-031 - Initially, this application proposed a change from County land use designations of Residential 3A (4-2 units/acre), 3B (2-5 units/acre) and Commercial to City designations of Low Density Residential (2-4 units/acre) over 306 acres, and General Commercial on 21 acres (see Attachments #3 & #4) . However annexation of this property into the City of La Quinta, effective January 30, 1991, superseded the County designations in favor of the City's pre -annexation General Plan land use designations (see Attachment #5) . As a result, Staff has amended the General Plan Amendment request to reflect these changes. The revised request is now to amend the Land Use Plan from Special Commercial to Low Density Residential on approximately 15 acres, and from Low Density Residential to General Commercial on approximately 21 acres. 2. Change of Zone 90-056 - The Applicant proposes a zone change from pre - annexation (now current) City zoning designations of R-1 (291 acres), A-1-10 (21 acres) and C-P-S (15 acres) to R-2 (306 acres) and C-P-S (21 acres) , in accordance with the proposed general plan amendment. PCST.005 3. Specific Plan 90-016 - As previously discussed, this specific plan proposes 1208 dwelling units on 151 acres, 155 acres of golf course and open space uses and a 21 acre commercial site with 320,166 square feet of retail and office space. The golf course will play from the existing Citrus Course Golf Clubhouse as golf holes 2-18, the initial hole being part of the Citrus Course. The only golf -related structures will be a halfway house (snack/beverage stop) , two comfort stations and a maintenance facility immediately east of the existing Imperial Irrigation District substation on the north side of 52nd Avenue (see Attachment #6) . Access to the project is proposed off of Jefferson Street approximately 600 feet north of its intersection with 52nd Avenue, and from 50th Avenue approximately 2950 feet east of Jefferson Street. The Jefferson Street access is proposed to line up the 21 acre commercial site on the northwest corner of Jefferson Street and 52nd Avenue with the easterly residential portion, as shown on Attachment #6. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS: Pursuant to provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines 15090) the lead agency is required to certify Final EIR's as being completed in compliance with CEQA, and that the decision making body of the lead agency did review and consider the information contained in the Final EIR, prior to approving the project. Because the Planning Commission as an advisory body is required to make a recommendation on the project itself, it is considered appropriate for the Commission to also make a recommendation (by Minute Motion) to the City Council on certification of the Final EIR. This section is intended to give a brief summary to the Planning Commission on the pertinent EIR information which should be considered. IMPACTS FOUND TO BE INSIGNIFICANT: The initial study prepared on this project identified general impacts which were not considered significantly adverse to the extent of requiring mitigation beyond applicable permitting requirements. Impacts to human health and risk of upset were considered insignificant based on the following: Human Health: There are no anticipated impacts to human health due to project implementation. Potential for impact is minimal to negligible, as no health threatening uses/activities are proposed with the project. Risk of Upset: Risk hazards in the event of potential future accidents are not anticipated, due to the general residential commercial and open space uses proposed for the project. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE MITIGATABLE TO A LEVEL OF NON - SIGNIFICANCE: When the City Council considers certifying the FEIR, they must review and consider making specific findings of fact for each identified significant environmental effect (impact), along with a brief rationale for each finding. The following significant effects were identified in the EIR: PCST.005 3 -Seismic Safety -Slopes and Erosion -Hydrology -Noise -Wildlife and Vegetation -Land Use -Population and Housing -Natural and Energy Resources -Aesthetics -Cultural and Scientific Resources -Circulation -Public Facilities and Services Findings of fact based on these impacts will be prepared for the City Council's consideration when the project is presented to them for approval. At this point, there is evidence in the record to show that the Planning Commission has considered the information in the EIR. There is no requirement in CEQA for the Commission to adopt these findings; they must be adopted by the decision making body upon certification of the Final EIR (CEQA Guidelines 15090). UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS: In conjunction with making the findings discussed above, the lead agency can not approve a project, for which an EIR has been prepared unless it has been determined that any remaining significant adverse effects found to be unavoidable, as set forth in the findings required under CEQA 15091, are acceptable due to overriding concerns. For this project, the Final EIR indicates that impacts to air quality will remain significant even with proposed mitigation measures being implemented. CEQA Section 15093 allows a lead agency to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether or not to approve the project. If the benefits outweigh the environmental risks, then the adverse effect may be deemed "acceptable". If the lead agency finds this to be the case, it must state, in writing, the specific reasons to support its position based upon the Final EIR and/or any other information in the record. This is called a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Regarding this project, such a statement will be necessary in order to allow approval. Staff will be preparing a Statement of Overriding Considerations for review by the City Council at the time the project is to be approved. Although the Planning Commission need not adopt such a statement, it is important that the Commission be aware of this necessity and acknowledge this to the City Council in their recommendation. One other important point should be made at this time. The City Council can certify the Final EIR without approving the project. Staff recommends that the following findings be made regarding the Final EIR: The FEIR prepared for Specific Plan 90-016 and it's related applications has been completed in compliance with CEQA. PCST.005 4 2. The FEIR for Specific Plan 90-016 and it's related applications was presented to the Planning Commission of the lead agency and that said Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to recommending approval of the project. 3. That there are significant environmental effects which can be reasonably mitigated if the proposed project is implemented and that findings as required under Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code can and shall be made by the lead agency. 4. That impacts to air quality cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance based upon information in the Final EIR . PROJECT ANALYSIS: This section will provide brief analysis of each application relating to major concerns. Due to the non-specific level of detail on this project, the discussions are limited to the major concerns which would guide more specific development applications (e.g. parcel maps, tract maps, plot plan, etc.) . 1. General Plan Amendment 90-031 A. Because the effective date of Annexation #5 assigned previously designated City land uses to the site, the General Plan Amendment is currently necessary to switch the current commercial designation of Special Commercial on 15 acres at the northeast corner of 52nd Avenue and Jefferson Street, to General Commercial on 21 acres at the northwest corner of that intersection. B . The General Plan describes Special Commercial as a land use category which would ultimately develop with generalized retail/office uses. The intent of this category was to allow tourist -oriented support uses during the interim development period for residential along the Jefferson Street corridor (uses such as temporary lodging, hotels, restaurants and accessory tourist) . C . The Applicant's proposed commercial site, by its specific plan definition would more commonly be associated with a general commercial center, as described in the General Commercial land use category of the La Quinta General Plan. D . Residential development pressure has created a "spillover" effect into the continuing buildout of PGA and Oak Tree West, and existing and pending approvals (including this proposal) which could result in the construction of 5,060 units in the Annexation #5 area alone, indicate that special commercial uses (as defined) may not be as appropriate as when the La Quinta General Plan was adopted. This number does not include units in PGA West or Oak Tree West. E. Regarding existing General Plan designated commercial land uses, the following breakdowns in the immediate service area exist: PCST.005 General Commercial - 67.5 acres Special Commercial - 110.0 acres Tourist Commercial - 65.0 acres (PGA West) Based upon population service factors in the La Quinta General Plan and square footage per acre ratios illustrated by the Applicant, the General Commercial land use along Jefferson (excluding the Applicant's request) could provide between approximately 803,580 and 1,028,700 square feet of retail/office space as commercial centers. According to the La Quinta General Plan, commercial centers of 100-300, 000 square feet can serve between 15-20,000 population. Assuming this, the available general commercial land use, exclusive of other commercial categories and north La Quinta general commercial properties, could theoretically serve between 40,000 to just over 51,000. This range assumes the low acre per square feet ratio of one acre per 11,905 and assumes a commercial center site of 300,000 square feet using the more intense factors, a service population range of about 160,700 to 205,740 persons results. Although these are very rough numbers, it is clear that additional commercial acreages are not warranted under the existing General Plan at this time, given the actual market activity in La Quinta, the land uses available, and the La Quinta General Plan update which is currently in process. Additionally, although the City's maximum buildout, based on the La Quinta General Plan Housing Element has been placed at 99,000, most of the larger projects that this number was based upon will build out at lower densities. For example, although PGA West has been approved for 5,000 units, and through tract approvals has granted 2,661 of those units, the original project area is conservatively better than half completed with only 1536 permits issued, anticipating a buildout of between 3,000 and 3,500 units. This results in a population loss of between 4,000 to 6,000 with no corresponding reduction in the original 20 acre commercial area. We should expect this trend to continue with this type of project. F. It does appear, however, that the Special Commercial category is outdated and, based on development trends along the Jefferson corridor, does not lend itself well to its original concept. As a result of this analysis, it is felt that the commercial request should be granted for 15 acres of general commercial and not 21 acres, so as not to increase the amount of current commercial acreage. G. The remaining six acres needs to be addressed regarding land use. Initially, Staff considered using the acreage, 1) as a buffer area between the commercial site and the surrounding residential properties to the north and west; 2) for parkland requirements, or; 3) retaining the existing land use of Low Density Residential for a specific six -acre area, separate from the 15-acre commercial site. In looking at the buffer concept, it was determined that a strip of land about 140 feet wide along the north and west property boundaries would provide approximately six acres. However, this brings up a number of concerns: PCST.005 6 1. As a landscaped buffer, this strip would be maintained by the Applicant/Developer unless the City required public access rights to it as a greenbelt. This could be an expensive proposition. 2. There could be public safety, liability, crime and vandalism problems involved with such a long strip (+1,700 feet) of vacant land between the rear of a commercial use and a walled community. 3. There is currently a concern with proximity of the commercial site's Jefferson Street access (about 600 feet from the intersection); this might further reduce that spacing by at least 140 feet, (though spacing might still be retained) . 4. It would be more appropriate to institute buffered setbacks at time of precise development plans, when more specific impacts in that area come to light. On the other hand, if the City is willing to maintain such a design, it could serve as a segment for a recreational biking, hiking, and/or equestrian trails. This would serve a dual purpose in providing additional recreational opportunity and buffering land uses. The main concern with the acreage as parkland would be that the city has not studied parkland needs in this area of the City. The rural nature of the area and vicinity to the southeast, along with PGA West and Oak Tree West, and the availability of equestrian activity all lend themselves to the consideration that there may be a lesser need for parkland in this area of the City. Additionally, requiring a park of any kind in this location would not appear to be appropriate due to the lack of demand in the immediate vicinity and the given circulation and land use patterns. The remaining alternative seems the simplest and most appropriate at present; that is, to retain a six acre portion in the westerly area of the site. This would be consistent with the land use plan, and an appropriate zoning designation could be applied. This would also allow a more useable configuration for a park site if the City were to pursue land procurement in this area due to this project and others by the Applicant. 2. Change of Zone 90-056 A. The proposed change of zone from A-1-10, R-1 and C-P-S is consistent with the proposed General Plan Amendment and, to an extent, with the existing Land Use Plan. B . The current A-1-10 zoning, at the northwest corner of Jefferson Street and 52nd Avenue is inconsistent with the underlying land use designation of Low Density Residential, while the proposed R-2 zoning, on the easterly 306 acres of the project, is inconsistent only with the Special Commercial designation on 15 acres at the northeast corner of Jefferson Street and 52nd Avenue. PCST.005 7 C . Approval of the change of zone in conjunction with the General Plan Amendment being approved would bring the zoning into consistency with the City Land Use Plan. D . As with the General Plan Amendment the commercial zoning component of 21 acres as requested by the Applicant would also be reduced to 15 acres. This would leave a six acre portion of that site in the Low Density Residential land use category. Staff feels that in order to allow consistency with other area zoning and to allow more design flexibility should this site be developed, that a zoning designation of R-2 be applied to this six acres ( see Attachment #7) . 3. Specific Plan 90--016 Access A. The most significant concerns with regards to the Specific Plan itself involve access, primarily at the proposed commercial site/ area intersection on Jefferson Street. This intersection is proposed at a location approximately 600 feet north of the Jefferson Street/52nd Avenue intersection. This spacing is inconsistent with the spacing requirement of 1 / 2 mile (2, 600 feet) for Major Arterial intersections, as identified in the La Quinta General Plan. B . Policy 7.5.10 of the Infrastructure Element of the La Quinta General Plan requires circulation system improvements to conform to Table VII-3 ( shown at Attachment 8) . This policy was amended by General Plan Amendment 90-032 (A.G. Spanos, La Quinta Shores project) to add language allowing the City Council to modify the spacing requirements for projects meeting certain requirements which do not endanger public health and safety (see Attachment #9) . C . Although the proposed intersection could be designed to work safely, the spacing of the intersection will compromise the intent of limiting intersection access points along Jefferson Street. The viability of Washington Street as a rapid access corridor has been somewhat compromised over the past few years, even though the Washington Street Specific Plan was adopted and in effect. This leaves Jefferson Street as the last remaining north/south corridor proposed which could carry high traffic volumes in a fairly efficient manner. D. Although Policy 7.5.3 indicates a study on Jefferson Street access was to be undertaken and completed, it has not been done to date. Policy 6.5.3 also designates Jefferson Street as a Secondary Image Corridor, which would imply that certain additional considerations should be looked at, such as aesthetic impacts, traffic flow characteristics, land use, and other factors, which may serve to convey a certain image or identity for the City. E . Another concern with access is presented with the six acre remainder parcel created by reducing the 21 acre commercial site to 15 acres. This new parcel would require an access point onto 52nd Avenue when it is developed in the future. The current proposal shows a full movement access on the north side of 52nd Avenue approximately 1000 PCST.005 8 feet from the Jefferson Street/52nd Avenue intersection. The 15 acre commercial parcel and six acre residential parcel should be required to have a common access road along these boundaries, at a point approximately 360 feet east of the west property boundary of the 21 acre commercial site as proposed. This would reduce the intersection spacing to about 870 feet. Although Staff also would not recommend a full access at this point, there are a few less limiting factors along 52nd Avenue: 1. The resulting 870 feet spacing for this access is a less severe reduction in required spacing, as the General Plan minimum standard for Primary Arterials is 1200 feet. 2. Along 52nd Avenue between Jefferson Street and Washington Street (a distance of about 1.5 miles) , there will only be one other intersection (4-way to connect north and south portions of The Oak Tree West project) . This intersection is well beyond the 1200 foot spacing limit in both directions along 52nd Avenue. F . A similar joint access arrangement could be utilized for the commercial and residential land uses at the southeast corner of 52nd and Jefferson Street. These properties will undoubtedly want full access points as they are isolated at the corner by the All American Canal. G . Staff feels that the golf course access tunnel shown at Jefferson Street should be designed to accommodate pedestrian, bicycle, and cart traffic to allow non -automotive trip alternatives. This needs to be tied in to the commercial area to allow access to all project residents, with the access and design to be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Development Department at it's discretion. H. Access to the proposed maintenance facility is shown off 52nd Avenue. This access will be limited to right turn movements only (no median break). PARKLAND A. As previously discussed, the parkland issue has not been resolved by Staff relative to park sites in this area of the City. Although the DEIR does not identify impacts to recreational opportunities or availability, some minimal impact can be anticipated which will be mitigated by fee payment or provision of parkland. Staff recommends that a condition be adopted based on the following factors: 1. The project proposes significant recreational opportunity for a limited market of users (golfers) . 2. The project is intended to primarily attract this type of market user; there will be many fewer families (and therefore children) living in this development, further reducing the need for typical park facilities. PCST.005 9 3. Past experience has shown that vacancy rates for this type of project have been historically higher than in other primary growth areas of the City, such as the Cove and north La Quinta areas. 4. La Quinta General Plan Policy 5.1.1 sets forth the use of a variable standard of between one and five acres per 1,000 population. Based on this standard range, the City should have between 11 and 56 acres of parkland based upon current population. 5. Exclusive of Lake Cahuilla, the City currently has about 47 acres of parkland, either existing or required to be provided (over 4 acres per 1,000 population) . Based on this information, it would seem appropriate to require a parkland fee based on a standard of one acre per 1,000 projected population (3.53 acres) . A condition has been prepared to provide for this. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: A. The standards proposed generally meet those of the R-2 zoning district. Staff recommends that height limitations be amended to be measured from finished grade rather than top of slab. B. A similar perimeter height limit to that in effect for SP 85-006 (Oak Tree West) should be employed. That limit was for no buildings exceeding one story (20 feet in height) to be allowed within 200 feet of any perimeter property line or public street frontage. This type of condition has been included. C. A condition has been drafted to require the Applicant to prepare a satellite employee restroom facility plan, to be reviewed by the Planning Commission as a Business Item. D . The easterly project boundary is shared by the Green Valley Ranches development, which was zoned for Equestrian Overlay in July, 1990. A condition has been recommended that will require a 20 foot buffer between the project wall and the interior street right-of-way with landscaping to be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Development Department and Design Review Board. E. All mitigation requirements as presented in the Final EIR shall be incorporated in the Conditions of Approval where appropriate along with General Plan Requirements for perimeter setbacks, acoustical mitigation, etc. FINDINGS: Findings for recommendation to City Change of Zone 90-056, and Specifi c PCST.005 10 RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the La Quinta Planning Commission, by Minute Motion recommend to the City Council certification of the Final EIR for Specific Plan 90-016, in accordance with the findings set forth in this Staff report. 2. That the La Quinta Planning Commission adopt Resolution 91- , recommending to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 90-031, as modified by Staff. 3. That the La Quinta Planning Commission adopt Resolution 91- , recommending to the City Council approval of Change of Zone 90-056, as modified by Staff. 4. That the La Quinta Planning Commission adopt Resolution 91- , recommending to the City Council approval of Specific Plan 90-016, as modified by Staff. Attachments: 1. Location map 2. Citrus and Grove Course layout 3. County Land Use (superseded) 4. Proposed land use 5. Existing land use (City) 6. Proposed land use plan; SP 90-016 7. Staff recommended zoning 8. Excerpt from La Quinta General Plan: minimum street design standards 9. Text of Amendment to Policy 7.5.10 of the La Quina General Plan PCST.005 11 TOURNAMENT 419 570 224 467 378 454 182 581 377 3652 386 418 375 163 567 427 136 538 473 3483 7135 CHAMPIONSHIP 379 495 189 440 , 359 392 166 540 353 3313 372 379 351 145 517 358 107 513 4�223164 6477 REGULAR 340 456 155 355 351 376 142 517 340 3032 350 354 335 114 506 308 87 481 300 5932 WOMEN'S 287 418 104 315 326 319 99 450 288 2606 314 280 290 94 435 277 74 414 322 2500 5106 HOLE NUMBER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 PAR 1 4 5 3 4 4 4 3 5 4 36 4 4 4 3 5 4 3 5 4 36 72 HANDICAP 1 9 11 7 1 1 15 3 13 5 17 16 4 14 12 10 8 18 6 2 CITRUS COURSE Proposed J eiirW eoWrse drove Bourse E TOURNAMENT 360 428 144 427 580 200 446 495 343 3423 467 535 215 360 447 405 525 175 454 3583 7006 CHAMPIONSHIP 343 400 120 410 530 170 420 453 327 3173 442 500 183 336 423 382 495 150 423 3334 6507 REGULAR 327 377 110 387 493 150 403 427 307 2981 415 480 163 320 405 357 472 133 393 3138 6119 WOMEN'S 303 352 92 363 468 128 380 400 287 2773 390 463 123 293 383 330 445 110 373 2910 5683 HOLE NUMBER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 PAR 4 4 3 4 5 3 4 5 4 36 4 5 3 4 4 4 5 3 4 36 72 HANDICAP GROVE COURSE LAJUY iJ vKJUi cx l�Jxx.1nlCJ..� mm. ^.-rt WORMAToN ON THE PLAN a SAUD DN TILE COUNT' OF WEASIVE GENERAL ►LAM RAND uU ALLOCATION " &*ET NO +ir Sw DATED IZI&W AND flit CRIi Or LA a'NTA LAND USE RAN REYSED =140 KBE m-EN 1 IAL 3A RESIDENTIAL 25 CITY OF LA OUINTA LOW DENSITY RESIDE.WX RESIDENTIAL 28 CITY OF LA OUINTA COMMERCIAL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL r IIo r rArrAwm RESIDENTIAL 3A RESI:)E-ITIAL 3A `••.• -- -- -- — VWFIC RAN BWOARv VENUE 52 AES+OMAL SA Mom ACRES C17Y Or LA C1.11'TA C�J.°1J_nCiu REME?�'tV-1 23 .• a'M° MR ACRE SFECi:.L CCVVcnCIAL i i iAL� wrs PER ACAF ' COWERCYLL I LOOD ACRES ILOW OENSrrn RESOE/EflAL ;. �•,■ •O.O° TOTAL jjVZ?E ACRES SOL MOO-LANDMAFIC LAND CO. OF CALFORNLA. NC. Existing General Plan Designations ,Uri, ,t c r, j.i..J�:a,;, r tff RGURE 4 SPECIFIC PLAIN 90-016 j77,r > II - 6 i .� L)ouglas V%bod & Associates...., Proposed General Plan Designations SPECIFIC PLAID 90-016... $O IM-L/ WMW LAND CO. OF CAUFOR". INO 7Z7 El FIGURE 3 Douglas Wood & Associates... Existing General (Plan esignati®ns - f-, 7LF`7 SPECIFIC PLAN 90-0 1 6 T-%-- - -1 - - I A F- -1 0 A SOURCELANDMARK LAND CO OF CALIFORF". INC. 7 Proposed L. ,and Use Plan uj RGURE 7 �SPECIFIC PLAN 90-016 11-12 Douglas Wood & Associates... MOMIMMAW LAND CO OF CAUFOPMA. IW STAFF RECOMMENDED 0 - ���: Proposed Zoning 7L SPECIFIC PLAN 90-016. 0 O M N , �•� � M� .�� N O . in InN N Ln 10D M ,�� N 00 n ~ Z u1 Oa. 0 8 M f0+1 10 N (n en QI H 0 cc ® 00 �p N-i N V %0 OD•� N ul LM P Ln co • •.� m 00 00 O N • O >4 O O a+ O O N O O O to Ln N N 1n .-4 � f` i en OD �. C N N r4 J� 0 O � s O O O O >1 LM N � \C N C O � �i04 00 1� 3 4j .. O 1 *C r N t i i N RIQ �' y .. H .� A . E04 to) VII-17 W • f GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 9 0- 0 3 2 CIRCULATION POLICIES Amendment to policy 7.5.10 under Street Standards, by adding the following sentences: "Provided however, the City Council may modify the median breaks/intersection spacing requirements set forth in Table VIZ-3 in connection with large scale projects (including mixed use projects) consisting of (a) 100 or more acres and M containing at least (1) 100 or more single-family detached dwellings or (11) 250 or more multi -family dwelling units if such modification does not endanger the public health and safety." PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-031 CASE NO. GPA 90-031 - LANDMARK LAND COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 13th day of August, 1991, hold a duly notice Public Hearing continued from regular meetings of June 25, 1991, July 9, 1991, July 23, 1991, to consider the request of Landmark Land Company of California for a General Plan Amendment from Special Commercial to .Low Density Residential on +15 acres, and from Low Density Residential to General Commercial on +21 acres generally described as bordered by 50th Avenue on the north, 52nd Avenue on the south, the All American Canal on the east and Jefferson Street to the west, more particularly described as: BEING A PORTION OF SECTION 4, T .6. S . , R . 7. E. , AND A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST 1 /4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 5, T.6.S., R.7.3., S.B.B.M. WHEREAS, said General Plan Amendment request has complied with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (as amended), and adopted by City Council Resolution 83-68, in that the Planning and Development Department has completed a Draft and Final EIR, which have been reviewed and considered by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta. WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the recommendation for approval of said Specific Plan. 1. The proposed General Plan Amendment, as requested, is inconsistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan due to the requested increase in commercial acreage. 2. The Staff recommended General Plan Amendment is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan and the Land Use Plan. 3. The proposed Staff recommended land use designations are consistent and compatible with surrounding land use and zoning designations along with approval of Change of Zone 90-056 as recommended by Staff. 4. Approval of this proposal will not result in a significant adverse impact on the environment, except where overriding considerations are recognized in conjunction with. the Final EIR prepared as part of this proposal. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California as follows: RESOPC.032 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 certification of the Final EIR by the La Quinta City Council pursuant to finding #4 above and findings made in the Staff report at the project. 3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council denial of General Plan Amendment 90-031 as submitted and approval of General Plan Amendment 90- 031 (Staff recommendation) for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as illustrated in the map labeled Exhibit "A", attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 13th day of August, 1991, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: KATIE BARROWS, Chairwoman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: BERRY HERMAN, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California RESOPC.032 EXHIBIT A STAFF RECOMMENDATION GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT #90-031 APPLICANT: LANDMARK LAND CO. .. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #91- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF CHANGE OF ZONE 90- 05E CASE NO. CZ 90-056 - LANDMARK LAND COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 13th day of August, 1991, hold a duly notice Public Hearing continued from regular meetings of June 25, 1991, July 9, 1991, July 23, 1991, to consider the request of Landmark Land Company of California for a Change of Zone from R-1 to R-2 on +291 acres, from C-P-S to R-2 on +15 acres and from A-1-10 to C-P-S on +21 acres generally described as bordered by 50th Avenue on the north, 52nd Avenue on the south, the All American Canal on the east and Jefferson Street to the west, more particularly described as: BEING A PORTION OF SECTION 4, T . 6. S. , R . 7. E. , AND A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST 1 /4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 5, T.6.S., R.7.3., S.B.B.M. WHEREAS, said Change of Zone request has complied with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (as amended), and adopted by City Council Resolution 83-68, in that the Planning and Development Department has completed a Draft and Final EIR, which have been reviewed and considered by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta. WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the recommendation for approval of said Specific Plan. 1. The proposed Change of Zone, as requested, is inconsistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan due to the requested increase in commercial acreage. 2. The Staff recommended zoning is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan and the Land Use Plan in, accordance with the Staff recommended amendment for GPA 90-031. 3. The proposed Staff recommended zoning is consistent and compatible with surrounding land use and zoning designations. 4. Approval of this proposal will not result in a significant adverse impact on the environment, except where overriding considerations are recognized in conjunction with the Final EIR prepared as part of this proposal. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California as follows: RESOPC.031 I That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby recommend certification of the Final EIR by the La Quinta City Council pursuant to finding #k4 above and findings made in the Staff report at the project. 3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council denial of Change of Zone 90-056 as submitted and approval of Change of Zone 90-056 (Staff recommendation) for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as illustrated in the map labeled Exhibit "A", attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 13th day of August, 1991, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: KATIE BARROWS, Chairwoman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California RESOPC.031 EXHIBIT A STAFF RECOMMENDATION CHANGE OF ZONE #90-056 kPPLICANT: LANDMARK LAND CO. 'LANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #91- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL, WITH CONDITIONS, OF SPECIFIC PLAN 90- 016 FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA . CASE NO. SP 90-016 - LANDMARK LAND COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 13th day of August, 1991, continued from regular meetings of June 25, 1991, July 9, 1991, and July 23, 1991, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Landmark Land Company of California for a 327 acre mixed use project, consisting of 1208 residential units, 155 acres of golf course/open space, and 21 acres of general retail commercial space on a site generally bounded by 50th Avenue on the north, 52nd Avenue on the south, Jefferson Street on the west, and the All American Canal. on the east, more specifically described as: BEING A PORTION OF SECTION 4, T.6.S., R.7.E. AND A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST 1 /4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 5, T.6.S., R.7.E., S.B.B.M. WHEREAS, said Specific Plan request has complied with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, (as amended), and adopted by City Council Resolution 83-68, in that the Planning and Development Department has completed a Draft and Final EIR, which have been reviewed and considered by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta. WHEREAS, mitigation of various physical impacts have been identified in the Final EIR prepared for the project and incorporated into the approval conditions for Specific Plan 90-016, thereby requiring that monitoring of those mitigation measures be undertaken to assure compliance with them; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the recommendation for approval of said Specific Plan. 1. The proposed Specific Plan, as amended by the Staff recommendation for General Plan Amendment 90-031 and Change of Zone 90-056, is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan and adopted Specific Plan. 2. The Specific Plan, as amended, is compatible with the existing and anticipated area development as conditioned. 3. The project will be provided with adequate utilities and public services to ensure public health and safety. RESOPC.030 4. Adherence to the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR, which have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval, will ensure that all identified significant impacts will be reduced to levels of non -significance, with the exception of impacts to the quality, for which Statements of Overriding Considerations will be adopted by the La Quinta City Council. 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; That it does hereby recommend certification of the Final EIR by the La Quinta City Council pursuant to finding #4 above and findings made in the Staff report on the project. 3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the above - described Specific Plan request for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 13th day of August, 1991, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: KATIE BARROWS, Chairwoman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California RESOPC.030 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 91- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN 90-016 - LANDMARK LAND COMPANY AUGUST 13, 1991 Mitigation Measure of Final EIR for SP 90-016 GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. The development shall comply with Exhibit "A", the Specific Plan for Specific Plan 90-016, the Final EIR and the following conditions, which shall take precedence in the event of any conflicts with the provisions of the Specific Plan. 2. Exterior lighting for the project shall comply with the "Dark Sky" Lighting Ordinance. Plans shall be approved by the Planning and Development Department prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the Applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following agencies: - City Fire Marshal - City of La Quinta Public Works Department - Planning and Development Department - Building and Safety Department - Coachella Valley Water District - Desert Sands Unified School District - Coachella Valley Unified School District - Imperial Irrigation District Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above mentioned agencies shall be presented to the Building and Safety Department at the time of the application for a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 4. 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. 5. Construction shall comply with all local and State building code requirements as determined by the Building and Safety Director. 6. The Applicant/Developer shall prepare a overall plan for the provision of comfort station locations for maintenance employees. This plan shall indicate station locations and design parameters and standards, and shall be subject to review by the Planning and Development Department. 7. The Planning Commission shall conduct annual reviews of this Specific Plan. During each annual review by the Commission, the Developer/Applicant shall be required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of the Specific Plan. The Applicant/Developer of this project hereby agrees to furnish such CONAPRVL.024 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Specific Plan 90-016 August 13, 1991 evidence of compliance as the City, in the exercise of its reasonable discretion, may require. Evidence of good faith compliance may include, but shall not necessarily be limited to, good faith progress towards implementation of and compliance with the requirements of the Specific Plan. Upon conclusion of the annual review, the Commission may extend the approval period for 12 months at a time. 8. Applicant/Developer shall submit a revised Specific Plan document showing the following: A. Reduction of commercial acreage to 15 acres. B . Revisions to appropriate text and exhibits for general plan and zoning designations, acreage figures, etc. C. Change building heights from top of slab to finish grade. The revised document shall be submitted prior to any permit approvals for the project. 9. The Applicant/Developer shall submit an off -site improvements and on -site buildout phasing schedule and map at time of the first request to approve a final tract or parcel map. This schedule and map shall be subject to review and acceptance by the Public Works Department. 10. Applicant shall have recorded the Kaylon Street vacation prior to proceeding with any development activity such as grading or subdivision mapping. ENVIRONMENTAL 11. All adopted mitigation measures, as recommended in the Draft/Final EIR, shall be incorporated into all future project approvals relating to SP 90-016 where applicable and/or feasible. It is understood that certain measures will not be applicable to certain site specific proposals, however, all development within the Specific Plan area shall be verified as in conformance with said Specific Plan and the mitigation adopted within the Draft/Final EIR. The Specific Plan Draft and Final EIR shall be used in the review of all project proposals in the SP 90- 016 area. Said mitigation measures are hereby incorporated into these conditions by reference. 12. Prior to any site disturbance, the Applicant/Developer shall undertake a pre - development data recovery program, supervised by a qualified archaeologist, who shall also be required to monitor all future grading operations. Paleontological monitoring of grading shall be required for cuts made during construction activity. Full time monitoring is 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. CONAPRVL.024 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Specific Plan 90-016 August 13, 1991 If the program is undertaken in a manner which indicates that similar conditions exist in the general vicinity, the City may consider requiring a fee from other area developers to partially reimburse the Applicant for costs associated with the initial program The Developer may submit a proposed program for reimbursement along with the recovery program, demonstrating the areas which would have applicable recovery characteristics. 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 persons 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. 13. Applicant/Developer shall work with Waste Management of the Desert to implement provisions of AB 939 and AB 1462. The Applicant/Developer is required to work with Waste Management in setting up the following programs for this project: A. Developer shall prepare a plan to provide enlarged trash enclosures for inclusion of separate facilities for storage of recyclables such as glass, plastics, newsprint and aluminum cans. B . Developer shall provide proper on -site storage facilities within the project for green wastes associated with golf course and common area maintenance. Compostable materials shall be stored for pick-up by Waste Management, or an authorized hauler for transport to an appropriate facility. C . The Developer shall work with Waste Management towards establishment of a recycling center within the 15 acres commercial site. D . Curbside recycling service shall be provided in areas where no centralized trash/recycling bins are provided or utilized. PUBLIC SERVICES/UTILITIES/RESOURCES City Fire Marshal: 14. All water mains and fire hydrants providing the required fire flows shall be constructed in accordance with the City Fire Code in effect at the time of development. 15. The level of service required for this project should be aligned with the criteria for Category II -Urban as outlined in the Fire Protection Master Plan and as follows: A. Fire station ]located within three miles CONAPRVL.024 3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Specific Plan 90-016 August 13, 1991 B . Receipt of full "first alarm" assignment within 15 minutes. Impacts to the Fire Department are generally due to the increased number of emergency and public service calls generated by additional buildings and human population. A fiscal analysis for this project shall be prepared to identify a funding source to mitigate any impacts associated with any capital costs and the annual operating costs necessary for an increased level of service. Coachella Valley Water District 16. Specific Plan 90-016 is within Improvement District No. 1 of the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) for irrigation water service. Water from the Coachella Canal is available to the area. The Developer shall use this water for golf course and landscape irrigation. During project development all irrigation facilities shall be designated to utilize reclaimed water sources when such sources become available. 17. Applicant/Developer shall utilize alternative methods to use of water for dust control purposes, such as soil binders and ground covers (required in these conditions) in order to further conserve water resources. Electric Utilities 18. All existing and proposed electric power lines with 12,500 volts or less, which are adjacent to the proposed site or on -site, shall be installed in underground facilities. Schools 19. Impacts shall be mitigated in accordance with the provisions of AB 1600, Section 53080 and 65995 of the Government Code or the then existing legislation and/or local ordinances adopted pursuant thereto or any applicable Mitigation Agreement entered into by the Developer and the District. In addition, the City, Developer and the Coachella Valley Unified School District shall cooperate in exploring alternatives to provide lands or facilities to the District, through joint use agreements, dedications, or Mello -Roos District formation. Recreation 20. Applicant/Developer shall pay a parkland mitigation fee based upon a requirement of 3.53 acres, as determined based upon the La Quinta General Plan standards and the analysis in the Staff report for SP 90-016. Determination of this fee shall be accomplished as set forth in Section 13.24.030B. of the La Quinta Subdivision Ordinance. CONAPRVL.024 4 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Specific Plan 90-016 August 13, 1991 Traffic/Circulation Improvements *21. Applicant shall dedicate public street right of way and utility easements in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, and as required by the City Engineer, as follows: A. Jefferson Street - Major Arterial, 60-foot half width except near the Avenue 52 intersection where the half width shall vary from 60 to 71 feet for a transition distance up to 500 feet in length to accommodate congruent width at the intersection for the north -to -west bound dual left turn lanes and through -lane alignment; B . Avenue 50 - Primary Arterial, 50-foot half width; C. Avenue 52 - Primary Arterial, 55-foot half width; The public right of way shall be dedicated by grant deed within 180 days following City Council approval of the Specific Plan. 22. The on -site private streets shall be constructed in 37-foot wide access easements granted to the homeowner's association. 23. Improved landscaped setback lots of noted width adjacent to the following street right of ways shall be provided when the first land division final map that begins implementation of the Specific Plan is approved: A . Jefferson Street, 20-feet wide; B . Avenue 50, 20-feet wide. C. Avenue 52, 20-feet wide. 24. Vehicle access rights to Jefferson Street, Avenue 50 and 52 shall be vacated except for the two residential access streets and the two commercial access driveways into the commercial area shown on the Circulation Plan in the Specific Plan. *25. Turning movements of traffic accessing the residential and commercial Specific Plan areas from adjoining public streets shall be as follows: A . Jefferson Street 1. Residential Area Main Gate - right turn in and out only. 2. Commercial Area Driveway - right turn in and out only. B . 50th Avenue 1. Residential Secondary Gate - left and right turns in and out are permitted. CONAPRVL.024 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Specific Plan 90-016 August 13, 1991 C. 52nd Avenue 1. Commercial Area Driveway - right turn in and out only. D . Maintenance Facility Location 1. Entry drive - right turn in and out only. 26. The median island on Jefferson Street shall have no opening in it to permit vehicular left turn movements into or out of the Specific Plan areas where the residential main gate and the commercial area driveway intersect Jefferson Street. The access location into the commercial area on Avenue 52 shall be not less than 870 feet from the Jefferson Street centerline. The access location into the commercial area on Jefferson Street shall be not less than 640 feet from the Avenue 52 centerline. The access location into the residential secondary gate on Avenue 50 shall be not less than 2900 feet from the Jefferson Street centerline. 27. Bus turnouts and bus waiting shelters shall be provided on Jefferson Street, 52nd Avenue, and 50th Avenue as requested by Sunline Transit when street improvements are installed. Street improvement plans shall be reviewed by Sunline Transit Agency prior to final City approval. *28. All street improvements shall be installed in accordance with the General Plan, the La Quinta Municipal Code, adopted Standard Drawings, City Engineer's requirements and shall include all appurtenant components required by same. Miscellaneous incidental improvements and enhancements to existing improvements where joined by the new improvements shall be designed and constructed as required by the City Engineer to assure the new and existing improvements are appropriately integrated to provide a finished product that conforms with city standards and practices. This includes tapered off -site street transitions that extend beyond specific plan area boundaries and join the widened and existing street sections. The off -site street improvements shall be installed in conjunction with the first land division final map that begins implementation of the Specific Plan. The on - site street improvements shall be phased in a manner that is consistent with on - site subdivision maps and internal circulation needs of the specific plan area. The following specific street widths shall be constructed to conform with the General Plan street type noted therewith: CONAPRVL.024 6 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Specific Plan 90-016 August 13, 1991 A. ON -SITE STREETS 1. All private local streets - full width Local Street, 36 feet wide between curb faces; 2. Entry streets - divided street, 20 feet wide between curb faces for each roadway. B . OFF -SITE STREETS - On the basis of the Specific Plan land mass in terms of size and location relative to the General Plan designated arterial street system, it has been determined that this development should pay for, or construct at the City Engineer's option, a specific fair -share of the arterial corridor improvements. The basis for computing the fair -share portion is based on the fact that the residential portion of the specific plan area consists of 306 acres which represents 47.8% of a full section (640 ac) of land. The section of land (Section 4 T6S R7E) that contains this specific plan area is bounded by four (4) miles of arterial street. Developers in La Quinta are typically responsible for all arterial street improvements including landscaping that lies on their side of the street centerline. On that basis the fair -share portion for arterial street improvements for this specific plan is 47. 8% of 4 miles, which equals 10,095 lineal feet of half -width arterial street improvements including a commensurate length of half -width raised median and full -width (20 feet) setback lot landscaping. The following segment lengths shall be either constructed, bonded or applied to reimbursement for improvements already constructed (C=construct, B=bond, R=reimburse) . Some of the improvement segments are not contiguous to the specific plan area. 1. Arterial Street Improvements: 3500 LF half -width -Avenue 50, (C) 2650 LF half -width - Avenue 52 (1st segment), (C) 650 LF half -width - Avenue 52 (2nd segment) , (C or B) 2640 LF half -width - Jefferson St, (C & R) 9440 LF = Total 2. Half -width raised median with landscaping: 2200 LF - Avenue 50, (B) 3400 LF - Avenue 52 (1700 LF full -width) (1st segment) (C) 650 LF - Avenue 52 (2nd segment) (C or B) 2640 LF - Jefferson Street (reimbursement) (R) 890 LF = Total CONAPRVL.024 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Specific Plan 90-016 August 13, 1991 3. Full -width (20') setback lot landscaping 2200 LF - Avenue 50, (C) 2640 LF - Jefferson Street, (C) 1700 LF -Avenue 52, (C) 6540 LF = Total 4. Improvement Fund for Jefferson Street, Avenue 50 and Avenue 52 - the remaining portion of the fair -share improvements, consisting of 655 LF of half -width arterial street improvements, 1205 LF of half - width raised median with landscaping, and 3555 LF of full -width landscape lot landscaping shall be paid in cash in lieu of construction and placed in an Improvement Fund for new construction of same such improvements on the arterial segments bounding Section 4 T6S R7E that would otherwise become the burden of public funds. 29. Applicant is responsible for the cost to design and construct traffic signals at the following locations. A. Jefferson Street; 1. Avenue 50: 25 o fair share responsibility; 2. Avenue 52: 25 o fair share responsibility. 30. An encroachment permit for work in any abutting local jurisdiction shall be secured prior to constructing or joining improvements. *31. The golf cart tunnel at Jefferson Street shall be designed to allow multiple modes of travel (i.e., pedestrian, bicycle, golf cart traffic) in order to provide alternative means of transportation. The Applicant shall also provide an overall plan showing provisions to allow these modes of travel for the entire Specific Plan area. This plan may utilize combinations of golf cart paths, pedestrian walks, bikeways, etc., to achieve this. These systems shall also be designed to provide access to the commercial site via the golf cart tunnel under Jefferson Street. These systems shall not be designed to cross Jefferson Street at grade. The plan must be submitted at time of the initial tract map submittal, for review by the Planning Commission. HYDROLOGY /GRADING/DUST CONTROL 32. All project grading shall be done in a manner that permits storm flow in excess of the retention basin capacity to flow out of the project through designated emergency overflow outlets and into the historic drainage relief route. Similarly, the project shall be graded in a manner that anticipates receiving storm flow from adjoining property at locations that has historically received flow. CONAPRVL.024 8 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Specific Plan 90-016 August 13, 1991 *33. Storm water run-off produced in 24 hours by a 100-year storm shall be retained on site in landscaped retention basins or other approved retention areas on the golf course. The maximum water depth for any retention area shall not exceed six feet; basin slopes shall not exceed 3:1. The percolation rate shall be considered to be zero inches per hour unless Applicant provides site -specific data that indicates otherwise. Other requirements include, but are not limited to permanent irrigation improvements, landscape plants and materials, and appurtenant structural drainage amenities all of which shall be designed and constructed in accordance with requirements deemed necessary by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area for which the Applicant is responsible shall extend to the centerline of any public street contiguous to the site. 34. A thorough preliminary engineering, geological, and soils engineering investigation shall be conducted with a report submitted for review along with any rough grading plan in the specific plan area. The report recommendations shall be incorporated into the grading plan design prior to grading plan approval. The soils engineer and/or the engineering geologist must certify to the adequacy of the grading plan. 35. Prior to the submittal of any tentative parcel or tract maps or the issuance of grading permits, the Applicant shall submit a comprehensive blowing dust and sand mitigation plan on the entire site to the Planning and Development Department for review and approval. This plan shall include, but not to be limited to, consideration of the following means to minimize blowing sand and dust: implementation of Uniform Building Code requirements, development phasing, retention of existing trees, cultivation of interim groundcover or crops, the conservative use of water trucks and sprinkler systems and use of soil binders. 36. Applicant is encouraged to maintain all land within the project boundaries in agricultural status until such land is graded for development, provided that such agricultural production is economically feasible. In the event said undeveloped land is not continued or placed in agricultural production, Applicant shall plan and maintain said land in appropriate ground cover to prevent dust and erosion and to provide an aesthetically pleasing environment. 37. Applicant shall retain a California registered civil engineer, or designate one who is on Applicant's staff, to exercise sufficient supervision and quality control during construction of the project grading and improvements to certify compliance with the plans, specifications, applicable codes, and ordinances. The engineer retained or designated by the Applicant to implement this responsibility shall provide the following certifications and documents upon completion of construction: CONAPRVL.024 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Specific Plan 90-016 August 13, 1991 A. The engineer shall sign and seal a statement placed on the "as built" plans that says "all (grading and grades) (improvements) on these plans were properly monitored by qualified personnel under my supervision during construction for compliance with the plans and specifications and the work shown hereon was constructed as approved, except where otherwise noted hereon and specifically acknowledged by the City Engineer". B . Prior to issuance of any building permit, the engineer shall provide a separate document, signed and sealed, to the City Engineer that documents the building pad elevations. The document shall, for each lot in the tract, state the pad elevation approved on the grading plan, the as built elevation, and clearly identify the difference, if any. The data shall be organized by tract phase and lot number and shall be cumulative if the data is submitted at different times. C. Provide to the City Engineer a signed set of "as built" reproducible drawings of the site grading and all improvements installed by the Applicant. *38. The Applicant shall be required, through grading permit approvals, to adhere to all requirements, as applicable, which are set forth in the 1990 SIP for PM 10 in the Coachella Valley. All grading plan submittals shall be shown to be in compliance with said plan. LAND USE 39. The commercial site, as proposed by the Specific Plan, shall be reduced to 15 acres. The remaining six acres of this site shall remain as Low Density Residential and shall be located at the westerly portion of this site, as per GPA 90-031 and CZ 90•-056. 40. No drive -through facilities (except for medical uses) shall be permitted within the 15 acre commercial site for SP 90-016. 41. Plot Plan or Conditional Use Permit applications, as deemed necessary by C-P-S Zone requirements, shall be processed for the commercial site as deemed necessary by the Planning and Development Department at time of submittal for site plan review. 42. Street dedications, bikeways, easements, improvements, landscaping with permanent irrigation system and screening, etc., to satisfaction of City, shall be provided by Applicant/Developer for any site(s) where dedication of land for public utilities and/or facilities is required. 43. Any proposed entry gates shall be subject to separate plot plan reviews to insure adequate stacking/queuing space, fire access, etc. Plans including guard houses or similar structures will also be subject to Design Review Board approval. CONAPRVL.024 10 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Specific Plan 90-016 August 13, 1991 44. Separate Plot Plan review of the maintenance facility site shall be required before the Design Review Board and Planning Commission, with a report of action to be sent to the City Council. 45. Building heights for residential uses shall be subject to height limits specified in the Specific Plan, except that no building or structure, regardless of use, exceeding one story (20 feet in height) , shall be allowed within 200 feet of any perimeter property line/public street frontage. All building heights shall be measured from finished grade elevation. 46. Perimeter security walls shall be subject to the following standards: A. Setback from right-of-way lines along Jefferson Street, 52nd Avenue and 50th Avenue shall average 20 feet. B . Portions of perimeter walls along Jefferson Street shall provide views from the street into the project, using wrought iron or other appropriate materials or methods. C. All wall designs, including location and materials, shall be subject to review by the Planning and Development Department. *D . Perimeter wall designs shall incorporate noise abatement requirements as set forth in the Final EIR for SP 90-016. 47. Applicant shall construct an eight -foot wide meandering bike path in the easterly parkway of Jefferson Street and landscaped setback lot in lieu of the standard six-foot wide sidewalk. A 6-foot wide meandering sidewalk shall be constructed in the southerly and northerly parkways and landscape setback lots of Avenues 50 and 52 respectively. 48. Applicant shall provide a blanket easement that covers the entire landscaped setback lots for the purpose of a meandering public sidewalk. 49. A minimum landscaped setback of 20 feet shall be required along the entire easterly boundary of the site, adjacent to Green Valley Ranches, to buffer potential impacts due to the existing Equestrian Overlay zoning in that project. Landscape design and overall layout of this buffer area shall be subject to review by the Design Review Board. Future tract maps in this area shall be required to prepare disclosure statements to homeowners regarding the proximity of equestrian uses to their property. Landscaping Requirements 50. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect for the landscaped lots. The plans and proposed landscaping improvements shall be in conformance with requirements of the Planning Director, City Engineer, and Coachella Valley Water District and the plans shall be signed these officials prior to construction. CONAPRVL.024 11 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Specific Plan 90-016 August 13, 1991 51. The Applicant/Developer shall prepare detailed irrigation and landscaping plans for required perimeter landscaped setbacks along arterial roadways. These plans shall be coordinated with the street improvement plans for the corresponding arterials, and shall be subject to review by the Planning and Development Department, Public Works Department, Design Review Board, and Planning Commission prior to review by Coachella Valley Water District. 52. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning and Development Department an interim landscape program for the entire site which shall be for the purpose of wind erosion and dust control. The land owner shall institute blowsand and dust control measures during grading and site development. These shall include but not be limited to: A. The use of soil binders during any construction activities and paving of construction. access roads; B . Planing of cover crop or vegetation upon graded but undeveloped portions of the site. and C. Provision of wind breaks or wind rows, fencing, and/or landscaping to reduce the effects upon adjacent properties and property owners. The land owner shall comply with requirement of the Director of Public Work and Planning and Development. All construction and graded areas shall be watered at least twice daily during construction to prevent the emission of dust and blowsand . 53. Prior to the approval of building permits, the Applicant shall prepare a water conservation plan which shall include consideration of: A . Methods to minimize the consumption of water, including water saving features incorporated into the design of the structures, the use of drought tolerant and low-water usage landscaping materials, and programs to increase the effectiveness of landscape and golf course irrigation, as recommended by Coachella Valley Water District and the State Department of Water Resources. B . Methods for maximizing groundwater recharge, including the construction of groundwater recharge facilities. C . Methods for minimizing the amount of water used for on -site irrigation, including the use of reclaimed water from sewage treatment facilities. The water energy plan shall be subject to review and acceptance by CVWD prior to final approval by the City Engineer. CONAPRVL.024 12 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Specific Plan 90-016 August 13, 1991 Maintenance 54. In the C . C . & R's for the land division within the specific plan area, the Applicant shall place responsibility on the homeowner's association to pay its fair share of the cost to design and construct traffic signals at the following locations when they are warranted: A. Avenue 50 at Secondary Gate: 100% fair share responsibility; 55. Applicant shall provide an Executive Summary Maintenance Booklet for the street, landscape irrigation, perimeter wall, and drainage facilities installed in the Specific Plan area. 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 homeowner's association in planning for routine and long term maintenance. CONAPRVL.024 13 k-o� `:''� PH-4 4 ai MEMORANDUM of TO: HONORABLE CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: AUGUST 13, 1991 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-030, CHANGE OF ZONE 90-055 & SPECIFIC PLAN 90-017 - LANDMARK LAND COMPANY The subject project and related applications were continued on July 9th and July 23rd to a public hearing at this evening's meeting. Staff' is requesting that this project be continued to your next scheduled meeting of September 10, 1991. Staff is still preparing conditions for this project. Staff has included the Final EIR in your packet for review in the interim. MEMOWN.026/CS -1- ME TO: HONORABLE CHAIRWOMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: AUGUST 13, 1991 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT 26281 The City has received a request from Ray Troll, Ray Troll Development Company to withdraw their tentative tract. The property has been sold to the Desert Sands Unified School District. Therefore it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to discontinue consideration of this application. rQw RAY TROLL DEWELOPMENT CO. 13911 ENTERPRISE DRIVE GARDEN GROVE, CALIF. 92643 TEL. (714) 554-7311 FAX. (714) 554-0135 AuguA.t 2, 1991 City o 6 La Quinta Jewry Herrman 78 105 Ca,P,i?e Ebta.do La Quinta., CA 92253 Re: La Quanta. P.ea.nning Commission Pubti,c Heani.ng August 13, 1991 DeaA JeAAy, I &equest that you withdtcaw the pucrosing o6 ours Tentative TAact Map 26281. I have sold the ptopexty to the DezW Sands Un.i4.ied Schoot D.cstAict, Thank you, RAV TROLL DEVELOPMENT CO. Raymond T. Tutt Owners TRACT HOUSING - APARTMENTS • MOBILE PARKS • INDUSTRIAL • COMMERCIAL rM e TO: HONORABLE CHAIRWOMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: AUGUST 13, 1991 SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 90-017: REQUEST TO ADD CHAPTER 9.78 TO THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE PROHIBITION OF TIME SHARE PROJECTS AND USES BACKGROUND: Currently the City of La Quints does not regulate time share. The City may adopt regulations to regulate or prohibit their creation throughout the City. The City has contacted various Valley cities regarding their regulations and has determined that Palm Desert, Palm Springs, and Cathedral City regulate time share and permit their use in specific zones. The cities of Indian Wells and Rancho Mirage prohibits time shares. No response was received from the city of Indio or Desert Hot Springs. This matter was presented to the Planning Commission at their Study Session of May 1.3, 1991. At that time the Planning Commission felt the regulations should be written in such a way to prohibit time share throughout the City of La Quinta. Staff has prepared a resolution for your consideration recommending City Council adopt a new zoning chapter that would prohibit time shares throughout the City. Existing time share units would be permitted to remain. RECOMMENDATION: Move to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 91- and confirmation of the Environmental Determination recommending to the City Council adoption of Chapter 9.78 prohibiting time share throughout the City of La Quinta. MEMOJH.116 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO ADD CHAPTER 9.78 TIME SHARE REGULATIONS TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND CONFIRMATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 91-017 - TIME SHARE REGULATIONS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the 13th day of August, 1991, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing recommending to the City Council adding Chapter 9.78 to the La Quinta Municipal Code prohibiting time share throughout the City; and, WHEREAS, this Text Amendment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" ( County of Riverside, Resolution 82-213, adopted by reference in City of La Quinta Ordinance No. 5) , in that the Planning Director has conducted an updated initial study and has determined that the proposed Text Amendment will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and that a Negative Declaration is hereby adopted for this application; and, WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts to justify recommendation for approval of said Text Amendment: 1. The City of La Quinta has no regulations dealing with time share. It has been up to the discretion of the State. 2. The prohibition of time shares within the City will preserve the existing residential neighborhoods and promote the health, safety, and welfare of the community. 3. Time share facilities permit a type of use which is not compatible with the permanent residential character of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of Environmental Assessment 91- 201, indicating that the proposed Text Amendment will not result in any significant environmental impacts and that a Negative Declaration should be adopted; RESOPC.028 3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the above described Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment request for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, and as illustrated in Exhibit "A", attached hereto. PASSED, .APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 13th day of August, 1991, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: KATIE BARROWS, Chairperson City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California RESOPC.028 EXHIBIT "A" SECTION 1. Chapter 9.78 is hereby added to read in its entirety as follows: 9.78.010 Definitions. As used in this Chapter: A. A "time share project" is one in which a purchaser receives a right in perpetuity, for life, of for a term of years to the recurrent exclusive use or occupancy of a lot, parcel, unit or segment of real property annually or on some other periodic basis, for a period of time that has been, or will be, allotted from the use or occupancy periods into which the project has been divided; B. A "time share estate" is a right of occupancy in a time share project which is coupled with an estate in real property; C. A "time share use" is a license or contractual or membership right of occupancy in a time share project which is not coupled with an estate in real property. 9.78.020 Prohibitions. It is unlawful to convert to a time share project, a time- share estate or a time share use, all or any part of: A. An existing single family residential unit; B . An existing residential unit in a condominium project; C. An existing apartment or multifamily residential unit; or D . An existing hotel or motel room or unit. 9.78.030 Additional prohibitions . A. It is unlawful to either construct, sell or develop any time share project or time share estate in the City. B. It is unlawful to sell any right of occupancy in a time share estate. C. It is unlawful to sell, rent or give by contract or otherwise any license or member. ship right of occupancy in a time share project which is not coupled with an estate in real property. 9.78.040 Existing Time share Project and Uses. A. Time share projects and uses which were in existence as of (the effective date of this Ordinance) shall be permitted. B . The existing time share project shall not be permitted to be expanded or enlarged. C. The proof of existence prior to (effective date of Ordinance) shall be the responsibility of the owner/developer and subject to the City's acceptance. RESOPC.028 3 BI-1 TO: HONORABLE CHAIRWOMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: AUGUST 13, 1991 SUBJECT: VON'S SHOPPING CENTER - NEW CART STORAGE SCREEN WALL BACKGROUND: The Plaza La Quinta was approved and constructed prior to incorporation of this City. The Von's store originally had their cart storage within the building. Von's is currently remodeling this store and proposes to locate the shopping cart storage area along the store frontage. Their request is to construct a 3 foot 2 inch high screen wall along the frontage of the building between the existing columns. In addition a pedestrian walkway will be provided in front of the existing columns by removing some of the planter area. At the request of the Design Review Board Chairman, the Planning Commission on July 23, 1991, referred the matter to the Design Review Board for recommendation. The Planning Commission prior to referring the matter to the Design Review Board, requested more information on the proposed walkway area. In particular the Commission wanted to know if the proposed walkway in front of the screen wall is adequate for the pedestrian and cart movement if a car parks in a space with its wheels touching the existing curb. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION: The Design Review Board reviewed this item at their meeting of August 7, 1991. After a Short discussion, they recommended that the wall as submitted with wheel stops as recommended by Staff be required. They added a requirement that the planters being retained between the columns be extended so that they touch each column adjacent to the new wall. This is to provide additional landscaping to soften the appearance of the wall. MEMOJH.117 ANALYSIS: 1. An on site visit: has determined that their exists 47 feet of area between the face of the curb adjacent to the building and the landscaping islands north of the building. The 20 foot parking space and 26 foot maneuvering isle can be achieved. The Parking Code of the City requires a 20 foot parking space if no wheel stop is provided. This is an 18 foot space and then a wheel stop with a 2 foot overhang equals the 20 feet. By putting wheel stops two feet from the existing curb, the two foot car overhang would not protrude into the three foot walkway proposed by the Applicant. 2. The proposed screen wall is in architectural keeping with the existing style of the Von's store. 3. It has been determined that the proposed screen wall does not completely the screen the carts, there will be about 2-1/2 inches of the cart visible. Whether or not the cart should be totally screened or somewhat visible for the consumer to locate is a question needing answered. It would appear that the consumer should be able to see the cart allowing them to pick up a cart before they enter the store rather than completely screening the shopping cart. 4. Is the walkway in front of the store necessary, if a shopper is going to enter the store from the parking lot they will go directly to the entrance. They will not park on one side of the parking lot and walk to the opposite entry to Von's. People exiting with their carts will go down the ramp and to the rear of their car to put the groceries in. Perhaps some may go under the walkway and try to push the cart down the curb at one of the opening and then get to their car and put their groceries in or there may be a rare instance when somebody parks over by the Lumpy's store and wants to walk to another store on the easterly side of Von's. They may wish to walk under the covered overhand. 5. The Von's store was originally approved without outside storage area by the County. The screen wall will be 3 feet 2 inches in height. Approximately 2- 1/2 inches of the shopping cart will be visible. 6. With the placement of wheelstops, pedestrian access in front of the screen can be provided. 7. The access to the carts will be from the side areas which will be open for easy access. 8. Similar screen walls have been constructed. As an example, the Ralph's store in Indian Wells has constructed a raised landscaping planter which acts as a screen wall for the shopping cart storage area. RECOMMENDATION: By Minute Motion 91- allow the screen wall to be constructed as illustrated subject to: MEMOJH.117 1. The Applicant shall provide wheelstops along the frontage of the Von°s store. A minimum of two feet from edge of curb. 2. Planters between columns shall be extended to columns (adjacent to the new wall) with width to match planters shown on submitted plans. Landscaping plans for planter to be approved by City prior to installation. MEMOJH.117 BI-2 DATE: CASE NO.: APPLICANT: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: LOCATION: BACKGROUND: STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 13, 1991 MINOR TEMPORARY OUTDOOR EVENT (MTOE) 91-032 THUNDERBIRD ARTISTS (JUDI COMBS) APPROVAL OF FINE ART SHOWS AT PLAZA LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND WASHINGTON STREET Thunderbird Artists was granted approval of a MTOE application last November and operated art shows between November, 1990 and April of 1991. The Applicant has again asked for approval to conduct fine art shows on the weekends between November 1, 1991, and March 31, 1992, with the exception of March 21st and 22nd which is the weekend of the La Quinta Arts Festival. The art shows held last season did not create any problems which would negatively influence this current request. For your information MTOE applications are normally reviewed and acted upon by the Planning Director. However, due to problems that started three years ago, when art shows on the same site were operated by another group, approval two years ago was delegated to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission's action will be reported to the City Council as a report of action. PROPOSAL: As noted above, the fine art shows would run from November 1st to March 31st with the exception of the weekend of March 21st and 22nd, 1992, which is the weekend the La Quinta Arts Festival is held. The shows would be held on Saturdays and Sundays between the hours of 9 : 00 A. M . and 5 : 00 P . M. The show would be run in a manner similar to last years. The Applicant expects up to 35 artists at any one time. Portable restrooms would be provided on the site during the show period. The Applicant has indicated the same sign (2' wide by 31high) would be used adjacent to Washington Street and. Highway 111. ANALYSIS: 1. The art shows that operated last year appeared to be well received and caused no apparent problems. The Applicant has agreed not to hold an art show on the La Quinta Arts Festival weekend to avoid any potential conflicts or confusion. Staff also feels that a show should not be held on November 2nd, when the La Quinta Village Faire, sponsored by the La Quinta Arts Festival, PCST.006 1 2. There has been some concern that the screen put up along Highway 111 which was required last year by the City Council was inadequate. Last year the screening was a black mesh shade screen material. Since that time, they have come out with new shade screen which comes in multi -pastel colors. Staff would recommend that the multi -colored screening be utilized in place of black mesh shading used last year. 3. With the exception of the restriction on the day of the La Quinta Village Faire on November 2nd and the screening requirement, the Conditions of Approval for last year can be applied to this approval. 4. It should be noted that the Fire Marshal has requested a condition that the booth material and any decorative material be flame retardant. This would not apply to merchandise on exhibit or on sale. This requirement could affect some of the displays utilized by the artists. RECOMMENDATION: By Minute Motion approve MTOE 91-023, subject to the attached conditions. Attachments: 1. Booth plan, site and parking plan, proposed sign exhibit 2. Letters from various agencies 3. Draft Conditions of Approval PCST.006 2 0 Q l� O00 sq-FT• < Awl t I I ----�. E .._.. _ .. l D 0 r.T -- /l ' TNUNDER$IRD ARTISTS 602-437-9608 EXHIBIT �T CASE NO..-�-�-` PAD i W s.,o SHOPS s "Al \ V slat ♦ `° \ �` I MONO LEVEL FLOOR t'LAV 1, fFict VSEt PROJECT: Plaza La Quinta Shopping Center is located in La Quinta, in the Coachella Valley near Palm Springs, California. The Coachella Valley has a population of over 190,000 permanent residents. Because of the large seasonable population estimated at over 230,000, employment is greatest in restaurant and resort oriented businesses. The beauty of the surrounding Santa Rosa Mountains makes La Quinta a place of peaceful serenity, beauty and charm. PLAZA LA QUINTA La Quinta. California TRAFFIC: Highway 111 — 18,500 Washington St. -- 9,300 TRADE AREA DEMOGRAPHICS: Population --3-Mile Radius— 17.200 Seasonal—230.000 Average Household Income— 533.817 %laiors: Vnns 36 am s Thnfiv 100r,0a Shops A: 17 338 s Shops B: 22.949 si Office: 13.443 sl (2nd floor) Roger Dunn: ' 000 sl Beef and Brew: 6,d53 sf Sub -Total Pad F: 10XV sf (not built) Pad H: 5.000 sf (not built) Sub -Total Total Building Area: Downev S6t:L/ Retail: 7.300 sf PARKING PROVIDE 395 stalls :.3/ 100p i EXHIBIT 15-1 — 705 CAS E NO N ■ fnformation contained herein has been obtained from sources deemed rehable, but no warranties are made, LHI erpre—ed or implied with recpect to accuracv Site f fait i< <ubiect to change trtthout nohct EXHIBIT A NI V Y; HLrrsHUKHrn l #. a ii i ✓_ 7 : 1. —1 s- ro l l- e j l ART S0001 SION - w17tt LOGO .. 2 4t. w.Ljc x.. 3 it. high i ttom toht We !aa aten kn ,)Kato) .ie to 4ECute t-.jn w.tth chain and tuck. Sa4ety pnecausLon. 4VT SIMI SIMP - No LOGO 2 lt. wide x 3 pit. hi.oh RottoM 1.4ht hole (aa 4W,, i)l ,VhDtO) ie to eecuRe 4kgn with chain and toot. Safety pnecaue,.on. EMIBii 'SE NGAI- SANNEp 4 4t. x 70 Ott. polea to atcuim with nooe and hungi.ea on aeeune neat ancho44. Too xnd bottom 6 eeu4 ed. a COUNTY M. 0! - �_ � RIVERSIDE MA GLEN J. NEWMAN FIRE CHIEF TO: City of La Quinta Planning Division Attention: Stan Sawa RE: M.T.O.E. 91-032 Thunderbird Artists W-WERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE • PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370 (714) 657-3183 June 11, 1991 JUN 13 1991 CI1 r Ur LIA WINTA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT. With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced project, the following fire protection measures are required: 1. Booth material and any decorative material shall be flame retardant. (This does not apply to merchandise on exhibit) 2. Use of open flame devices and smoking within booths prohibited. 3. Maintain a minimum width of 44 inches in aisles for exiting. 4. A type 2A10BC fire extinguisher with a conspicuous sign shall be available within 75 feet of the display. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions sould be referred to the Fire Department Planning & Engineering staff. to cc: B-7 UINDIO OFFICE 79.733 Country Club Drive, Suite F, Indio, CA 92201 (619) 342MM • FAX (619) 775.2072 Sincerely, RAY REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner By Tom Hutchison Fire Safety Specialist PLANNING DIVISION ❑ RIVERSIDE OFFICE 3760 12th Street, Riverside, CA 92501 (714) 275-4777 • FAX (714) 369-7451 ❑ TEMECULA OFFICE 41002 County Center Drive, Suite 225, Tc necuI2, CA 92390 (714) 694-5070 • FAX (714) 694.5076 printed on recycled papew [VERSIDE COUNTY CIS BYRD, SHERIFF Sheriff _ a 82-695 DR. CARREON BLVD. • INDIO, CA 92201 * (619) 342-E490 June 19, 1991 Stan Sawa Principal Planner City of La Quinta 78105 Calle Estado La Quinta, California 92253 Re: MTOE #91-032 Dear Stan: IJI CITY U!' PIANNINC & DEi LLUNIIN7 DEPl The Sheriff's Department has no objection to issuance of the minor temporary outdoor events permit provided the conditions of the previous year are continued. Specifically, adequate posting of "No Parking" signs along Highway 111 is of significant concern to us. This requirement has greatly reduced collision potential during the hours of operation of the art show. Sincerely, COIS BYRD, SHERIFF �sjc G Ronald F. Dye, Lieutenant Indio Station CB: RD:gt CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MTOE NO. 91-032 - RECOMMENDED AUGUST 13, 1991 1. The event shall be conducted per the information submitted on the plans (Exhibit A-1) and the following conditions: 2. This approval shall be valid for the period between November 1, 1991, to March 31, 1992, with the exception of November 2, 1991, March 21th & 22th, 1992; the show may operate between 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. 3. Proof of $1,000,000 liability insurance policy naming the City as a co-insured shall be in force during the shows. 4. Food will not be sold as part of the event. 5. Electricity will not be available to the site. 6. No art displays shall be located within the first 20 feet behind the Highway 111 sidewalk. 7. Applicant shall provide a minimum of two portable restrooms on the site during shows. The restrooms shall be on the site from only immediately proceeding the show on Saturday to the conclusion of the show on Sunday. 8. Artists shall park their vehicles in areas crosshatched, shown on Exhibit B-1, except for loading and unloading. 9. Applicant shall be responsible for cleaning trash and debris on and around the site during show times and at the end of each day's show. 10. Two portable 2-foot x 3-foot high "Art Show & Sale" signs shall be allowed during art show hours. One sign to be adjacent to Washington Street entrance and one sign to be adjacent to westerly Highway 111 entrance. Signs to be placed far enough back from roadway so as to not obstruct traffic visibility. 11. During hours of show operation, Applicant shall provide "no parking" signs adjacent to access road to Highway 111 next to Downey Savings and along Highway 111 in area of the art show. Approval of signs shall be obtained per City Code and Cal Trans requirements. 12. There shall be no sale of clothing or other cloth products unless they are hand made or hand decorated. BJ/CONAPRVL.059 - 1 - 13. Violation of any of these Conditions of Approval or unresolved problems arising from operation of shows, shall be cause for immediate closure by Sheriff's Department. Thereafter, Planning Commission and/or City Council shall review the violation or problem to ensure that it is resolved prior to shows being allowed to continue. 14. Use of open flame devises and smoking within booths is prohibited per Fire Marshal. 15. A minimum width of 44 inches in aisles for exiting shall be maintained. 16. A type 2AlOBC fire extinguisher with a conspicuous sign shall be available within 75-feet of display. 17. Booth material and any decorative material shall be flame retardant. This does not apply to merchandise on exhibit. 18. Art exhibits shall be screened from view of Highway 111. Temporary screening methods to be approved by Director of Planning and Development prior to first show. The screening shall be made of a decorative multi -pastel color shade screen, and 6 feet in height, or any other mechanism for screening that is acceptable to the Planning and Development Director. 19. All the artists, within the show, must obtain from the Sales Tax Division, State of California, a temporary sales permit, to report said sales in the City of La Quinta. BJ/CONAPRVL.059 - 2 - BI-3 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: AUGUST 13, 1991 SUBJECT: STREET VACATION 91-016 APPLICANT: LANDMARK LAND COMPANY REQUEST: GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY TO ALLOW VACATION OF PASEO DEL RANCHO, RANCHO LA QUINTA ROAD, 55TH AVENUE, AND OTHER UNNAMED CITY STREETS BACKGROUND: Pursuant to Government State Code Section 65402, prior to any street vacation by the City Council, the Planning Commission shall make a finding that the vacation or elimination of said street is consistent with the City's General Plan Circulation Element. SITE INFORMATION: The above mentioned streets are located generally north of Airport Avenue, south of the future extension of 55th Avenue, east of Madison Street, and 1318 feet west of Monroe Street. The streets are unimproved at this time. The streets were dedicated to the City as part of the approval of Parcel Maps 14286 and 14791 in 1980. The site was annexed to the City in 1991, and prezoned R1-10 Single Family Residential. Currently, the City is examining Specific Plan 90-015 which includes properties generally south of 55th Avenue, north of Airport Boulevard, and east of Monroe Street. The Specific Plan encompasses over 250 acres. As proposed, the Plan will include approximately +1,060 single family homes and a golf course. The Plan is scheduled for review by the Planning Commission on August 13th. ANALYSIS: 1. The streets have gone without improvements because the properties have remained primarily undeveloped. The site is presently used for landscaping purposes (sod farm). The present landowner, Landmark Land, however, is examining development of this property with urban improvements. Therefore, it has been determined that those proposed streets are not needed by the City pursuant to the development standards of Specific Plan 90-015. STAFFRPT.037/CS -1- 2. The vacation of these unimproved streets will not have an adverse impact on the City because they are not being used today for public purposes (e.g. bikeway, pedestrian, vehicular,, etc.). 3. The Circulation Element of the City does not identify any of the previous noted streets as major or minor thoroughfares, therefore, this vacation request is consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan. RECOMMENDATION: By Minute Motion adopt the findings that the vacation of Paseo Del Rancho, Rancho La Quinta Road, 55th Avenue and other unnamed streets, generally north of Airport Boulevard and east of Madison Street are in compliance with the Circulation Element of the La Quinta General Plan. Attachments: 1. Location map 2. Exhibit showing proposed Street Vacation STAFFRPT.037/CS -2- 5th Avenue ,• ~ 713 J�o lG LI I• Uf 1 14 o /9 Par Poi 4 /4 + /82BAcN) /9 /6 Ac -t i 477Ac : 9r4c Per J © 0 Par >a Pa> T © 1 W ia()e /9 34 A-- Nl ; /808 4e. Nt ri � �' /8 2/AcN/ M `+ sr W Y cal F— V) I per2 I Q y O /9./6 Ac = O f/) — t or a PASEO fa 9 ,, ~ = d OEL„ RANCHO , ; Par ,a rGs 9 L, Ja1.s9 29394c-# { per 2 Par J Q 0 /7.64A:Nt 11074N/. -4 i Par / Par 2 a Par 3 /8964c NI /77/Ac NI. 1. ` 2 I /T BS©N. � y Z I r MJJ/L 1 9 eJ if>.f ae! It �c I I )iII t9 �.rl.> P.•vJ I a a _ -� AIRPORT WL]LEVAxD "�' — „°° „'• , _ I� Vdw0W• PROJECT BOUNDARY ARIA Lots A and B of Parcel Map 14286 Lots E, F, G, and H and 60 feet of road easements as shown on Parcel Map 14791 The project boundary begins ±2,564 feet north of the intersection of Madison Street and Airport Boulevard and runs easterly ±3,614 feet turns southerly ±640 feet and then again turns easterly ±285 feet, then it turns southerly for +1,939 feet, then easterly ±3,899 feet running parallel to Airport Boulevard bAck*to its point of origin. C A MAP - NORTN CASE NO. Street Vacation 91-016 Landmark Land Company SCALE: The subject property consists of approximately 225. o acres located in Section 15, Township 6S, Range 7E within the County of Riverside, City of Ca Quinta, California. The project boundary is illustrated below. UNDEVELOPED Zz. UNDEVELOPED /y--- -T614 HOUSE "0 s b 1 1 / /i185 i 1 Ir STORAGE AREArSHED` 1 � 1 i SOD FARM OFFICE `HOUSE s � v � I / I CASE No. Street Vacation 91-016 Landmark Land Campany ORTN SCALE: 0 t00 400 800 01-4 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: AUGUST 13, 1991 SUBJECT: STREET VACATION 91-017 APPLICANT: LANDMARK LAND COMPANY REQUEST: GENERAL, PLAN CONSISTENCY TO ALLOW VACATION OF KAYLON STREET BACKGROUND: Pursuant to Government State Code Section 65402, prior to any street vacation by the City Council, the Planning Commission shall make a finding that the vacation or elimination of said street is consistent with the City's General Plan Circulation Element. SITE INFORMATION: Kaylon Street (also known as Grove Course Road) is located generally north of 52nd Avenue, south of the future extension of 51st Avenue, 1270 feet east of Jefferson Street, and 360 feet west of the All American Canal (Coachella Canal). The street is approximately one half mile in length and unimproved at this time. The street was dedicated to the City as part of the approval of Parcel Map 14516 in 1980. The site was annexed to the City in 1991, and prezoned R1 Single Family Residential. Currently, the City is examining Specific Plan 90-016 which includes properties generally south of 50th Avenue, north of 52nd Avenue, and east of Jefferson Street. The Specific Plan encompasses over 300 acres. As proposed, the Plan will include approximately 1,200 single family homes, a golf course, and commercial uses at the major intersection corners. The Plan is scheduled for review by the Planning Commission on August 13th. ANALYSIS: 1. The street has gone without improvements because the property has remained undeveloped. The site is presently used for private agricultural purposes. The present landowner, Landmark Land, however, is examining development of this of this property with urban improvements. Therefore, it has been determined that this proposed street is not needed by the City pursuant to the development standards of Specific Plan 90-016 since a gated community is being proposed. STAFFRPT.037/CS -1- 2. The vacation of this unimproved street will not have an adverse impact on the City because it is not being used today for public purposes (e.g. bikeway, pedestrian, vehicular, etc.). 3. The Circulation Element of the City does not identify Kaylon Street as a major or minor north/south thoroughfare, therefore, its vacation is consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan. RECOMMENDATION: By Minute Motion adopt the findings that the vacation of Kaylon Street between 52nd Avenue and the future extension of 51st is in compliance with the Circulation Element of the La Quinta General Plan. Attachments: 1. Location map 2. Exhibit showing proposed Street Vacation STAFFRPT.037/CS -2- .J AVENUE 50 AGRWCULTURE / SCATTERED RURAL RESIDENTIAL UNDEVELOPED CITRUS GROVES �S _.1m 51st Avenge j7noi built) N N S- OCATjON c Y CITRUS GROVE (PORTIONS CLEARED) a� a� s_ +-) I-C 0 Y 4CGRO u STAT�a�q�VE I t4" :NUE 52 CASE No. Street Vacation 91-017 Landmark Land Company DATE GROVE ORTH SCALE: I FCcW, (;III ur LA 141jINTA P1ANNING & CEVEFrF'rENI DEPT KAAYLON STREET Those portions of the East one—half of the Southwest one —quarter of Section 4, Township 6 South, Range 7 East, San Bernardino Meridian in the County of Riverside, California, more particularly described as follows: Lots "B" and "C" of Parcel Map 14516 as shown by map on file in Book 83 of Maps at Page 68 of Parcel Maps, Records of Riverside County, California. I74. 16 Ac,' 5_J�L F9 10-14 I 51st Avenue (Not Built) .0Nf3/6I I i I 131S.11 I I 1 Poi / I /B 48.13 Ac. Nt 1 49.66 Ac Br. LO I� n e 1' 1 i 4 Qj J N C 0 1 /333.00 >1 I 52 nd I 1 J to , 330 °�0. 1 I 5.14AC r I �•• use 1' 3cs.�e P Le► A J� Per. 2 /9 , /9.3/Ae.t v q� �r to .e P� s� O N• 8 G� ` per / /4.69 AC /2 69 ACNr ^h BI-5 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: AUGUST 13, 1991 PROJECT: SIGN APPLICATION 91-149, PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM AND SIGN ADJUSTMENT APPLICANT: MOBIL OIL CORPORATION REPRESENTATIVE: JJC CONSTRUCTION SERVICES SIGN COMPANY: DONCO & SONS LOCATION: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF AVENIDA BERMUDAS AND AVENIDA MONTEZUMA (SITE OF EXISTING BLACK GOLD SERVICE STATION) (SEE ATTACHMENT #1) ZONING: C-V-C, COMMERCIAL VILLAGE, CORE SUBZONE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: VILLAGE COMMERCIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: APPLICATIONS FOR SIGNS ARE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA (SECTION 15311, CLASS II) BACKGROUND: Mobil Oil Corporation will be utilizing the existing Black Gold service station to sell their gasoline and has proposed new signage as described below and illustrated on Attachment #2. 2. The original service station and accessory buildings were approved by Riverside County Board of Supervisors on October 29, 1981 with a number of conditions. See Attachment #3 and staff report and conditions for Conditional Use Permit 2527. PROPOSED SIGNS: 1. A two-sided monument sign comprising "Mobil" lettering with the standard Mobil color scheme (red, white and blue) and pricing sign both internally lit and mounted on a masonry stand. The masonry stand "flagstone" surface finish will match the existing building. The monument sign is proposed to be located on the northeast corner of the lot and would be placed perpendicular to Avenida Bermudas. 2. A light pole snap lock sign comprising as internally lit pricing schedule. This sign would be located on the southeast corner of the site and attached to the existing light pole. PCST.007 3. Two pairs of hi -hose fascia light units attached to the columns in the center of the gas pump traffic islands. These signs are also internally lit. A "self" (self service) sign is located on the column between and just below the pairs of light units. A Mobil Oil insignia is proposed on the corner of each light unit. 4. The operator of this service station has requested temporary window signs advertising service specials to be changed from time to time. These will be located on the windows closest to the "Coke" machine. NOTE: The existing pole sign with the Black Gold and pricing sign will be removed. No other building signs are proposed. ANALYSIS: 1. a. The monument sign complies with the La Quinta Sign Regulations excepting that the pricing sign is larger than permitted. The Sign Ordinance allows an 8-foot high 8 square foot pricing sign and the proposed is +17 square feet and +5 feet high. Staff recommends that a sign adjustment be approved to allow a larger pricing sign since the sign size is compatible with the "Mobil" sign. b. The monument sign could however be located at a 45-degree angle to Avenida Bermudas and Avenida Montezuma, parallel to the corner cutback line. This would create more room for the sign and allow the alignment of the monument sign to be more compatible with the orientation of the surrounding planter bed. Additionally, it would increase visibility from the east and west. C. The overall design of the monument sign is satisfactory. The design of the sign is balanced and uses the same finish on the base as the existing service station building. d. The Village Specific Plan discourages illuminated signs as is proposed for this monument sign. Staff recommends that an alternative lighting source and material be found utilizing some form of exterior lighting and material compatible with the Village Specific Plan ( see Design Review Board action) . 2. The pole pricing sign is not allowed by the La Quinta Sign Regulations and Staff and the Design Review Board feels it is not needed in this situation. Therefore, it should be deleted. 3. The Applicant has proposed double light signs on each side of the two columns supporting the canopy covering the gas pump area. Existing lights are located on the ceiling of the canopy. If the Applicant wishes to install additional lighting, they will have to redesign or show how the proposed "hi - hose fascia lighting unit" to complies with the following condition imposed on the original approval of the gas station by Riverside County in 1981. "Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine upon adjoining property or public right-of-way." The lighting also needs to comply with the City's Outdoor Lighting Ordinance. Staff does not recommend the Mobil Oil PCST.007 insignia be attached to these lighting units. 4. The Sign Ordinance does not make provision for temporary window signs. Staff recommends that Planning Commission approves a sign area of 12 square feet at any one time on the window of the office area 5. This sign application should be approved subject to the following conditions: a. The planter area around the Mobil monument sign should be re - landscaped. Landscaping plans should be prepared in conformance with the' original conditions imposed on the building by Riverside County at. the time of approval. Note: Street trees in tree wells are also required. The Post Office to the south of this property is presently landscaping a strip of land alongside their building, south of the gas station. b . The existing trash enclosure should be repaired and solid metal doors installed. Planter area next to trash enclosure shall be re -landscaped. All landscape plans shall be approved by the Design Review Board. c . Any painting or renovation of the existing building and other structures on the site should be approved by the Planning and Development Department and referred to the Design Review Board if major alterations are proposed. d. The original approval for this gas station by Riverside County required a full service gasoline station. The existing Black Gold service station has half full and half self service pumps. The future Mobil gas station will be required to also have at a minimum, half full service gasoline pumps. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RECOMMENDATION: The Design Review Board agreed with Staff comments regarding the monument sign, pole sign, lighting signs and the improvements needed to upgrade the gas station site. It was stated that internal illumination of the monument sign should not be allowed. This sign should be externally lit and be constructed of materials noted in the Village Specific Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Approve by Minute Motion Sign Application 91-149 subject to the attached conditions. Attachments: 1. Locality plan 2. Proposed signs 3. Staff report and Conditions of Approval for CUP 2527-E PCST.007 3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SIGN APPLICATION 9.1-149-MOBIL OIL CORPORATION AUGUST 13, 1991 1. The following signs are approved: a.) Two sided monument sign comprising "Mobil" lettering and pricing sign as identified in Exhibit A. This sign shall be located in the planter bed at the corner of Avenida Bermudas and Avenida Montezuma, parallel to the corner cutback line. This sign shall be constructed of sign materials :identified in the Village Specific Plan. This sign shall not be internally lit. Revised sign to be approved by Staff. b .) Light signs in the gas pump area that are hooded and directed so as not to shine upon adjoining property or public right-of-way. Any new lighting proposals shall be approved by the Planning and Development Department. No logo shall be attached to the light units. c .) "Self" and "Full" signs shall be allowed attached to the canopy columns . Each of these signs shall be no larger than one square foot in area and shall not be internally illuminated. d.) Temporary non -illuminated window signs with the Mobil color scheme of red, white and blue with a maximum sign area of 12 square feet at any one time. These signs shall be maintained in a satisfactory condition and all torn or damaged signs removed immediately. 2. The existing "Black Gold" pole sign and pole itself shall be removed. 3. A landscaping plan shall be submitted for approval by the Design Review Board. Plans to be in compliance with original Riverside County Conditions of Approval. 4. The existing trash enclosure shall be repaired and solid metal doors installed. 5. Any painting or renovation of the existing building and other structures on the site shall be approved by the Planning and Development Department and referred to the Design Review Board if major alterations are proposed. 6. The Mobil Oil station will be required to have a maximum, half full service gasoline pumps. 7. Building permits shall be obtained for all signage. PCST.007 :1+11h t o O EXAVA: • •VMl VINbUf I']'V1Nco V1 ... _ VnrzT an VaranV aSe-.c � 2! r ATTACHMENT No. 2 �- - svd n mj J o W. 9 - - ;z BOOM gill p 00000��� V ►+V./VA I.1 �♦_lr — # y� • 1 1 I !s �I. •i_}2.. Ti � i•''. . Ls ..;s. t� 1� L♦♦f I • • 1 EE •M^ 1 I� i . BOARD TRANSMITTAL ATTACHMENT No. 3 ): Board of Supervisors I®M: Planning Department ATE. __ October 3O, 1981 _ UBJECT: East AreThursdays October gQ9�u1981 ncil Meeting ACKGROUND: The East Area Planning Council, at its regular meeting held on Thursday, October 29, 1931, acted on the following: X35. 0NAL USE CASE NO. 2537-E - California Leisure Products, Inc., - La Quinta t - Fourth Supervisorial District: Adopted Negative Declaration for 6, and approved permit for expansion to existing tennis club - (12.21 Acres). C0141)ITIOtIAL USE CASE NO. 2527-E - James White - La Quinta District - Fourth Super- visorial District: Adopted Negative Declaration for EA#15389; and approved Dermit for a full service gas station (.26 Acre). ed the ts at RECOMMENDATION:enularLingeldhoonEas-t Area Thursday,Planning October 29,ncil 1981; andvadoptedatheeabove inegative its regular e�eeting h declarations as set forth. Kevin I.I. KtiM t1onning, Supervisin(t PREPARED BY PAT RIC Planner le NLMETH, A•I.C.'P, DIRECTOR CC: CIEAII Of THE ApAi0 CDIINTY COUNSEL PLANNING 001- a CIP11s) (t CIP11s) hMtl Fourth Suve►•vi501-ial District 1) Applicdnt: L) Type of Re(iuest: 3) Lucati-1): r ovo i t ir)n01 Us,� i, :.- tlu . ::? • i f: A - i 53f:9 EAK hearing Date: 10/29/81 Ailenda Item: 8 It I'; L 16I Of STAIJ iaml(T 4) Parcel ',ize: 5) Exis";r►g Reads: 6) Existiog Land Use: 7) Surrounding Land Use: 8) Exi5ti. ; Zo!''r;cl: 9) Surrounding Zoning: 10) General flan Elements: Cove Conullunities 11) Letters: James M) i tu. Conditional use to construct full service gas stati South sine of Avenida Montezuma, between Avenida Navarrn and Avenida Bermudas 0.26 Acre Avenida Be►•mudes, Avenida Navarro and F�enida Monte '1dCant Commercial and vacant C-P-S C-P-S Land Use: General Conmercial Open Space: Urban Circulation: Avenida Bermudas -Sec. E8' One in support of project. ANALYSIS: Responding to the concerns of the La Quinta Chamber of Commerce, the applicant has amended his site plan to reflect a full service gas station rather than a self-service type of operation. Tne proposed service station will include eight gas p.^nps and t%.,o service bays, restrooms, and office space. Shallow flooding may be experienced at this site, but this hazard can be r..itigated at the 'i of development in conformance with the development requirements of Ordinance 458. The site is not subject to other severe environmental constraints. Development of this parcel represents an infilling of an existing coninercial area which has recently experienced a pattern of growth. FINDINGS: 1. Environmental concerns are readily witigdted. 2. The parcel is located in a growing coomercial area. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on the above findings, staff concludes that: 1. No adverse environmental imi)acts will result from this project. 2. The proposed project. is compatible with the surrounding development and consister.� with the policies of the Cove Ccmimlunities Ceneral Plan. 3. There are no other full service gas stations in the La Quinta Area and this proje, would meet a need for this type of facility. Therefore, staff recommends ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration for EAP15389; and APPROVAL of Conditional Use Case No. 2521-1 in accordance With Exhibit "A" Amended �l and subject to the attached conditions. DM: ajp 10/21/81 kppl icant: ldmes White .a Quinta Ui,tric:. Area P 141"rling CLU1101 Ct,t1U1II011!� - 10/29/81 'ourth JUP01*0501-idl DistVict I. Ihe: de've:ltil,uetr+t (it the ('r'upet-ty shall et,ntutu+ ' lib-Adtttidlly Witt) that 65 shown un plut 1,1,111 111'Arkt-d l_,.iiibit "A" un tilt: ,pith randitional_Use Case No. 2527-E ill the vtt ice of the. Rive:rsiele cuunty Plinniny Oel►drtnirnt unless othr�se amenCed by the tul iuwing CUl1J1duns. Z. Pt'iol- tJ the iSSUdtlLC Uf d bUildin(J pe1111it by this Jpl)i JVdi, the ,,ppl ILU,s: :,;iol l t irIt the following pub]it'. agencies: Environmental IledI th Road Department Water Qudlity Cuntrol Buard Ml for construction of any use contemplae auLdin pCrin16s o,lulu' e.leardnee fron Fire Protection Planning Department CVWD Evidence of said permit ur cledrance from the obvve agencies shall be presented tc the Land Use Division of the DePartlllent of Building and Safety at the time of V—Z issu'dnce of a building permit fur the use contemplated herewith. 3. Prior to issuance of a building pent►it or the use contemplated, the applicant St,a submit 12 copies of a parkingand landscapi,g1eplan terltodthe Planning aredaDepartment fr r dppruvai. Said pldll shall dec,,inedte 5 p sy;teln. Said lnntiscape plan stall aliotsh�i�eontinuously t�t�species raintainedsize in of all plant mdterial. The ldnIIScape:d a ea vidblU corlditiotl. Sold planting shall beiinstalled prior to final inspection or occupancy of the property try the use pe 4. Street trees shall be installed and mjintained in accordance with the Riverside County Street Tree Ordinance 451.19. 5. Any outside lighting shall be hood d andhts directed so as not to directly shine upon adjoining property or pub licof way. 6. The applicant shall COBlply with the f ire protection requirements of Ordinance 541 7. The applicant shall comply with tine !toad Department conditions as set forth in their letter of _¢,rtpber_22 -199-81 -_ The, se%eer•age disposal system shall be designed so as to readily facilitate conrt 8. a Ling with a cot+rt+uni ty L►•ullk line. u i t tcd sewers Dyet1)einstalledCVWp . Pans for their installation shell be sob prior to tile: issuance of ,t I)uiiding perillit. tlu,t•r1 .r t!r►. •'',.�1 1 ,jrllu.rrtt: !U1 I ltrrl: . 2. this pernill ,I'rdlI be ust.'d wIt11in one yt_"t• of �1i11tJr'V t sUr3 utt►ecim i se it Sha I l bct-tnne by use" is inednt rdUTAcdtiu,a of Matrr i.rls tructiun of Permanent Uuildiny'" i .r . t Ar vJ P I a,trr 1119 LUUI14.1 1 - 10/29/kil Jttcl -anal pruceedinys befure the board ,lull a,nl void dnd of no f f eCy whaver un the site and the bey cons - Alit I_ ii. N i urr,erti.tt ur dppr'uvdl, to col" Ply di-LUTA #Jttd dOrce, priur to u�u of tills t,ly wttlt mGn the use ptrwittvJ until tltl ut the Cwl4llLtutrs Srt furUo duct �lur,l.,nJ llldt the UffiCe uF liuildiny and�all d r Y 1 will nut tssu� a but lJrnyt,Pcl"'ir,l tt Jtnl l}' J'-jW u�e•n receivud by the Pldtrsrina� Uepar ti.�� t. 'i1 jocd cunt lr'uwtlull iu y ddtub Udtu Aori 1 nlil►11lJttt'� +1Utiature �2 _19$�-____-- /Yre - ---- - Appl It.artt's �itjIwL4.Lt Ud tC _ ------ -- — C'4:aip 10/20/81 ..0 and PU Riverside County Plannin, Commission % verside County PlannIGS Commission Room 304 linth Floor 46-209 Oasis Street 4010 Lemon Street Indio, CA 92201 Riverside, CA 92511 Reference: Conditional Use Permit No. __ JL,� Public Use Permit No. Gentlemen: Prior to construction of any of the proposed buildings the following conditions must be met pursuant to the provisions of Riverside County Fire Ordinance 0546. Provide, or show there exists a water system capable of deliveriogj2,[p GP11 fire flow for a 2 hour duration in addition to domestic or other supply. The computation shall be based upon a minimum of 2Nsi residual oaerstino pressure in the supply rain from which the flow is measured at the time of M&D"emeat. CProvide Riverside County .�U •,< fire hyirants so that no point of any building is more than 1,i� feet from a fire hydrant measured along approved vehicular travel ways. a. Hydrants shall not be located closer than _.13 feet to any building. b. Exterior surfaces of hydrant barrels and heads shall be painted chrome C. yellow and the tops and nozzle caps shall be painted t . c. Curbs (if installed) shall be painted red 15 feet in either direction from each hydrant. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit the developer shall furnish the original and four copies of the water system plan to the Riverside Tire Department for revieu. Upon approval. tl+o copi-is will be sent to the Riverside County Department of +Suilding and Safety. Land Ilse Divii1on and the original will be returned to the developer. 4. The water system plan shall be signed by s registered civil enRineer and approved by the water company, with the tollowing certification: "t certify that the design of the water system in Use Permit NO._____�, is in accordance with the requiramate prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department. Very truly yours. DAVID L. FWM County Fire !larden J. Fire rrotection Plannine and Engineerinp Officer 4DlC:MM1b�tiNEN S � ,i�JN iY 7UNvl �:H jir t .1 l: tJ Rip W ( 0%J%JJ%SW-%1:H G couNTY SuKVLYbK Ut .3"R I' OWCL 0,,.oLer 22, 1941 AUMIN4•TkATWE .•fl.E6.L�: ...•" ao 2(jauA5ii:,5'7HEET .1.1 dU C 4l IFCHt- A 92.()t TELEPHONE 1714. J4,1 ego. Rivers i d'- C. ; ' 1:r.• , i,:g „�(:�1 4u-209 Oasis Street, Room 304 Ind:o, CA 92201 REVISED Subject: Conditional Use Case No. 2521-E GCnt I emiien: With respect to the Conditions of Approval for the above referenced use case, the Road Department has the foi;owing recommer►dations: 1. Prior to issuance of a Building permit or any use allowed by this permit, applicant shall convey sufficient right of way along Avurida Bermudas to provide for a 44-foot half -width right of way (with a standard corner cutback at Avenida Montezuma) at no cost to any government agency. 2. 1.o additional right of way shall be required on Avenida Montezuma, since adequate right of •way exists. 3. Prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit, applicant shall construct concrete curb, .gutter and 12-foot wide sidewalk located 32-feet. and .2-feet from centerline along Avenida Bermudas and Avenida Morrlezuma, respectively, andaccess rampsndard 35-foot wi with match-upcArC. return, cross-guttcr, spandrel paving at a grade (based upon a cente+dine profile extending at least 300-feet beyond the project boundaries) and alignment as approved by the Riverside County Road Colimissi.Said improve- ments sha:1 'Ce constructed at no cost to any government 4. All work done within County right of way shall have an Encroachl.ient Perniit. Riverside County Planning Uepartinent October 22, 1981 Sub4'cz: cilId111011Li use Casa No. k:;27-E 5. One 35-foot maximum width driveway only is permitted on Avenida Bermudas and shall be located at the southernmost limit of the project. Two 30-foot maximum width driveways, separated by at least 20-feet, are pe nnitted on Avenida Montezuma. The driveways shall %inform to Riverside County Standard No. 207 and No. 208. WRS:tNf xc: R/O - 1. Johnson File Very truly yours, A. E. NEWCUMB ROAD COMMISSIONER AND COUNTY SURVEYOR Warren R. Stallard Area Road Operations Supervisor r I , 11 1. 1 • ,. 1t•1 it 1! I I ''• . 1 • 1 1 r•'•Ir(t•, 1 tt111,1.It 11 I t 1 ( t 1 I t\� r. 11• t11.1 � 1• 1 1 1 1 I l r i 1 I I I I I'f.l .''�II 1.1 t•1 Il �a 1 \.i 1 It. I Sul I11111,1 III Ill t Ill.tt IIIr ut f,11t:.t1y L.V. lJ611- �&,:,- r', t It l l L. L cticr'a ) IC l. Cu kiv. Cu. I lut,d Lulltttal `. !1. 1.,II•. Ix•l,l. I.1J4 tt •r: •,rJ (. JvrMtS,ylr L.l__.tl Ali i 1(L III ,, 1 1 It 11t•lll . I\hart lit III . wait 1 1!1,,1 Ity Luittrul 1„111,, tat tt r-lip dull District 1.� ..•t t w,, L ut• Ayrncy MIN:-773-104-01),_ 002 111 J - - Ituldt�d Meg: 1t ant: _�.t U� �,.rtLt Itrn. �'"11�t.tlu t rl.t 7 ,t ,l icy,► �„ttl, 11;�„i n.uk�t On .26 dcrus. cct ( ut-at>un: -wut:11 t;IdL: !1VL:r,t11, t•t• 111LAizulr>>, L..;tw,,j, AVt:r11d.1 14avarro uai AVu,ld♦, tx.r -- rr 4LN1S Oil kECOMMLUDAt IONS. c.1)3)oL;ed to the grurnting t' e Static�r, at t;; 1 ugatlOn i•� 1 L Vil 3 i 11Ur. g11r.: LO trio General Flan of the aru , - $tLrt:3 and Tho property on the norLh side Qf 1�-oLeLUII;;x will be c,r'rit,(•.;, the cic..3v l.r-1)::i111i 1,Y ut' tl e r,uw rust Office will result i;, yleavy t2•affic ,:onje::ritan, and ttlo close proximity of residential it. Ulu tilt: rejidentu Ot' I,a QtIiIIJ,d ft:il vie cOta11i USC d Full Survice t;;pe �. :. L;.tt.iurl it is t'c:l t Li1,t. thi:: L;; pu of tlu:rines:3 could and would .,%:I ve the urea in a di t•;'t:,•t.:llt l u.:ittion than this. Doe Nrmi 1, in this t it.:t ':would he contested very hea:'Lil; .c ar►tir,�, a 1.Q t ProperL;r . r Ltl•: c:i-0.i E.:r►r� of L.t tluirtl.a :,I.�1 he La uin 3 •.;u�:i�iciwlt t: hu11,ho. 01 t't in a I C fi t D : _ -- - _------- -- --- — — .d•,e M. ltttlio. CA i,cLur►1 ut t1�t11dl Lu 1'Isr,,1tr11J Ilepar'lutclit. 40-'09 Oitals St., kutxtr �� ARABLE CHAIRWOMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: AUGUST 13, 1991 SUBJECT: JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION ISSUES MEETING Staff is currently' planning a joint meeting for the City Council and Planning Commission for Saturday, September 14, 1991. The time and place will be announced at a later date. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss issues that the City Council and Planning Commission determine to be important. In addition, discussion will take place regarding the Stuart Specific Plan. Other important dates you will need to be aware of for September are: Tuesday, 3rd - City Council meeting Monday, 9th - Joint City Council/Planning Commission regarding the General Plan with BRW, Inc. Tuesday, 10th - Planning Commission meeting Saturday 14th - Joint City Council/Planning Commission issues meeting Tuesday 17th -• City Council meeting Wednesday, Thursday, & Friday 18th, 19th, 20th - New York Bond meeting Tuesday 24th - Planning Commission meeting This will be a very busy month. Should you find you are unable to attend the joint planning meeting, another date could be arranged. The following list are some of the items discussed at last year's meeting along with a recap of those discussions. Village at La Quinta Jefferson Street Specific Plan Urban Strategies concept Highway 111 corridor General Plan Environmental issues We would need your input as to items/issues you would like to discuss at this planning meeting by August 30th in order to prepare an agenda. MEMOJH.113 RECAP OF ITEMS OF DISCUSSED JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION & CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 7, 1990 I. JEFFERSON STREET SPECIFIC PLAN A. Because street runs through other jurisdictions, it will be necessary to work (coordinate) with them; especially important is Indio on north end. B. Jefferson Street is defined as primary street image corridor in General Plan. C. Jefferson Street is a different street north and south of Highway 111. i:. Set up joint La Quinta/Indio meeting to discuss development of street. E. City will need to budget money for some of the improvements to Jefferson Street. F. When Annex No. 5 is complete, improvement to Jefferson Street near PGA West can begin. G. Consider removing all residences fronting on street. H. For existing canal south of 52nd Avenue, major development in area will share in costs with the City to widen bridge. I. Landscaping, setbacks and parkways important to Street. J. Will be need for special signage along Jefferson Street. K. Madison Street will be more important connection to Highway 111 since Jefferson Street stops at PGA West. II. VILLAGE AT LA QUINTA A. General 1. Village could develop along with City as the "Gardens of La Quinta". These gardens could be formal or informal. BJ/DOCJH.044 -1- B. C. 2. Village could develop as art colony since La Quinta Arts Festival has established credibility. 3. With Art theme, we should associate with Art school or college. 4. Garden concept doesn't need artists to work but artists love garden idea to display their work. 5. Standards set by City (high or low) will determine what we get (high quality or inferior). 6. City needs neighborhood shopping center in Village/Cove area. a.) Best location is new city hall site or across the street. b.) Should be at perimeter of Village area. Second choice would be in area near Circle K. Parking & Assessment District 1. Assessment District to start within one year. 2. Credit to be given for off street parking provided. 3. Parking is needed for Village development to occur. 4. Some combination of lots will be necessary in areas of small lots. 5. Some properties for sale are overpriced and may be a deterrent to development. Urban Strategies Concept 1. Modify Village Plan a. More organic architecture. b. Narrower streets with special lights. c. Decorative street paving. d. Utilize design competition & federal money. 2. Garden concept could increase foot traffic in Village and be part of Village and/or be starting and ending point of tours of gardens spread around the City. 3. Proposed passive parks could be changed to gardens. BJ/DOCJH.044 -2- 4. Current Village area is presently lacking in positive items to attract people from outside the area. 5. Should require landscaping, possibly with wildflowers, of vacant lots in Village. 6. Garden concept should be used to supplement approved Village plan. 7. Garden concept would be more appealing to local resident than artistic theme. 8. Infrastructure is necessary for Village. Need to provide incentive for development of Village. 9. Provide special entrance statement to Village at Calle Tampico & Eisenhower Drive, and Calle Tampico & Washington Street. 10. Provide Garden concept as an oasis linked together by bicycle & walking paths throughout the Cove. 11. Maintenance costs of Gardens could be high necessitating practical solutions. 12. Gardens could be linking points for cormTercial areas in the Village. 13. Gardens need to be water efficient. 14. Village could be developed into entertainment center (concerts, movie classics) or sports arena center. 15. New City Hall will have garden area which could begin garden concept in City. 16. Urban Strategies - major entry statements should be dynamic ($10,000 - 20,000). (Cerritos has utilized special paving & lighting). one major development will start development of Village. 17. Consider use of Landscape Assessment District in Village to provide landscaping of specific areas. City owned lots could be landscaped now. 18. Gardens could be sponsored by "major" corporation. 19. Engraved bricks can be sold to raise funds. BJ/DOCJH.044 -3- 20. Should begin improvement of Village area where we can now, in areas such as paving, landscaping and signage. 21. Need to meet with property owners in Village. 22. Utilize newsletter to get out information. 23. Provide fast tracking of development proposals. 24. Channel could be used for gardens. III. HIGH1WAY 111 CORRIDOR A. Corridor could develop as regional headquarters for major corporations. B. Nearby up valley city appears to have captured regional commercial market. C. Major factors in development of Highway 111 are providing utilities and working with CALTRANS. D. Development of Enterprise Zone around Thermal Airport could influence demand for corporate headquarters and offices along Highway 111. E. Corporate development would create demand for business type hotels. F. Could be adequate land for retail and other land uses. G. Retail usage is needed to generate sales tax for City. H. Original Draft policies & goals for Highway 111 should be reviewed before changes are made. I. Local school district is interested in locating within corridor Area. J. Other possible uses of corridor area include condominium housing for seniors, public golf course and driving range in channel. K. Major projects need help through governmental participation. L. Access between both sides of Highway 111 needs to be easy and convenient. M. Urban Strategies is marketing Highway 111 through ISCC Convention. BJ/DOCJH.044 -4- IV. GENERAL PLAN A. Needs to be revised on regular basis. La Quinta's General Plan will be updated in the next year. B. Job/Housing balance is new important need. C. Annexations require restudy of General Plan. D. Need for refuse element, Clean Air Element, Senior Center & Parks. E. Existing fencing needs to be addressed. F. Should prepare Water Conservation Element. V. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES A. Water 1. Water shortage critical in California; Coachella Valley has adequate water supply. 2. Still should strive to conserve water. Prepare Water Conservation element for General Plan. 3. Canal water should be used for irrigation especially for golf courses. 4. UrJ efficient or poorly designed irrigation systems are water wasters. 5. Need to educate developers to conserve water. B. Hillsides 1. Conservation in natural state is goal. 2. Hiking trails or hidden roads may be desirable. C. City should investigate co -generation. D. Consider purchase of Indian Springs as Municipal Golf course. E. Regional monorail system through wash should be considered. F. Need duck pond. Could be part of Garden theme of City. G. Clean up at City should be accelerated, especially at construction sites. BJ/DOCJH.044 -5- 1991 SCHEDULE PLANNING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS JANUARY /---- JULY 2 /STEDING 15 /BARROWS 16 /MOSHER FEBRUARY 5 /STEDING AUGUST 6 /DARK 19 /MOSHER 20 /DARK MARCH 5 /BARROWS SEPTEMBER 3 /MARRS 19 /LADNER 17 /ELLSON APRIL 2 /DOWD OCTOBER 1 /MOSHER 16 /STEDING 15 /BARROWS MAY 7 /MOSHER NOVEMBER 5 /LADNER 21 /BARROWS 19 /MARRS JUNE 4 /MORAN DECEMBER 3 /ELLSON 18 /DOWD 17 /MOSHER BJ/FORM.015 /\� r H. L yap 5 L a O C�y•� e � � , � a r 'l- 40 GD rNN � i � C �-3L • i J ' ��. '- h . g O� i SFS.�I o z _ „..cL �L I o i _ _ DLO C� = � •,;� O � ` a -- �-�Q c . �_ U C� •U O �oc��,� aIt O O i G _O O �O O• a� • `O :h h q •�O i ^O p •V :- o . CC MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California August 13, 1991 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairwoman Barrows. The Flag Salute was led by Commissioner Mosher. II. AGENDA REORDERED A. Commissioner Mosher moved and Commissioner Ladner seconded the motion to reorder the agenda as follows: Public Hearing Items #2, #3, and #4 became Items #1, #2, and #3. Public Hearing Item #1 became Item #4. III. ROLL CALL A. Chairwoman Barrows requested the roll call. Present: Commissioners Mosher, Ladner, Ellson, and Chairwoman Barrows. B . Commissioner Mosher moved to excuse Commissioner Marrs from the meeting. Commissioner Ellson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. B. Staff Present: Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit, and Department Secretary Betty Anthony. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Public Hearing - General Plan Amendment 90-031, Change of Zone 90-056, Specific Plan 90-016; a request of Landmark Land for approval of a 327 acre project, including golf course, residential and commercial uses, incorporating a 21 acre commercial site and 1208 residential units. 1. Chairwoman Barrows opened the Continued Public Hearing and as no one wished to address the Commission regarding the matter it was moved by Commissioner Ellson and seconded by Commissioner Mosher to continue the matter to September 10, 1991, as requested by the Applicant. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher, Ladner, Ellson, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: Marrs. ABSTAINING: None. B . Continued Public Hearing General Plan Amendment 90-029, Change of Zone 90-054, and Specific Plan 90-015; a request of Landmark Land Company for approval of a 265 acre project, including golf course, and residential uses, incorporating 1060 residential units. 1. Chairwoman Barrows opened the Continued Public Hearing and as no one wished to address the Commission regarding the matter it was moved by Commissioner Mosher and seconded by Commissioner Ellson to continue the matter to September 10, 1991, as recommended by Staff. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher, Ladner, Ellson, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: Marrs. ABSTAINING: None. C. General Plan Amendment 90-030, Change of Zone 90-055, and Specific Plan 90-017; a request of Landmark Land for approval of 220 acre project including golf course and residential uses, incorporating 880 residential uses and consideration for certification of Final EIR . 1. Chairwoman Barrows opened the Public Hearing and as no one wished to address the Commission regarding the matter it was moved by Commissioner Mosher and seconded by Commissioner Ellson to continue the matter to September 10, 1991, as recommended by Staff. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher, Ladner, Ellson, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: Marrs. ABSTAINING: None. D. Continued Public Hearing - Public Use Permit 91-010; a request of Michael and Glenda Bangerter for approval of a Preschool/Day Care Center. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in -the Staff report. A copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. Staff noted that new correspondence had been received and distributed to the Planning Commissioners 2. Commissioner Ladner inquired of Staff as to what was the determining factor for the installation of a signal at Sagebrush Avenue and Washington Street as recommended in Condition 39. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated all signals were installed when traffic warrants are met. Two criteria for this installation are that the main street (Washington Street) exceeds 10, 080 cars per day (Washington is currently at 13, 600 cars per day) . Second the minor street (Sagebrush Avenue) must exceed 850 cars per day. Sagebrush is currently at 300 cars per day. She further asked what percentage the Applicant would be PCMIN8/13 Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 1991 required to pay. Mr. Speer stated it is to be proportionately divided between the developers in the area and the City. 3. Chairwoman Barrows stated the condition does not indicate when the signal should be built. Assistant City Engineer Speer stated all signals are installed when the warrants are met. Discussion followed as to revising the wording of the condition. 4. Chairwoman Barrows opened the public hearing and asked the Applicant to address the Commission. Mr. Bruce Cathcart, P. O. Box 346, La Quinta, representing the Applicant, addressed issues that had been discussed at the previous Hearings. He discussed land costs, building costs, and the 41 conditions. Mr. Cathcart noted the Applicant was willing to cooperate in temporary cul-de-sacing of Saguaro and Bottlebrush. 5. Commissioner Ellson asked the Applicant why kitchen facilities were not included in the plans. Glenda Bangerter stated State requirements made it prohibitive due to their restrictions. The children would provide their own lunches and the school would provide a snack. 6. Chairwoman Barrows questioned the Applicant as to how they determined the number of students. Glenda Bangerter stated they had received advice from the local office of the State agencies, and along with their own figures, determined how many children the school could effectively handle. Mrs. Bangerter further noted the State required they provide 75 square feet of outdoor play area and 35 square feet of indoor area per child. In regard to the number of children allowed, the State Licensing Department would ultimately determine this number and they may reduce the number of allowed children. She also indicated she is talking to three large employers who would be interested in supporting her program. 7. Mary Kate Kelly, 78-565 Sagebrush, addressed the Commission regarding the traffic problem when at full capacity, the additional noise pollution that would be generated and asked that the Commission find another location for the center. 8. Gary Avise, 78-710 Via Sonata, questioned Staff regarding the traffic study, ingress and egress, turning lane problems, and the Dark Sky Ordinance being complied with. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer explained in great detail how the traffic count was computed and discussed the traffic counts as they are and as projected with the day care operating for Sagebrush. Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 1991 9. Helen Nelson, 78-707 Saguaro, stated she felt the traffic study should be done during the peak season. Commissioner Ellson questioned Ms. Nelson as to the route the children walk to school and the direction they walked to the school bus. Ms. Nelson stated they picked up the bus at Sagebrush and Via Bolero. 10. Tony Harvey, 78-675 Sagebrush, stated that once Parc La Quinta became a gated community the school district would probably change their bus stop location. He fully supported the project and stated that if the traffic will increase perhaps the neighbors could gain access through the Amcor development to the south. 11. Jim Battin, 78-650 Saguaro, stated he wanted his written comments, submitted at Study Session, entered into the record. He impressed on the Commission that even though the traffic study showed Sagebrush would only be at 72% capacity, they should realize that is a lot of traffic. He felt homes would not sell due to the increased traffic. He stated he had submitted a questionnaire to local day care facilities and they all have vacancies in the price range quoted by the Applicant. 12. Mark Skochil, 78-595 Bottlebrush, reiterated this was a business for profit and the Commission should consider this. 13. Eddie Patton, 49-125 Balada Court, stressed to the Commission that the figures stated are not the reality of living with this increase of traffic. He felt that because of the traffic problems people would cut through Parc La Quinta streets to exit. 14. Linda McClintock, 78-748 Via Sonata, suggested to the Commission that they require developers to set aside funds based on square footage for day care in their businesses. She further stated the noise levels would increase. In addition, she had contacted a local developer and he would be glad to give the day care space. 15. Kevin Anderson, 52-839 Diaz, felt the residents in the area were not understanding the traffic study and they should not let it be an emotional issue. He did not feel property values would decrease because of the school. 16. A. J. Maragos, 78-540 Bottlebrush, felt there should be a better location for the school and this area should be donated to the City for a park for the children in this area. 17. Bettye Anderson, 52-839 Diaz, stated she felt people would chose to live in this area because of the closeness to the school and that it would be an asset. Suggested that senior citizens be used to help children at the crosswalks. PCMIN8/13 Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 1991 18. Karen Kirk, 78-585 Saguaro, stated this was not a school but a baby sitting business. Crime has and would continue to increase and they would not be able to tell who belonged in the neighborhood and who did not due to the increase in traffic. 19. Verna Loeffler, 52-990 Alvarado, felt that since the Parc La Quinta project developer did not do his part in providing child care facilities, this project would correct that. Additionally, she felt that if this project stopped development on Sagebrush Drive as one man contended, the child care traffic would provide a trade off . 20. Mary Starrs, 78-570 Saguaro, informed the Commission their house was their life savings and if this project is approved it will negatively affect their property value. She felt that should a flood occur in the channel it would damage the school. 21. Carrie Norlin, 78-695 Saguaro, asked the Commission to find another location. Evening functions will create parking problems as well as noise. She did not feel there was a day care crisis. 22. Dwayne McElroy, 78-695 Bottlebrush, commended the Planning Commission on their planning and zoning decision to date, but felt they were under a great deal of pressure to change the zoning for this area. He felt the zoning for this property was inappropriate. 23. Carla Klein, 78-585 Sagebrush, with only one access to this area, what happens if there were to be a chemical spill on Sagebrush. Residents would not be able to evacuate the neighborhood. 24. Rosie Zamarrepa, 78-161 Sagebrush, was concerned as to why the residents have to fight amongst themselves. She felt this problem was caused by large developers buying all the land and making it impossible for these people to find land more suitable for their project. 25. Rick Kelly, 78-680 Saguaro, as a realtor he stated he felt this project would greatly affect property values. 26. Gloria Guttue, 74-540 Saguaro, stated she has lived across the street from a day care center and it took five years to sell her house. She felt the traffic would create a problem. 27. Launa Nelson, 52-900 Diaz, stated her support of the project. 28. As no one else wished to addressed the Commission, Chairwoman Barrows closed the public hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion. Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 1991 29. Commissioner Ladner asked the Applicant what her break even point for students was. Glenda Bangerter stated they would need 130 students just to break even. She further stated that when the toddler/infant program was implemented they would need a minimum of 130 full time students to offset the cost of the toddler/infant program. 30. Commissioner Ladner inquired why Date Palm was not a through street to 50th Avenue. Commissioner Mosher stated that when the Amcor development was before the Commission for approval the street was planned to be extended to 50th Avenue until the residents in the area objected. The Commission acceded to the resident's request and the street extension was deleted. 31. Commissioner Ellson asked if the cul-de-sacs would be provided with emergency access. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated they would be designed for emergency access. She further inquired as to where the children stand for the school bus and about how many stops are made there daily. The residents replied that most of the students stand in the right-of- way and there are about 12 trips total. 32. Chairwoman Barrows inquired how the school bus turn arounds will. be handled after the streets are cul-de-saced. Staff stated they had not discussed this matter with the School District as of yet. 33. Commissioner Ellson asked Staff if the lights for the school are in conformance with the Dark Sky Ordinance. Staff stated they wei°e conditioned to do so. Discussion followed as to whether to restrict the hours lights could be on. Commission Mosher stated this would not be wise as some lights were needed for security purposes. 34. Commissioner Ladner inquired of Staff as to what methods were used to mitigate noise pollution. Staff stated block walls, landscaping, berms, were methods that had been implemented to reduce noise. Staff stated the Conditions of Approval required the Applicant to construct whatever measures the noise study recommended. 35. Commissioner Mosher asked if the Planning Commission would be reviewing the noise study. Staff replied that if the Commission conditioned the project, the study would come before them for approval. 36. Discussion followed as to the number of children and whether it would help to mitigate some of the problems by reducing the number of children allowed. PCMIN8/13 Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 1991 37. Commissioner Ellson asked the Applicant what their time frame was for the cultural arts multi -use building. The Applicant responded that at present they had no time frame but they would be :required to bring it before the Commission for approval. 38. Chairwoman Barrows asked what the time frame was for the toddler/infant center. The Applicant responded they did not have a time frame but did plan to proceed as soon as possible. It was a very costly project to run and they would have to offset the costs by the day care center. 39. Commissioner Ladner stated that she had conducted her own study as to the viability of a day care center and was surprised by the results that showed that the most beneficial place for a day care center is in a residential area. She stated that she felt the Commission should look into requiring developments providing day care centers as part of their projects. 40. Chairwoman Barrows stated she had a problem with the egress and ingress and asked if Staff had any recommendations for mitigating these impacts. 41. Commissioner Ladner stated she had struggled with this project in light of the residents in this area strongly objecting to the project but felt it was her duty to review this project as it relates to the good of the whole community. 42. Commissioner Mosher discussed the issue of sidewalks being needed on Sagebrush and Date Palm for the safety of the children in the area. He suggested a modification of Condition 40. g to require them. 43. Chairwoman Barrows agreed and stated that the Applicant should be required to provide sidewalks for Sagebrush as well as Date Palm. She inquired of Staff as to the cost and what the typical arrangement was for developers with respect to the cost of sidewalks. Was there a proportional share with the City? Staff stated sidewalks for Sagebrush would cost approximately $15,000, with approximately $5,000 for Date Palm. 44. Commissioner Ellson inquired of Staff if the City owned any lots in this area. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated the City presently owns two lots for the purpose of retention basins and was in the process of purchasing two additional lots for the same reason. Discussion followed as to a way to provide a park for this area. 7 Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 1991 45. Commissioner Mosher inquired of the Applicant if he would be able to assimilate the sidewalk costs. Bruce Cathcart responded it would hurt and would prefer a joint participation program. Discussion followed as to how funding was being handled in other parts of the City in reference to curbs and sidewalks. 46. Chairwoman Barrows inquired of Staff as to the possibility of installing crosswalks and a stop sign at the corner of Via Bolero and. Sagebrush. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated the City would object to a crosswalk midway in the block without stop signs because it would lead the children to believe cars will always stop. Discussion followed as to the timing of street improvements for these streets. 47. Chairwoman Barrows again brought up the issue of the number of children being allowed before the Commission. Commissioner Ladner agreed and felt the number should be restricted to 120 pre-school and 30 toddlers/infants. Commissioner Mosher stated he felt this should be left up to the State as they will determine how many children will be allowed. 48. Discussion followed as to the temporary cul-de-sacing of Saguaro and Bottlebrush. Staff responded this would not be feasible at this time due to the lack of turnaround area and street improvements on the streets. At the present time there was barely enough room for two cars to pass. The Commissioners discussed with Staff some means of relaying the message to the City Council of the importance of completing the cul-de-sacing and street improvements before or with the completion of this project. Staff stated this could be accomplished through their report of action to the City Council. 49. Commissioner Ladner stated that she would have difficulty approving this project until she was certain the full street improvements and cul-de-sacing would be completed before the opening of the school. This concern was shared by all Commissioners due to the impact of traffic and their concern for the safety of those living in this area. Even though they could not require the City to install the street improvements, they did not feel they could approve this project without those street improvements being completed. Rather than indicating this concern to the City Council in separate action regarding the street improvements, the Commissioners felt the project should be approved only if the street improvements were installed prior to the opening of the day care. PCMIN8/13 8 Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 1991 50. Following discussion it was moved by Commissioner Mosher and seconded by Commissioner Ellson to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 91-023 approving Public Use Permit 91-010 as recommended by Staff with the following modifications: a. Condition 6. Will be modified to state the required noise study will be approved by the Planning Commission. b . Condition 39. "The Applicant shall pay a proportional share of the cost to design and install the traffic signal proposed at Sagebrush Avenue and Washington Street when average daily traffic (ADT) reaches 850 as determined by the Engineering Department. The proportional share shall be commensurate with the estimated traffic generated by the proposed development and the estimated traffic generated by the surrounding neighborhood. c . Condition 40 . g. "The City shall restrict parking along the north side of Sagebrush Avenue and post appropriate speed limits . " d. Condition 40.h. "Along the south side of Sagebrush Avenue between Washington Street and Date Palm Drive and on the west side of Date Palm Drive between Sagebrush Avenue and Saguaro Drive, the Applicant/Developer shall install standard City sidewalks. " e. Condition 41. "The maximum number of students shall be limited to 150 with 30 infant/toddler allowed in the future phase." f . Condition 42. "The City of La Quinta shall install full street improvements on Sagebrush Drive and Bottlebrush Avenue, Saguaro Drive and Date Palm Drive as needed, and cul-de-sac Bottlebrush Drive and Saguaro Avenue at Washington Street (per the Washington Street Specific Plan) prior to the opening of the child care center." ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher, Ladner, Ellson, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: Marrs. ABSTAINING: None. 9 Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 1991 E. Continued Public Hearing - Tentative Tract 26181; a request of Ray Troll to subdivide 14 gross acres into 52 single family lots. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa stated the City had received a letter from the Applicant requesting that this application be withdrawn from further consideration as he had sold the property to the Desert Sands Unified School District. 2. Commissioner Mosher moved and Commissioner Ladner seconded a motion to discontinue further action on the application. Unanimously approved. F. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 91-017; a request of the City to add Chapter 9.78 to the La Quinta Municipal Code relating to the prohibition of time share projects and uses. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Commissioner Mosher asked that Exhibit "A" Chapter 9.78.030 (c) be amended to omit the wording, "which is not coupled with an estate in real property". 3. There being no further discussion it was moved by Commissioner Ellson and seconded by Commissioner Mosher to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 91-024 recommending to the City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 91-017 subject to the amended Exhibit "A". ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher, Ladner, Ellson, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: Marrs. ABSTAINING: None. V. PUBLIC COMMENT - None VI. BUSINESS SESSION A. New cart storage screen wall - Von's Shopping Center; a request of Von's Market for approval of construction of a cart storage screen wall. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. PCMIN8/13 10 Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 1991 2. Mike Rich, Greg Hammers Architects for the project, addressed the Commission regarding the project and asked for a clarification of the Design Review Board recommendation. 3. There being no further discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Ellson and seconded by Commissioner Mosher to adopt Minute Motion 91-021 approving the cart storage screen wall design subject to Staff recommendations. Approved on a 3 to 1 vote with Commissioner Ladner voting no. B . Minor Temporary Outdoor Event 91-032; a request of Thunderbird Artists for approval to conduct art shows. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. Staff noted that under Condition 18, the height should be changed from 6 feet to 5 feet. 2. Commissioner Ellson stated she felt the starting date should be the weekend of November 9th. The Applicant, Judi Combs, stated she had already planned to do so. 3. There being no further discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Ladner and seconded by Commissioner Ellson to adopt Minute Motion 91-022 approving Minor Temporary Outdoor Event 91-032 subject to Staff recommendation as modified. Unanimously approved. C. Street Vacation 91-016 for Specific Plan 90-015; a request of Landmark Land for determination of General Plan consistency to vacate Rancho La Quinta Road and Paseo Del Rancho. 1. It was moved by Commissioner Ladner and seconded by Commissioner Mosher to continue this request to September 10, 1991. Unanimously approved. D. Street Vacation 91-017 for Specific Plan 90-016; a request of Landmark Land for determination of General Plan consistency to vacate Rancho La Quinta Road and Paseo Del Rancho. 1. It was moved by Commissioner Ladner and seconded by Commissioner Ellson to continue this project to September 10, 1991. Unanimously approved. 11 Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 1991 E. Sign Application 91-149; a request of Mobil Oil for approval of a sign program and adjustments. 1. There being no discussion it was moved by Commissioner Mosher and seconded by Commissioner Ellson to adopt Minute Motion 91- 023 approving Sign Application 91-149 subject to Staff and Design Review Board recommendations. Unanimously approved. VIII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. There being no corrections, it was moved by Commissioner Mosher and seconded by Commissioner Ladner to approve the Minutes of July 23, 1991, as submitted. Unanimously approved. IX. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Mosher and seconded by Commissioner Ladner to adjourn to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on September 10, 1991, at 7 : 00 P.M. in the La Quinta City Hall Council Chambers. This meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission was adjourned at 11:36 P.M., August 13, 1991. PCMIN8/13 12 PH - 1 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: AUGUST 13, 1991 - CONTINUED FROM JULY 9 & 23, 1991 PROJECT: PUBLIC USE PERMIT 91-010 PROPOSED PRESCHOOL/DAY-CARE CENTER APPLICANT: GLENDA & MICHAEL BANGERTER ENGINEER: KEITH COMPANIES TRAFFIC ENGINEER: ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. ARCHITECT: MOSER ASSOCIATES LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE OF SAGEBRUSH AVENUE EXTENSION EAST SIDE OF DATE PALM DRIVE (SEE ATTACHMENT #1) ZONING: R-2-12000 NET ACREAGE: 1.8 ACRES GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 91-203 HAS BEEN PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS APPLICATION. THE INITIAL STUDY AND A TRAFFIC STUDY INDICATED THAT NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WILL OCCUR THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED BY IMPOSITION OF MITIGATION MEASURES. THEREFORE, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT. (SEE ATTACHMENT #3 & 4) SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USES: WEST: S-R, EXISTING RESIDENTIAL AREA NORTHWEST: R-1, EXISTING RESIDENTIAL AREA (PARC LA QUINTA) SOUTHWEST: S-R, APPROVED RESIDENTIAL AREA, TT 26148 PRESENTLY VACANT NORTHEAST: R-1, APPROVED RESIDENTIAL AREA, TT 25154 PRESENTLY BEING REVISED, VACANT LAND SOUTHEAST: CVWD LA QUINTA STORM CHANNEL; LA QUINTA ELEMENTARY & MIDDLE SCHOOLS STAFFRPT.038/CS -1- DESCRIPTION OF SITE: VACANT LAND WITH DESERT VEGETATION GENTLY SLOPING TOWARDS THE EAST. DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS: ALL WATER WILL DRAIN OUT TO THE CVWD STORM CHANNEL A. BACKGROUND: 1. The proposed preschool/day-care center will care for 230 children (200 children initially and 30 more after Phase Two) and have 23 employees, and comprise three phases, the first (classroom & administration buildings) 8,851 square feet, the second (infant and toddler center) (1,056 square feet) and the third (multi -use building) 2,000 square feet. 2. The facility is located on a triangular shaped lot along the west side of the CVWD evacuation channel. 3. The proposed buildings are grouped around a central open play area located alongside the CVWD channel. 4. This project was continued from the July 9 & July 23, 1991 Planning Commission meetings to allow time for a traffic study to be completed. 1. Access & Traffic Issues (See Attachment #3 & 4) The traffic study done for this project by Robert Kahn, John Kain & Associates and revised July 29, 1991 concludes that the project will not create an excessive amount of traffic in this area. The following off and on -site improvement recommendations were also made: 1. Consolidate the two northern driveways into a two-way driveway located between Sagebrush Avenue and Bottlebrush Avenue. 2. Eliminate parking spaces in front of northern driveway. 3. Designate 45 degree parking spaces located adjacent to Administration Building as short term parking. 4. Eliminate 3 parking spaces in southwest corner of project to prevent conflict with southern driveway. 5. Construct Date Palm Drive from Sagebrush Avenue to Saguaro Road at its ultimate half -section width as a local (60 foot right-of-way). STAFFRPT.038/CS -2- 6. Stop signs should be constructed within the site at exit points to control traffic. Internal traffic signing/striping should be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project. 7. Sight distance at each intersection should be reviewed with respect to standard City of La Quinta sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape and street improvement plans. 8. Curb -return type driveways should be constructed at each of the access points on Date Palm Drive to facilitate ingress/egress to the site. 9. The project should participate on a pro-rata basis in the City's adopted infrastructure fee program. 10. The project should participate on a pro-rata basis in funding the future traffic signal at Washington Street and Sagebrush Avenue. 11. Along Sagebrush Avenue, the City should consider constructing sidewalks on the residential side, restricting parking along the north side and posting appropriate speed limits. Engineering Department has reviewed the traffic study (dated 7/29/91) prepared by Robert Kahn, John Kain & Associates for the subject development and has the following comments: 1. The traffic study is professional and thorough, and the off -site recommendations are appropriate for the findings. 2. Two alternatives have been analyzed at the intersection of Sagebrush Avenue/Washington Street. The two. alternatives are the "build" and "no build" with two variations of the "build" scenario considered. NOTE: Levels of service range from "A" to "F", "A" being the most favorable and "F" being unacceptable situation. The La Quinta City Council has determined that Level of Service "C" is the level of public benefit as well as the acceptable level of congestion. Please see pages 17 and Appendix A in the Traffic Report for further information on level of service descriptions. STAFFRPT.038/CS -3- a. "Build" Alternative (with TT 25154 traffic) - If the day care center is built and Tentative Tract 25154 is constructed in a manner that Sagebrush Avenue is its sole access route, the intersection will function at Level of Service "C" when the City's build -out traffic volume is achieved if no additional street improvements are made. It will function at Level of Service "A" if Washington Street is widened to six lanes as the General Plan currently requires. b. "Build"' Alternative (without TT 25154 traffic) - If the day care center is built and Tentative Tract 25154 is constructed in a manner that it takes no access from Sagebrush Avenue as currently proposed, the intersection will function at Level of Service "B" in the City wide build -out condition if Washington Street is not improved, and will function at Level of Service "A" if Washington Street is widened to six lanes as the General Plan currently requires. C. "No Build" Alternative (with TT 25154 traffic) - if the day care center is not built and Tentative Tract 25154 is constructed in a manner that Sagebrush Avenue is its sole access route, the intersection will function at Level of Service "B" when the City's build -out traffic volume is achieved if Washington Street is not improved, and will function at Level of Service "A" if Washington Street is widened to six lanes as the General Plan currently requires. 3. Regarding the on -site recommendations made by the consultant rioted above, Engineering Department concurs with recommendations #2, 3, 4, & 6, however, is not convinced that #1, which recommends the two northerly access driveways be combined, should be implemented. In conclusion, if the traffic generated by the proposed day care center and Tentative Tract 25154 are combined on Sagebrush Avenue, it will not cause an unsatisfactory level of service at the Sagebrush Avenue/Washington Street intersection even at the City-wide build -out condition with no additional widening of Washington Street. The near term Level of Service is "A", if the day care center and Tentative Tract 25154 were to be constructed at t:oday's traffic levels. Admittedly, the projects will add traffic to Sagebrush Avenue, but since it is public funds that construct and maintain this public street, the public should expect to get a reasonable amount of benefit for their transportation tax dollars. The City Council has determined that Level of Service "C" is the level of public benefit as well as the acceptable level of congestion. STAFFRPT.038/CS -4- Engineering Department believes there is no apparent legitimate traffic concern that should cause denial of the proposed project. 2. Acoustical Study The Applicant will be required to do a noise study in accordance with the requirements of the La Quinta General Plan addressing the following issues: a) Noise from this project affecting the surrounding area. b) Noise from the surrounding major streets affecting this project. 3. Archaeological Aspects A condition of approval will be attached to this public use permit requiring an archaeological study of the site and the implementation of mitigation measures, if needed. 4. Lighting Proposals This project will have to comply with the Outdoor Light Control Ordinance and will be conditioned to use low, shielded lighting in the parking and all other outdoor areas. 5. Trash Enclosure The trash enclosure needs to be relocated in accordance with Waste Management of the Desert, Engineering & Planning & Development Departments requirements. The trash enclosure should be large enough to accommodate both refuse and recycling bins. 6. Existing Easement & Extension of Sagebrush Avenue Conditions addressing the following will be attached to the approval of this project concerning the northerly 30 feet of the site: - The Applicant shall dedicate the northerly 30 feet of the site to the City for public right of way, as required by the City Engineer for the extension of Sagebrush Avenue into Tentative Tract 25154, unless the access route to Tentative Tract 25154 is revised as presently proposed and the map is recorded accordingly. 7. Construction of Phase 2 and 3 The Applicant will be required to make a future request to Planning Commission and City Council for Phases 2 and 3, utilizing the public use permit approval procedure. STAFFRPT.038/CS -5- 8. Comments From CVWD (See Attachment #7) Attached is the letter from CVWD with comments regarding this project. It should be noted that the developer is required to install suitable facilities to prevent access to the adjoining CVWD Channel (i.e. a fence or wall). 9. Comments From Fire Department (See Attachment #8) Attached are comments from the County Fire Department. It should be noted that a turn around area for emergency vehicles including fire trucks has been proved on the northeast side of the project, encroaching into the CVWD easement. An encroachment permit will have to be obtained from CVWD for this turn around area. 10. Comments From County Sheriff Department (See Attachment #9) The County Sheriff Department has no objection to the concept or the location of this proposed project. They would, however like to review construction plans particularly in reference to child safety enhancement features. C. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING: The Design Review Board reviewed this project at their meeting of June 3, 1991. Action of the Board was as follows: The Applicant needs to find a way to break up the length of the main classroom building. The windows on the north end of this building need to be shaded from sunlight in the early morning and evening during midsummer. The landscaping plan should show planting materials breaking up the parking area. The Applicant need not provide any additional parking spaces over and above code requirements. The extra space can be used for landscaping. Please note, the above changes will be reflected in the revised plans and detailed landscaping plans to be submitted to the Planning Department at a late date. D. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS JULY 9 & JULY 23, 1991: At these meetings a number of the surrounding residents of this project and other members of the project spoke in favor and against the project. The issues were as follows: STAFFRPT.038/CS -6- Traffic & related noise and pollution - See traffic report for discussion of this issue Noise from the child care center - A condition will be attached to the approval of this project requiring a noise study to be done and mitigation measures implemented Mrs. Bangerters credentials - Mrs. Bangerter has provided information on her credentials. This is not an issue to be considered when approving or disapproving a Public Use Permit Application. This project could not be denied on these grounds. This issue is dealt with by the State Licensing Board. Land not zoned for this use - A public use permit can be filed for a day care center in any zone, including this zone (R-2-12000) Commercial venture in a residential area - All educational institutions, hospitals (licenced by state agencies as identified) homes for the aged, and other restricted uses are allowed to locate in any area subject to the approval of a public use permit. The above stated uses can be profit or nonprofit. If this was a nonprofit day care center the traffic and noise generated would be the same as for a profit day care center. Home Occupations, which can be considered "commercial ventures" are also allowed in residential areas with a special permit. E. STAFF CONCLUSIONS Staff feels that approval of the first phase of the preschool/day care center is warranted based on the results of the traffic study and the satisfactory layout of the center itself. The Planning Commission can limit the number of children to a lower number than 200. FTNnTN9q Findings necessary to recommend approval of this Public Use Permit can be made and are contained in the attached Planning Commission Resolution. STAFFRPT.038/CS -7- RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission concur with the Environmental Analysis and adopt Resolution 91- , approving Public Use Permit 91-010, subject to the attached conditions. Attachments: 1. Locality Plan 2. Site Plan and Architectural drawings 3. Environmental Analysis including: - Preliminary traffic study - Letters from Planning Department to traffic consultants dated June 27, 1991 and July 26, 1991 4. Revised Traffic Study 5. Letters from members of the public opposing this project 6. Letters from members of the public supporting this project 7. Comments from CVWD 8. Comments from Fire Department 9. Comments from County Sheriff STAFFRPT.038/CS -8- CASE No. PUP 90-010 ATTACHMENT No. 1 ORTH ATTACHMENT No. 2 SITE PLAN AND' q ! NnFM LOT 0 Wi 0 LEBRUSH DRIVE �n Un C r o ! -V �' si*L �(LAQUWALmu �soo aAs� PALM DB • !A QUINfA CCALIFOR iO3nv:) ' V1)CM V1 ._—•�__..o.� �....�.,......,.�....,..�.....�..�...,.m � dQ Hl'tVd HSVa OQi-p Zooms au.in v.Lruno rrt a , r- ✓ d .. W 1♦aI C� C Lu Q C7 2 U&5 0 b IT�TILl a 0 Q VDaw V1 &LVC1 ONIP H-= vjmnc) V1 EA 7- I Im Im T�f� 0 . mva aiva oos•s> �p I i � zooH�s 8'1L1r1 dinnn� ri n t r R r � C � . L ATTACHMENT No. 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Environmental Assessment No. 9 1 — 2cD 3 Case No. ptjp_ 1 —cX0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM C. Background l . Name of Proponent e..._ t>A% + AA 1 ct 8-6-4--A t. Address & Phone Number of Proponent 53 — 2 4-S AN �__ INt FZ Date Checklist Prepared I. Agency Requiring Checklist ._._..C'A'nj e--::>E=-L.!Pv� t Y 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable lA�j/�.i4 U [I. Environmental Impacts (Explanation of "yes" & "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) YES MAYBE NO L. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes r in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or _ over covering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification _ of any unique geologic or physical features. e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of _ soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure or similar hazards? FOV- 009/CS -1- YES MAYBE NO 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or. temperature or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? �v n b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? k e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? �( f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with - drawls, or through interception of an aquifers by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of _ water otherwise available for public water supplies? to i. Exposure of people or property water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? YES MAYBE NO 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, 6 aquatic plants)? k b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, !' rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants _ into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of agricultural crops? 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish & shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? X c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? ,C,,qe, T'pe& (,jzcfd 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: y a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce._ new light or glare? 8. Land Use. Will the 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 the rate of use of any natural resources? YES MAYBE NO 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemical or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the — location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? De Mast. l t `— �PP 12. Housing. Will the p oposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities or demand for new parking? 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? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? --- b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities & roads? f. other governmental services? h ILI FAA A- YES MAYBE NO 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: ( a. Use of substantial amount of fuel 4) or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon k existing sources or energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? -— c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? - e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or — potential health hazard (excluding mental health'. " 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction 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? ��[[ 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources ` a. Will the proposal result in the alter- ation of or the destruction of a pre- historic or historic archaeological site? b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? 0 YES c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short --term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one in which occurs in a relatively brief definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well in the future). c. Does the project have impacts which are individually .limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant). d. Does the project have environmental _ effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation (Narrative description of environmental impacts.) MAYBE NO x x 12 IV. Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet Xhave been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date Signature of Preparer / n N PROJECT: PUBLIC USE PERMIT 91-010 I. II. * '- GLENDA & MICHAEL BANGERTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS INITIAL STUDY PROJECT DESCRIPTION Construction and operation of a preschool/day-care center and associated parking area on 1.8 acres. The center will care for 230 children (200 children initially and 30 more after Phase Two) and 23 employees, and comprise three phases, the first (classroom and administration buildings) 8,851 square feet, the second (infant and toddler center) (1056 square feet) and the third (Multi -use Facility) 2,000 square feet. Development is located on the south of Sagebrush Avenue Extension, east of Date Palm Drive. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The environmental checklist completed for this project shows the potential environmental impact.of this project MITIGATION MEASURES The environmental checklist identified areas where an environmental impact will take place as a consequence of the proposed development. The following pages discuss these impacts and mitigation measures to be taken to reduce these effects. 1. Earth a. No impact. This is a small project comprising four buildings on a relatively flat site. No major disruption of soil will occur. b. c. e. The proposal will result in very minors disruptions, displacements, compaction, overcovering of the soil and a minor change in the topography and ground surface features. This is due to proposed grading to be done when the implementation of the project is commenced. Unless mitigation measures are taken, once the land surface is disturbed wind erosion might occur. Note should be made that no exceptional topographical features exist on the site. Mitigation measures proposed are as follows: BJ/FORM.002 - 1 - Prior to any grading permits being issued, the Applicant shall submit (to the Planning and Development Department) an interim landscape program for the entire parcel which shall be for the purpose of wind erosion and dust control. The Applicant shall submit a grading plan prior to issuance of building permit with a engineering geological and soils engineering report. Drainage disposal facilities shall be provided on the site as required by the Director of Public Works. d. & f. No impact. There are no unique geologic features on this site. This project is located alongside the La Quinta Storm Channel which is of sufficient size to contain storm water flow. The construction of the day-care center will not harm the functioning of the channel in any way. g. This area is located in Groundshaking Zone IV as identified on the Riverside Seismic 1 Geology information maps. The site, however is not in close proximity to any established fault line, nor does it lie in any zone susceptible to liquefication. There will however be some groundshaking in the event of fault activity, depending upon the magnitude, location and other characteristics of the tremor. The Uniform Building Code provides seismic safety standards for buildings which help mitigate the above impact. 2. Air No impact. This type of land use does not emit any hazardous substance into the air. The attached traffic study also indicates that there will not be excessive traffic created which would produce substantial air emissions. 3. Water a. No impact. See #1 d. and f. b. Development on this site will result in charges in absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface water runoff. BJ/FORM.002 - 2 - Mitigation measures to reduce this impact has been covered under l.b., c. & e. (see previous pages). c. to i. No impact. A limited amount of excess water will be discharged from the site. In accordance with Federal Flood Maps, this project is located in the "C" Flood Zone and therefore is an area of minimal flooding. All stormwater from the site will drain into the adjoining stormwater channel. 4. Plant Life. No impact. No unique plant life presently exists on site. 5. Animal Life a. to d. This site lies within the designated area for Fringe Toed Lizards which are an endangered species. The Coachella valley Fringe Toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan has identified special reserves to be set aside for these reptiles. The developer of this site will pay a mitigation fee to help acquire these special reserves. 6. Noise a. & b. This development will result in an increase in existing noise levels in this area in the following ways: 1) During construction periods. The City Ordinance has set forward work hours for construction crews and adverse noise after hours should therefore be minimal. 2) During normal working hours of the project there is the potential for surrounding residents to be disturbed by the noise of children playing and other normal child care/day-care activities. The La Quinta General Plan states that the Development will be required to do a noise study and take enough mitigation measures to ensure that this project does not produce excessive noise in this area. Note should be made that the project open play area faces the Storm Channel thus reducing the potential amount of noise from this site and the surrounding neighborhood. BJ/FORM.002 - 3 - r 3) Future residents in this development will be exposed to a minor amount of traffic noise from Washington Street. The La Quinta General Plan requires noise studies for all projects within 2,800 feet of the centerline of major streets, which would apply to this project. 7. Light_ and Glare This proposal will introduce an additional illuminated area to the City. However, this project will only function during the day so limited outside lighting will be required. All lighting proposed will be subject to the Outdoor Light Control Ordinance adopted by the City of La Quinta. The project will be conditioned to use low, shielded lighting in the parking area. 8. Land Use. No impact. La Quinta General Plan designates this area as Residential. A child care center is considered a function which takes place in a residential area. The site is zoned R-2 which allows a day-care center with a Public Use Permit. 9. Natural Resources a. This development will increase the rate of use of natural resources. The effect will however be gradual and proportionately very small. 10. Risk of Upset. No impact. No hazardous substances are proposed. 11. Population This project does not permanently house any people. 12. Housing This project will not affect the demand and supply of housing in this area. Existing residents or new residents in independently planned neighborhoods will utilize the child care center. Employees of the center have a wide variety of housing in which to live in the surrounding area (low, medium & high income, rent or owned). 13. Transportation/Circulation a. to d. & f. Please see attached traffic study. Sufficient parking for the project will be provided on -site in accordance with City ordinances. BJ/FORM.002 - 4 - 14. Public Services a. b. e. & f. This development will result in a minor increased demand for public services. The Master Environmental Study for the La Quinta General Plan has addressed these issues. All conditions set out by County & City departments will be complied with. Detailed building plans will be subject to approval by the Fire Marshal. Co�nt� Ken{F Dc�{ (�c+s r1c= t-�lE'Ctz:c^ �� pti(IrCt Cn 15. Energy. No impact. This is a small development and will not be utilized a substantial amount of fuel or energy. 16. Utilities The development will connect to existing utility services and comply with any requirements each utility agency will have. 17. Human Health. No impact. This development does not create any health hazard. No toxic chemicals, etc., are produced. 18. Aesthetics. No impact. This project will be reviewed and approved by the La Quinta Design Review Board ensuring that the resultant structures will be aesthetically of a high standard. The buildings will only be one story high, the same as surrounding residences. 19. Recreation. No impact. This project will not create a demand for recreational activities. 20. Archaeological/Historical This development may result in the alteration of as yet unknown archaeological or historical site, structure, object or building. To mitigate this issue a comprehensive condition regarding archaeological studies is attached to the approval of the project. There is no evidence of this site having any unique ethnic cultural value. IV. CONCLUSION Therefore based on the above information, this project will have no great effect on the environment subject to the discussed mitigation measures. BJ/FORM.002 - 5 - f1b Ft4&W M I N AALY 'iR�Icl C. sT uAy TO: Planning Department FROM. Engineering Department DATE: June 17, 1991 SUBJECT: Public Use Permit 91-010 Prgliminary Traffic Analysis Estimated "Build -Out" Traffic Count On Sagebrush Avenue, 24-hours Desert Club Manor: 125 lots 7.5 trips/day = 937 trips Parc La Quinta: 150 lots x 7.5 trips/day x .5 = 563 tripsl 150 lots x 0.33 x 7.5 trips/day x .5 = 188 trips l Child Care Center: 200 students x 4 trips/student = 800 trips 15 faculty x 4 trips/member = 60 trips Total Trips = 2,548 trips Estimated "Build -Out" Traffic Count on Sagebrush Avenue, Peak Hour Residential Trips: 15 % x 1688 = 253 trips Child Care Center: 200 x 2 = 400 trips 15 x 1 = 15 trips Total Trips = 668 trips Public Use Permit June 17, 1991 Page 2 Directional Split: Eastbound: 70 % x 253 = 177 50 % x 400 = 200 EB Total = 377 Westbound: 30% x 253 = 76 50 % x 400 = 200 100%x15= 15 WB Total = 291 The capacity of Sagebrush is 1700 vehicles per lane per hour. Based on these traffic figures, the east bound lane will be at 22% of capacity and the west bound lane will be at 17% of capacity. However, that is the mid -block capacity of the street. A more appropriate view of traffic and congestion measurement is to analysis the intersection capacity and Level of Service (LOS) at the Sagebrush Avenue/Washington Street intersection, and therefore, the Engineering Department recommends that such an analysis be performed. The City Council has adopted a Level of Service "C" as being an acceptable level of intersection capacity utilization. By comparision, when the State Legislature recently passed legislation regarding congestion management it adopted LOS "D" as being acceptable; LOS D is one level worst on the congestion measurement scale. LOS "C" is defined as utilizing 71 %-80% of an intersection's capacity, while LOS "A" which is the best level of service is defined as utilizing up to 60% of an intersection's capacity. It is recommended that two alternatives be analyzed at the Sagebrush Avenue/ Washington Street intersection. The "build" and "no build" alternatives as they relate to the proposed day care center should be considered. Notes: 1. In general, one-half of all trips generated by any residential subdivision when viewed at the arterial access point will have a left turn movement; either a left turn into or a left turn out of the subdivision. Since the Conditions of Approval for the Parc La Quinta Public Use Permit June 17, 1991 Page 3 subdivision permit no median opening in front of Parc La Quinta's Washington Street access, most of the trips which have the left turn movement that are generated by this subdivision will use Sagebrush Avenue. 2. It is assumed that one-third of the households in Parc La Quinta will use Sagebrush Avenue all the time simply because it is the shortest route into and out of the subdivision for those particular homes. 78-105 CALLE ESTADO — LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 564-2246 FAX (619) 564-5617 June 27, 1991 Mr. Mike Smith Keith Companies 41-865 Boardwalk, Suite 101 Palm Desert, CA 92260 SUBJECT: PUBLIC USE PERMIT 91-010 - TRAFFIC STUDY (PROPOSED DAY CARE CENTER) Dear Mr. Smith: This Department has requested the Developers of the above mentioned project to provide a traffic study of the traffic impacts caused by Public Use Permit 91-010. Keith Companies has been engaged by Glenda & Michael Bangerter (the applicant for PUP 91-010) to do this study. This Department has approved your selection as traffic engineers for this project. When preparing the traffic report please consider the following facts and provide data as listed below. BASE INFORMATION 1. The proposed preschool/day-care center will care for 230 children (200 children initially and 30 more after Phase Two) and 23 employees, and comprise three phases, the first (classroom & administration buildings) 8,851 square feet, the second (infant and toddler center) (1,056 square feet) and the third (multi -use facility) 2,000 square feet. 2. The Washington Street Specific Plan shows that eventually Bottlebrush & Saguaro will become cul-de-sac streets and access will be taken through Sagebrush. 3. Ultimately there will be a median break and traffic light at the intersection of Sagebrush and Washington Street. 4. The streets in Parc La Quinta are private streets. The intersection of Via Bolero & Washington Street (access from Parc La Quinta onto Washington Street) will not have a median break. AVAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 LTRGL.223/CS -1- 5. Tentative Tract 251541 a residential subdivision of 27.5 acres into 98 lots located at the northeast corner of Date Palm & Sagebrush was approved by La Quinta City Council on December 5, 1989. This project will expire December 15, 1991 if no extensions are filed. Tentative Tract 25154, Amendment #1 (75 lots) was recently filed requesting that the above subdivision be included in SP 84-004 (The Pyramids) and access no longer be taken off Sagebrush. 6. This project site (1.8 acres) is zoned R-2 12,000 (1 unit/12,000 square feet) and allows the following uses. A. Single family dwellings B. Two-family dwellings, multiple family dwellings, bungalow courts and apartment houses. C. Boarding, rooming and lodging houses. D. Churches, educational institutions, public libraries, museums and art galleries not operated for compensation or profit. DATA REQUIRED: 1. Analysis of project site access and how this will affect surrounding circulation system. 2. Future traffic volumes over a 24 hour period with the following alternatives: - including the day-care center, - including all other alternative uses that can be located on the project site. The traffic projections sho id include potential traffic from Tentative Tract 25154 and also show an alternative where this traffic is excluded as proposed by Tentative Tract 25154, Amendment #1. 3. Access for emergency vehicles to this project and surrounding neighborhood should be considered. 4. The ability of Sagebrush Avenue and surrounding circulation system to facilitate the traffic projected in item #2 should also be investigated. S. Please also show any street improvements required as a direct result of additional traffic caused by the daycare center. LTRGL.223/CS -2- Please note the traffic study document will have to be available for public viewing before the public hearing takes place for this project. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, IRRYRMAN LANNING & DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR JDH:ccs cc: Glenda & Michael Bangerter Engineering Department LTRGL.223/CS -3- 4::� I L� T4'yl Qgwaj 78-105 CALLE ESTADO -- LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (6191 564-2246 FAX (619) 564-5617 July 26, 1991 Mr. Robert Kahn John Kain & Associates 4101 Birch Street, Suite 100 Newport Beach, CA 92660 SUBJECT: PUBLIC USE PERMIT 91-010 - TRAFFIC STUDY Dear Mr. Kahn: Please provide this Department with the following: 1) An executive summary in the form of a letter addressing the items stated in the attached letter. The major reason for the traffic study is to determine the potential traffic impact of the day-care center on the surrounding neighborhood in particular Sagebrush Avenue and the Washington Street/Sagebrush Avenue intersection. 2) A revised traffic study document taking into account the comments from our Engineering Department. Please contact Steve Speer if you have any questions regarding these comments. Please note that we will need the above by August 2, 1991, or preferably earlier so the information can be adequately reviewed prior to the Planning- Commission hearing on August 13, 1991. If this is not possible, the information should be submitted by August 23rd, so that this project can be scheduled for the September 10, 1991, Planning Commission meeting. LTRGL.00VAW�NG ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - LA1dUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, ?JERRY HERMAN PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Attachment: 1. Letter from the Planning Department outlining the traffic study requirements. 2. Comments on the traffic study by the Engineering Department. cc: Glenda & Michael Bangerter Engineering Mike Smith; Keith Companies JDH:ccs LTRGL.004/BJ -2- Xf QgWr ce4ty� 4 v BILE COPY 78.105 CALLE ESTADO -- LA OUINTX CAUFORNIA 92263 - 1619) 664-2246 FAX (619) 564-5617 June 27, 1991 Mr. Mike Smith Keith Companies 41-865 Boardwalk, Suite 101 Palm Desert, CA 92260 SUBJECT: PUBLIC USE PERMIT 91-010 - TRAFFIC STUDY (PROPOSED DAY CARE CENTER) Dear Mr. Smith: This Department has requested the Developers of the above mentioned project to provide a traffic study of the traffic impacts caused by Public Use Permit 91-010. Keith Companies has been engaged by Glenda & Michael Bangerter (the applicant for PUP 91-010) to do this study. This Department has approved your selection as traffic engineers for this project. When preparing the traffic report please consider the following facts and provide date as listed below. BASE INFORMATION 1. The proposed preschool/day-care center will care for 230 children (200 children initially and 30 more after Phase Two) and 23 employees, and comprise three phases, the first (classroom & administration buildings) 8,851 square feet, the etsecond and the(infant third and (multia-use facility) 21000dler center) 6 square feet) square feet. 2. The Washington Street Specific Plan shows that eventually Bottlebrush & Saguaro will become cul-de-sac streets and access will be taken through Sagebrush. eak and traffic light 3. at thetintersectionhere lof be and a median Washington Street. at the in 4. The streets in Parc La Quinta are private streets. The intersection of Via Bolero & Washington Street (access from Parc La Quinta onto Washington Street) will not have a median break. MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 5. Tentative Tract 25154, a residential subdivision of 27.5 acres into 98 lots located at the northeast corner of Date Palm 6 Sagebrush was approved by La Quinta City Council on December 5, 1989. This project will expire December 15, 1991 if no extensions are filed. Tentative Tract 25154, Amendment #1 (75 lots) was recently filed requesting that the above subdivision be included in SP 84-004 (The Pyramids) and access no longer be taken off Sagebrush. 6. This project site (1.8 acres) is zoned R-2 12,000 (1 unit/12,000 square feet) and allows the following uses. A. Single family dwellings B. Two-family dwellings, multiple family dwellings, bungalow courts and apartment houses. C. Boarding, rooming and lodging houses. D. Churches, educational institutions, public libraries, museums and art galleries not operated for compensation or profit. DATA REQUIRED: 1. Analysis of project site access and how this will affect surrounding circulation system. 2. Future traffic volumes over a 24 hour period with the following alternatives: - including the day-care center, - including all other alternative uses that can be located on the proect site. �- The traffic projections sho ld include potential traffic from Tentative Tract 25154. and also show an alternative where this traffic is excluded as proposed by Tentative Tract 25154, Amendment #1. 3. Access for emergency vehicles to this project and surrounding neighborhood should be considered. 4. The ability of Sagebrush Avenue and surrounding circulation system to facilitate the traffic projected in item #2 should also be investigated. 5. Please also show any street improvements required as a direct result of additional traffic caused by the daycare center. Please note the trafficstudy before he publichearing befo document will have hs available for public place for this project. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, RRY ERMAN CANNING & DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR JDH:ccs cc: Glenda & Michael Bangerter Engineering Department RECEIVED CITY of LA Q U I lei T A - ENGINEERING JUL ?61991 cm a to vUiNTA MEMORANDUM PLANNING &1011MI[IfTDPl TO: Glenda Lainis, Associate Planner FROM: Steve Speer, Assistant City Engineer DATE: July 26, 1991 RE: PUP 91-010, La Quinta Little School I have reviewed the traffic study (dated 7/22/91) prepared by Robert Kahn, John Kain & Associates for the subject development and have the following comments: ? . Page 5 - The study says the proposed project will have an impact on the intersection of Via Bolero and Washington; why? 2. Page 6 - The study says the proposed project will generate 1070 trip ends and I concur with that estimate. However, I am not comfortable with the peak hour estimate for the project traffic. I think the peak is stronger. Perhaps the consultant should show an estimated hourly breakdown of traffic volume generated by the project. 3. Page 8 - I do not agree with recommendation #9. However, I think recommendation #10 is appropriate. 4. Page 8 - I think other recommendations should include sidewalk on the residential side of Sagebrush and restricted parking on the Pare La Quinta side of Sagebrush as well as posted speed limits. 5. Page 24 - I do not agree with the directional split assumed by the consultant. I think the split should be based on two factors: 1) the demographic distribution for the 0-5 year old population, and 2) employment demographics. Additionally, I think the AM and PM directional splits are significantly different. With those factors in mind, I think the directional splits should be reevaluated and the result worked into the AM and PM turning movements. 6. Page 32 - I think there is a typographic error regarding the length of time assumed for future conditions. The future condition should be 20 years not 2 years. 7. Page 33 - The consultant is apparently not aware that the street connection between Pare La Quinta and TT 25154 is for emergency use only and not the general public. As a result the traffic split for access to TT 25154 is incorrect. 8. Pages 40-43 (Tables S,T,U,V) - These tables show left turns being allowed and the intersection of Washington Street and Via Bolero. These tables need to be corrected. Additionally, tables for the PM peak hour should also be included in the study. PUP 91-010 July 26, 1991 Page 2 9. Appendix A - The study should have a LOS/ICU correlation table included for reference. 10. Appendix C - The directional split for Washington Street traffic and the peak hour percentage of ADT used in the ICU calculations is not explained. 11. Executive Summary - An executive summary should be prepared in which the primary concerns of the general public are specifically addressed. Perhaps the summary could be written in a format that provides information that answers known questions asked, or assertions made, by the neighborhood residents . Such as: a. Sagebrush will be too congested. b. The intersection at Sagebrush and Washington will be too congested. gE—vil'i ESTABLISHED IN ATTACHMENT No. 7 COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (619) 398.2651 DIRECTORS OFFICERS TELLISCODEKAS.PRESIDENT THOMASE LEVY. GENERAL MANAGER -CHIEF ENGINEER RAYMOND R 4LMMONDS VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTON SECRETARY JOHN W. McFADDEN OMEN McCOOK ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER DOROTHYM NICHOLS June 13, 1991 REDWINE AND SHERRILL. ATTORNEYS THEODORE J FISH File: 0163.1 Planning Commission JU N 18 19 9l City of La Quinta Post Office Box 1504 4�-j t Or Lh �It11t�T� La Quinta, California 92253 ?; ANNI 'r t ntVLL�rPI�'rw REp1 Gentlemen: Subject: Public Use Permit 91-010, Portion of Southeast Quarter, Section 31, Township 5 South, Range 7 East, San Bernardino Meridian This area is protected from stormwater flows by a system of channels and dikes, and may be considered safe from stormwater flows except in rare instances. This area is designated Zone C on Preliminary Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which are in effect at this time. A portion of this area is adjacent to the right-of-way of the La Quinta Evacuation Channel. We request that the developer be required to install suitable facilities to prohibit access to this right-of-way. The developer shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Coachella Valley Water District prior to any construction within the right-of-way of the La Quinta Evacuation Channel. This includes, but is not limited to, surface improvements, drainage inlets, landscaping, and roadways. The district will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with the current regulations of this district. These regulations provide for the payment of certain fees and charges by the subdivider and said fees and charges are subject to change. Plans for grading, landscaping, and irrigation systems shall be submitted to Coachella Valley Water District for review. This review is for ensuring efficient water management. TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY Planning Commission -2- .Tune 13, 1991 If you have any questions please call Bob Meleg, stormwater engineer, extension 264. Yours very truly, Tom Levy Levy General Manager -Chief Engineer RF:Imf/e6 cc: Don Park Riverside County Department of Public Health 79-733 Country Club Drive, Suite D Bermuda Dunes, California 92201 ATTACHMENT No. 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE a PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370 (714) 657-3183 GLEN J. NEWMAN FIRE CHIEF To: City of La Quinta Planning Division Attn: Glenda Lainis Re: Public Use Permit 91-010 La Quinta Little School Day Care UGN V JUN - 4 199, CITY Ul LA yu1NTA 'IANNINR R DEVELOWNTDEPT June 4, 1991 With respect to the condition of approval regarding the above referenced Public Use Permit, the Fire Department requires the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with La Quinta Municipal Code and/or recognized fire protection standards: 1. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 1500 gpm for a 2 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. Fire flow is based upon the building being equipped with automatic fire sprinklers. 2. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super hydrant(s) (6" x 4" x 21" x 2}") located not less than 25' nor more than 165' from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways. 3. Prior to issuance of building permit applicant/developer shall furnish one blueline copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review/approva: 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." The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and operatiol prior to the start of construction. 4. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). System plans must be submitted with a plan check/inspection fee to the Fire Department for review. A statement that the building(s) will be automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the building plans. 5. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. PLAN^ING DIVISION C1 NDIO OFFICE ❑ 7EMECUI.A OFFICE ?9-733 Country Club Drive, Suite F, Indio, CA 92201 41002 County Center Drive, Suite 225, Temecula, CA 92390 (619) 342MM a FAX (619) 775.2072 C] RIVERSIDE OFFICE (714) 694-5070 a FAX (714) 694-5076 3760 12th Street, Riverside, CA 92501 (714) 275-4777 0 FAX (714) 369-7451 printed on recycled paper City of La Quinta - Planning Div. Re: PUP 91-010 La Quinta Little School Day Care 6/4/91 Page 2. 6. Comply with Title 19 of the California Administrative Code. 7. Install Panic Hardware and Exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. 8. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes. 9. Install a fire alarm system per NFPA 71 and 72. 10. This project may require licensing and/or review by State agencies. Applicant should prepare a letter of intent detailing his proposed usage to facilitate case review. Contact should be made with the Office of the State Fire Marshal (818-960-6441) for an opinion and a classification of occupancy type. This information and a copy of the letter of intent should be submitted to the Fire Department so that proper requirements may be specified during the review process. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted. All questio-is regarding the meaning of these conditions should be referred to the Fire Department Planning & Engineering Staff at (619) 342-8886. Sincerely, RAY REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner By Tom Hutchison Fire Safety Specialist to cc: B7 HVERSIDE COUNTY ,OIS BYRD, SHERIFF June 25, 1991 Ms. Glenda Lanis City of La Quinta Planning Department 78-105 Calle Estado La Quinta, California 92253 RE: PUP 91-010 Dear Ms. Lanis: ATTACHMENT No. 9 Sheriff W - 82-695 DR. CARREON BLVD. • INDIO, CA 92201 • (619) 342-899 1� p vGf� 4di �- JUN 2 F-, .- CITY a � ,,,,MTA ;?4Ar%TDEPT• I have reviewed the use permit application for the La Quinta Little School. I have no objection to the concept or its proposed location. I would appreciate the opportunity to review construction plans as they develop. This will be done with a view toward child safety enhancement factors that may be implemented through design review. Sincerely, COIS BYRD, SHERIFF Ronald F. Dye, Lieutenant Indio Station CB:RD:cm PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PUBLIC USE PERMIT 91-010 TO ALLOW THE CREATION OF A PRESCHOOL/CHILD CARE CENTER ON A 1.8 ACRE SITE CASE NO. PUP 91-010 - MICHAEL & GLENDA BANGERTER (LA QUINTA LITTLE SCHOOL) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, did, on the 9th day of July, 1991, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing and continued hearings on July 23, and August 13, 1991, to consider the request of Glenda & Michael Bangerter to build a preschool/child care center generally located on the south side of Sagebrush Avenue extension east side of Date Palm Drive, more particularly described as: PARCELS 3 AND 4 TOGETHER WITH LETTERED LOT "C" OF PARCEL MAP 20862, RECORDED IN BOOK 133 PAGES 17 AND 18 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID RIVERSIDE COUNTY WHEREAS, said Public Use Permit has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (County of Riverside, Resolution No. 82-213, adopted by reference in City of La Quinta Ordinance No. 5), in that the Planning Director has determined after initial study that the preschool/child care center will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and, WHEREAS, mitigation of various physical impacts have been identified and incorporated into the approval conditions for Public Use Permit 91-010, thereby requiring that monitoring of those mitigation measures be undertaken to assure compliance with them; and, WHEREAS, at said public hearing and upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find that the following facts exist to justify this approval of said Public Use Permit: 1. That Public Use Permit 91-010, as conditionally approved, is generally consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan for land use density, unit type, circulation requirements, R-2 Zoning District development standards, and design requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. RESOPC.022/CS -1 2. That the subject site is fairly level with the east being the lowest part of the site. The proposed circulation design and building layout, as conditioned, are, therefore, suitable for development. 3. That the proposed buildings, as conditionally approved, will be developed with adequate waste systems and water, and therefore, are not likely to cause serious public health problems. 4. That the site layout of Public Use Permit 91-010 will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through the project, since alternate easements for access and for use have been provided that are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public. 5. That the proposed Public Use Permit 91-010, as conditioned, provides for adequate maintenance of the landscape common areas. 6. That the proposed Public Use Permit 91-010, as conditioned, provides for storm water to be channeled into the adjoining CVWD storm water channel, and noise mitigation. 7. That the development of Public Use Permit 91-010, as conditioned, will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. 8. That the traffic study done for this project concluded that this project will not cause an excessive amount of traffic in the surrounding area. 9. That general impacts from the proposed day care center were considered within the MEA prepared and adopted in conjunction with the La Quinta General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of Environmental Assessment 91-203, relative to the environmental concerns of this Public Use Permit; 3. That the Planning Commission does hereby approve the subject Public Use Permit 91-010 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. RESOPC.022/CS -2 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 13th day of August, 1991 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: KATIE BARROWS, Chairwoman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 91- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED PUBLIC USE PERMIT 91-010; GLENDA & MICHAEL BANGERTER AUGUST 13, 1991 GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Development of the site shall comply with approved Exhibits as contained in the Planning Department's file for Public use Permit No. 91-010 and the following conditions which shall take precedence in the event of any conflict with these exhibits. 2. Public Use Permit 91-010 shall comply with the requirements and standards of the State Subdivision Map Act and the City of La Quinta Land Division and Zoning Ordinance, unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. 3. This approval shall be used within two (2) years after final approval. Otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. The term "use" shall mean the beginning of substantial construction of permanent buildings (not including grading) authorized by this permit, which construction shall thereafter be pursued diligently to completion. Prior to expiration of the permit, the Applicant may apply to the Planning & Development Department for an extension of time in which to use the permit, with the total time of approval not to exceed a period of three (3) years. 4. Construction of the future buildings and facilities authorized under this permit shall begin within five years after the final approval by the La Quinta City Council, which construction shall thereafter be pursued diligently to completion; otherwise, approval of those unobstructed or uncompleted portions of the development authorized under Public Use Permit 91-010 shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. Application for reapproval can be made to the Planning & Development Department. 5. The City shall retain a qualified archaeologist, with the Developer to pay costs, to prepare a mitigation and monitoring plan for artifact location and recovery. Prior archaeological studies for this site as well as other unrecorded information shall be analyzed prior to the preparation of the plan. At a minimum, the plan shall: (1) identify the means for digging test pits; and (2) provide for further testing if the preliminary results show significant material are present. The final plan shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for final review and approval. ~%T,trnnvr ni o lrC -1- Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall have retained a qualified cultural resources management firm and completed the testing and data recovery as noted in the plan. The management firm shall monitor the grading activity as required by the plan or testing results. A list of the qualified archaeological monitor(s), cultural resources management firm employees, and any assistant(s)/representative(s), shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department. The list shall provide the current address and phone number for each monitor. The designated monitors may be changed from time to time, but no such change shall be effective unless served by registered or certified mail on the Planning and Development Department. The designated monitors or their authorized representatives shall have the authority to temporarily diver, redirect, or halt grading activity to allow recovery of resources. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains, there shall be no further grading, excavation, or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until appropriate mitigation measures are completed. Upon completion of the data recovery, the Developer shall cause three copies of the final report containing the data analyses to be prepared and published and submitted to the Planning and Development Department. 6. A noise study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer, to be submitted to the Planning & Development Department for review and approval prior to building permit issuance. The study shall concentrate on noise impacts from this project, particularly noise from the outdoor play areas on surrounding areas and on this project from perimeter arterial streets, and recommend alternative mitigation techniques. Recommendations of the study shall be incorporated into the project layout. The study shall consider use of building setbacks, engineering design, building orientation, noise barriers (berming, walls, and landscaping, etc.), and other noise retention techniques. 7. Prior to grading permit issuance, the Applicant shall pay the required mitigation fees for the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard Habitat Conversion Program, as adopted by the City, in the amount of $600 per acre of disturbed land. nnATNnDVT_ n l Q lrq -2- 8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the Applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: o City Fire Marshall o City of La Quinta Public Works Department o Planning & Development Department o Coachella Valley Water District o Desert Sands Unified School District o Imperial Irrigation District o Riverside County Office of Education Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above -mentioned agencies shall be presented to the Building and Safety Department at the time of the application for a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 9. 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. 10. The appropriate.Planning approval shall be secured prior to establishing any signs other that the sign approved as part of the Public Use Permit. 11. Prior to the 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 91-203 and Public Use Permit 91-010 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 91-203 and Public Use Permit 91-010, 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 91-203 and Public Use Permit 91-010. The Planning and Development Director may require inspection or other monitoring to assure such compliance. nnAtADDVT. n10/f C -3- BUILDING DESIGN 12. The proposed building complex shall comply with all the R-2 zoning requirements, including parking requirements and setback restrictions. 13. Approval plans for Phase 2 & 3 shall follow the public use permit approval procedure. Prior to the submittal of any application for building permits for Phase 2 & 3 construction, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning and Development Department, the following plans: o Floor and elevation plans of the structures o Site plan delineating locations of the building(s), walkways, walls, etc. o Landscaping and irrigation plan delineating plant type, size, spacing and location. o Exterior lighting plan showingthe type and location of all exterior lights. Based upon this review, additional parking may be required as a condition for issuance of a building permit. WALLS FENCING SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING 14. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning and Development Department an interim landscape program for the entire parcel, which shall be for the purpose of wind erosion and dust control. The land owner shall institute blowsand and dust control measures during the grading and site development. These shall include, but not be limited to: a. The use of irrigation during any construction activity. b. Planting of cover crop or vegetation upon previously graded but undeveloped portions of the site. C. Provisions of wind breaks or wind rows, fencing, and/or landscaping to reduce the effects upon adjacent properties and property owners. The land owner shall comply with requirements of the Directors of Public Works and Planning and Development. All construction and graded areas shall be watered at least twice daily while being used to prevent the emission of dust and blowsand. 15. Prior to building permit issuance, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for review and approval by the Design Review Board final plan (or plans) showing the following: a. Landscaping, including plant types, sizes, spacing, location, and irrigation system for all retention basin, landscape buffer, and entry areas. Desert or native plant species and drought resistant planting material shall be incorporated into the landscape plan. Lawn use shall be minimized and not used adjacent to curb. No spray heads shall be used adjacent to curb. Areas for future Phases 2 & 3 shall be planted with wildflowers or other appropriate cover. b. Location and design detail of any proposed and/or required wall and meandering sidewalk. Plans to include 3 1/2 foot high decorative masonry wall along Date Palm Drive to screen parking lot surface from street. C. Exterior lighting plan, emphasizing minimization of light glare impacts to surrounding properties. The lawn area of the project adjacent to streets shall be reduced subject to review by the Planning and Development Department. 16. The approved landscaping and improvements shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy and viable condition for the life of the project. 17. Those portions of the site designated for future buildings shall be planted with a perennial wildflower mix which shall be maintained in a viable condition until such time that construction occurs. 18. The Applicant shall comply with the La Quinta Outdoor Light Control Ordinance. Parking lot and exterior walkway lights shall be no higher than 6 feet, shielded & pointed away from the residential areas to the west. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 19. The applicant shall comply with all the requirements of the City Fire Marshal as stated in the memo dated June 4, 1991, including the following: a. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 1500 gpm for a 2 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. Fire flow is based upon building begin equipped with automatic fire sprinklers. b. The required fire flow shall be available from Super hydrant(s) (6" x 4" x 2 1/2" x 2 1/211) located not less than 25' r more emthan 1651ed from any portion of the building(s) as ong approved vehicular travelways. C. Prior to issuance of building permit 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. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and operational prior to the start of construction. d. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13. The post indicator valve and fire Department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). System plans must be submitted with a plan check/inspection fee to the Fire Department for review. A statement that the building(s) will be automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the building plans. e. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2AIOBC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. f. Comply with Title 19 of the California Administrative Code. g. Install Panic Hardware and Exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. h. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained a fire lanes. i. Install a Fire Alarm System per NFPA 71 & 72. � f%wfanMYT. n i Q irq - 6 J. This project may require licensing and/or review by State agencies. Applicant should prepare a letter of intent detailing his proposed usage to facilitate case review. Contact should be made with the Office of the State Fire Marshal (818-960-6441) for an opinion and a classification of occupancy type. This information and a copy of the letter of intent should be submitted to the Fire Department so that proper requirements may be specified during the review process. 20. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District including the construction of a fence along the La Quinta Storm Channel. 21. The trash enclosure shall be located in accordance with Waste Management of the Desert, Engineering, and Planning & Development Department requirements. The trash enclosure shall be large enough to accommodate both refuse and recycling bins. ENGINEERING CONDITIONS 22. The Applicant shall construct off-street parking lot improvements in accordance with the La Quinta Municipal Code. 23. The Applicant shall landscape and maintain the parkway area behind the curbs in accordance with plans approved by the Planning Director and Public Works Director. 24. The Applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed grading, landscaping and irrigation plans to the Coachella Valley Water District for review and comment with respect to the District's Water Management Program. 25. The Applicant shall dedicated the northerly 30 feet of the site to the City of public right-of-way, as required by the City Engineer for the extension of Sagebrush Avenue into TT 25154, unless the access route to Tentative Tract 25154 is revised and the map is recorded accordingly. In lieu of recordation of Tract 25154 with a revised access scenario, a waiver of access rights to Sagebrush Avenue from the owner of said land may be provided along with an access easement across the land contiguous to the northerly or easterly boundary of Tentative Tract 25154. 26. If the northerly 30 feet of the site is not needed for access to Tentative Tract 25154, the Applicant shall obtain an extinguishment of the road easements reserved by the Desert Club and Harvey Karp across the site, or provide a new access easement through the site to the easement owners. The new easement, if provided, shall geometrically conform to on -site improvements that provide vehicular access. rnNAPRVT. - 019 /CS -7 The Applicant shall obtain extinguishments of the public utility and pipe line easements or refrain from installing any structure within the easement that would prevent reasonable use of the easement by the easement owner. The Applicant shall obtain, if required by the City Engineer, a consent letter from the easement owner to install a structure in the easement if in the event the structure appears to prevent reasonable use of the easement by the easement owner. 27. The Applicant shall have street improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer. Street improvements shall be designed and constructed as required by these conditions of approval, the La Quinta Municipal Code and adopted Standard Drawings, and City Engineer and shall include all appurtenant components required by same, except mid -block street lighting, such as but not limited to traffic signs and channelization markings, street name signs, sidewalks, and raised medians where required by the City's General Plan. Street design shall take into account the soil strength, anticipated traffic loading, and design life. The minimum structural section for residential streets shall be 3" AC over 4" Class 2 Base. Miscellaneous incidental improvements and enhancements to existing improvements where joined by the newly required improvements shall be designed and constructed as required by the City Engineer to assure the new and existing improvements are appropriately integrated to provide a finished product that conforms with City standards and practices. This includes tapered off-street transitions that extend beyond sit boundaries and join the widened and unwidened street sections. The following specific street widths shall be constructed to conform with the General Plan street type noted therewith: a) Date Palm Drive (portion contiguous to site): 20-foot wide half width Local Street. b. Sagebrush Avenue (knuckle at intersection of Date Palm Drive): outer curb and half -width pavement for Local Street. 28. Applicant shall obtain an irrevocable encroachment permit from Coachella Valley Water District for the hammerhead turnaround area located in the La Quinta Evacuation Channel service road area. 29. The site grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. 30. The site shall be graded in a manner that the building pad elevations are less than three feet above the Date Palm Drive top of curb. 31. The site and street improvement shall be graded to drain into the La Quinta Evacuation Channel. Applicant shall install outfall structure(s) to channel in accordance with Coachella Valley Water District requirements. 32. The Applicant shall retain a California registered civil engineer, or designate one who is on the Applicant's staff, to exercise sufficient supervision and quality control during construction of the site grading and improvements to insure compliance with the plans, specifications, applicable codes, and ordinances. The engineer retained or designated by the applicant and charged with the compliance responsibilities shall make the following certifications upon completion of construction: a-) All grading and improvements were properly monitored by qualified personnel during construction for compliance with the plans, specifications, applicable codes, and ordinances and thereby certify the grading to be in full compliance with those documents. b) The finished elevations conform with the approved grading plans. 33. A thorough preliminary engineering, geological, and soils engineering investigation shall be conducted with a report submitted for review along with grading plan. The report recommendations shall be incorporated into the grading plan design prior to grading plan approval. The soils engineer and/or the engineering geologist must certify to the adequacy of the grading plan. 34. All proposed electric power lines adjacent to the proposed site or on -site shall be installed in underground facilities. 35. All underground utilities shall be installed, with trenches compacted to City standards, prior to construction of any street improvements. A soil engineer retained by the Applicant shall proved certified reports of soil compaction tests for review by the City Engineer. 36. The Applicant shall pay all fees charged by the City as required for processing, plan checking and construction inspection. The fee amount(s) shall be those which are in effect at the time the work is undertaken and accomplished by the City. 37. An encroachment permit for work in any abutting local jurisdiction shall be secured prior to constructing or joining improvements. CONAPRVL.019/CS -9- 38. The Applicant shall construct or enter into a secured agreement to construct the street improvement prior to issuance of a grading permit. 39. The Applicant shall pay a proportional share of the cost to design and install the traffic signal proposed at Sagebrush Avenue and Washington Street. The proportional share shall be commensurate with the estimated traffic generated by the proposed development and the estimated traffic generated by the surrounding neighborhood. 40. The following recommendations regarding on -site circulation from the traffic study conducted by Robert Kahn, John Kain & Associates shall be implemented: a) Eliminate parking• spaces in front of northern driveway. b) Designate 45 degree parking spaces located adjacent to Administration Building as short term parking. c) Eliminate 3 parking spaces in southwest corner of project to prevent conflict with southern driveway. d. Stop signs should be constructed within the site at exit points to control traffic. Internal traffic signing/striping should be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project. e) Sight distance at each intersection should be reviewed with respect to standard City of La Quinta sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape and street improvement plans. f) Curb -return type driveways should be constructed at each of the access points on Date Palm Drive to facilitate ingress/egress to the site. g) Along Sagebrush Avenue, the City may consider constructing sidewalks on the residential side, restricting parking along the north side and posting appropriate speed limits. ....uTrnnvr nt o /r•c -10- ATTACHMENT No, 5 PUP 91-010 2TTERS LEL OPPOSING � lill 111111o, �1111111111 11111111 1 RECEIVED � L il, JUL 2 2 100' CITY 0- LIA vumTA PiAUNG & D51SMEN TDfM. HAND -DELIVERED 7/22/91 July 19, 1991 La Quinta Planning Commission City of La Quinta Planning and Development Department 78-105 Cal.le Estado La Quinta, California 92253 RE: Public Use Permit 91-010 Dear Planning Commission Members: As residents of 78-595 Bottlebrush Drive in La Quinta, we feel compelled to reiterate our opposition to the proposed day-care facility in our neighborhood. If the traffic study that was requested by the Planning Commission comes back in favor of the applicant, we ask that the City of La Quinta hire an independent contractor to review the study for accuracies and objectivity. This venture should be viewed by the Planning Commission as a profitable commercial endeavor and not as a day-care facility. Affordable day-care is needed, but NOT in an area where it will totally disrupt an otherwise quiet residential neighborhood. Hopefully, you as Planning Commission members are considering the safety of the neighborhood children as cars speed up and down our streets. We are proud to say we are residents of La Quinta and love our neighborhood. Please understand our disappointment if this project is approved in its present location. Please document our written comments. Thank you for yourzi RMtdera io this matter. Mark andurie it d 78-595 rush Drive La Quinta, California 92253 Lk L Q IRECEFM - -- - - -- - --- - -- - --- - -- - - - ------------- ------ - ---- - ---- ,SUN 19 7991 C11 Y Ur LA YUTA A. J. Aara'go s 'f-hNNmr, 8 DEVEIOPMIENT 7354o 3ottleorush wive La winta, J3liforni4 )2?53-2401 June 18, 1991 To: The Ladies 3c gentlemen of the La luinta City wuncil and Flunine ;ommission, sent for consideration at meeting of each division. A pending application for the licensing and approval of a 200 gild day, care center is in motion. The Desert Club Manor, Tract-1, where my family and home is situated since July, 1986. In reference to this Tract, I sha.11 refer to it as "DOM Tract-111. about 1 year ago, Pare La Qui.nta was developed near 111i Tract-1.It is one of the .Most unique and beautiful in our area, yet it provided so -is problems in sump and water drainage. In late 1989 the surrounding home- owners of this sump, had an a ai cable meeting with Mr. Pena, who agreed to imrove its cosmetics which he did . This was well done, considering financial and rational alternatives to remedy it. Situations wiU occur in innovative or experimental projects. So be it for now. This preceding episode should alert each of you, as a strong signal of consequences that :nay occur again if this proposed application is ap- proved, as aescribed in the above first paragraph of t.is letter. Consider the increase of over 900 to 1,000 car traffic -flow, its noise, and the environmental impact it will impose upon III Tract-1 and w its Families of .gay dorkers, it children and other conventional current traf- fic, with extremel,r li-mited egress and ingress daily. Xl-ae-sacs on the Streets of 3ottlebrush & Saguaro will increase the intensity and ris:: '.o everyone zoin€; or coming. What about fires? Or aedical or other emer^en:- cies? yid it ever occur to whoever proposed this site applied for, if it Was referred by any of your croup, that 2 C Tract-1 children could and should be provided a snail parrs or recreational facility, as nsW other children now enjoy, instead of a " death trap? ?ermit me one more Quest- ion. You are not obligated to answer it, but think hard over it. Mould anrT of you with growing families with children and day workers, WO-Zii' want to raise your families and Ghl.laren in a situation. like D1.1 Tract-1 ? If this application was approved? Think about this for your families, not DC:I Tract-1 fa-ai.lies, BUT YOUR3 I In your hearts, you know the answer. If these risks are not carefully studied, and If it so apuroved, you will exoress contempt for the homeowners of DC_•I Tract-1, TO 1C30:SODA'I S several hundred "outside families --Iiying elsewhere" to enjoy your decision at the cost of victims ono new ive and pay their taxes there, and whose peace safety and security is ignored. Let ne tell .you about their faith az:d trist in you, and why their rights should s,,mercedepressure, prestige_ or poorer. 1. continued on next page I to members of the city Council of La Qainta & to sabers of Planning QDM% page - 2 -, continued - - - Few persons in Joachel aVal.ley come up in the world the FAA31 WAY. I am a Senior and aooreciate coming from an i%nigrant family. To yield to esteem, honor and justice is sometimes painful but always rewarding. The humble citizens of Da4 Tract-1 are proud and ;rind. They are not at this time an Associ4tion with unlimited aflpluence, prestige or total re3pect. Rake a note of the fact that D'11i Tract-1 is not " Dog Patch." We have some hones of being Organized after the ..ity of La Quintacomaletes its plan of Sewer, curb and street improve -cents. It is also evident that = Tract-1 will be almost last in line to enjoy these advantages. ::ots that we have up to now taken your schedules with respect. Marvin new homes decorate our streets and will continue unless another controversial issue occurs to any potential we have or are entitled to. Finally as I stated on the lower half of page #1, those of you who have no objections to our statements and desire, look into all aspects of our dil- e.•ina, investigate without prejudice all the facts, and most import$nt of all, move in DOM Tract- 1, not physically but assumi.ngly , then treat this decision as it applied to you and your aiily and children. If you do this, we will be satisfied that our confidence and faith in you continue. With candor and resoect to each of you, I remain.. Sincerely yours, w.J rago s AAy to amity 7,ouncil Of La Qui.nta /q Mayor John ?ena ropy to Planning Director of La wr irta / L . Jerry Herman P.3. If anyone desires to discuss this with our group, please contact the undersigned of letter at 619) 564-4511. MADa TtfiF- c c t F+ Cu ii"VA3 AD f % CoY C- Cr PL 7/ / LA—C�11TNTA . 7-08-91 TY "F 1.,_.',r. FLi_N jTN,3 :.iiT�,� - 0':j9 (_ ALETti", LA -,.a'. Tc]Tii,. A.9 F : RFCFOII U JUL 1 1 foot 01 V ut- LA yuiNTA )LANNINr 9 DEVELOPWNT OEPT H:7FS'Lr -- TL'.,F.T T tiE 7J- '4Z ZAAi . LA- i11NTA.CA.���5: PH . 619-5644K2, EIM AF'FLI ;Aiv'T : a:=iiAtL r A -A,NC :ER �C.ATIJ.; �37 TH �I._ _ ",H AVE . EXTEiv ,IG:, . EA6T GF DA."E X D. . r '_'E_:T r:�L .EFA:IUN OF A _AiI F.E Y� . A: E L'E: _ `� - f:_ =.:E _cIE,LI.7 CF A DAYCA: r �'v. TEF. u E DO N,,,T L r.F.T :. IL E-N .. AL AF,EA I A .'1; 7. : Li _ HIS T13 12. 3__ ..,AL AT a...._ _.. _�% _�vE <. E N TF,E' IIJHEGc,:i3� A 2) I do not believe that there is a need for a day care center in this immediate area. a) There is a day care center about 500 yards away that is near completion (YMCA at La Quinta Middle School). It is more conveniently located and readily accessible to both parents and emergency personnel. b) A stronger need for a day care center lies in the upper cove area. There also appears to be land more suitable for this purpose. c) The neighborhood is strongly opposed to this project with over 90% of the homeowners and property owners voicing opposition to the project. The neighborhood has worked extremely hard at gaining approval to close Saguaro and Bottlebrush so that we may have a quiet and safe environment to live and raise our families. This location is an extremely poor choice for a day care center for the above reasons. I do understand and agree with the need for a day care center in L.a ®uinta. But this is a business and should be located in a business area and not in the middle of a residential area. Sincerely, Steven E. Sanche Steven E. Sanchez 78740 Saguaro Rd. La Quinta, CA. 92253 City of La Quinta Planning and Development 78105 Calle Estado La Quinta, CA. 92253 This letter is in reference to the proposed child care center (La Quinta Little School) at 49500 Date Palm in the Desert Club Manor residential housing tract. I have a 3 year old daughter and know the need for child care in La Quinta. I believe this is an important issue that needs to be addressed. I also believe the needs of the residents of the immediate area should be considered. As a parent,homeowner and police officer I am opposed to the installation and operation of this school for the following reasons: 1) I do not feel that a 200+ child day care center in the back of a residential area is a sound planning decision. a) There will be only one access road in to the day care center (Sagebrush). Bottlebrush and Saguaro will be blocked off as agreed by the planning commission. Emergency response times for ambulances, fire and police personnel can be tragically lengthened due to moving vans, construction vehicles, traffic collisions or road work. b) The increase of traffic on Sagebrush of only 5%, as Ms. Bangerter's letter states, is incorrect. With an enrollment of 200 children and a staff of 18 (employee parking spaces) the influx of vehicles on this small residential street of less than 10 houses will be considerably more than 6%. A more accurate percentile would be 1000%. c) I have seen the Washington Street expansion plan and the medium turnout for the south bound traffic turning onto Sagebrush. This turnout will accommodate only 3-4 vehicles. During the morning and evening traffic hours this poses a significant chance for a traffic collision. rL 7 / PC 3// J L41 �, 7, 1 ri,, i 3s,, Lin: RECEMU JUL OV ioaq CITY Ur LA VUINTA OLANNING & DLII� ?mEW ofp7. re li-- nrI* z pr Dpci- le e art, naiclr ity of 7 1 ri'4a e f E- ef!tra-:ccc-, a!I.—I�ftil-.`,--, -7— Tre a ri ri, &vs Qe� volume ,,F- rF!, v,,tri I�ie 1 .4 + + er ?uly 2, 1991 La Quinta Planning Commission city of La Quinta Planning and Development Department 78-105 Calle Estado La Quinta, California 92253 RE: Public Use Permit 91-010 )ear Planning Commission Members: ks residents of 78-595 Bottlebrush Drive effected by the proposed day-care center to this facility in our neighborhood for dECLIV,,;-� t, JUL 08 19-+, VI 1 V ur 1-h VU►MTA PIANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEP1. in La Quinta, we would be directly on Date Palm Drive. We are opposed the following reasons: L) Increased traffic through the residential streets. Approximately a ainimum of 1000 additional cars per day based on the information provided by the applicant. Currently the normal traffic load is approximately 212 tehicles per day (based on 53 houses at an average of 2 cars per house making a trips daily on Sagebrush, Saguaro and Bottlebrush). The additional use of :he streets by non-residential vehicles poses a serious threat to the safety )f our children who play along these streets. ?) The noise due to traffic during the "peak" morning and evening hours of crop -off and pick-up of children. Also additional pollution will undoubtedly )e generated by the additional vehicle traffic. t) According to the new City Plan, the area is zoned as residential. Why 7ould the City of La Quinta even consider allowing the area to be used for a )rofit-making commercial endeavor? E) When Bottlebrush Drive and Saguaro become cul-de-sacs, as stated in the caster Plan, Sagebrush Street will become the main ingress and egress to the :acility. one street is inadequate for the amount of traffic that will be [enerated. le have a small child who will be in need of a day-care facility such as the 'MCA at the La Quinta school area which is in a proper location. There seems .o be appropriate non-residential acreage available in La Quinta for the :onstruction of a day-care facility. )lease document o -comments. cer [ark nd Laurie Skochil '8-595 Bottlebrush Drive ,a Quinta, California 92253 Carla Klein and Curtis Klein 78-585 Sagebrush St. La Quints, CA 92253 To: La Quanta City Planning Dept. La Quanta, CA Proposed Day Care Center Sagebrush and Date Palm Streets RECEt u JUL n 5 1g91 CI1 V yr L , uUjNTA PLANNING & QEVaO&ERT OM. Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning Deve;,_'~,ment Dept.: We respectfully submit our request to have the as,ove- re ferenced Day Care Center and our c':::icerns reqai d i -... : ;n i s Prcvosa1 added to the Agend.a for the ,ily y, i9'.. ---..era: mee_anQ. Our orimary c­icerns are as foll(Dws: i) 'iR-AFF A capacity of -w,- hundred -plus chilaren in -..- prOp0_--'el: C.entei- meaIlS an ]ncrea::'=d ti'atfE- lc fi!w bfo '.U0 AM o2 a�,tprc,:.. .221- cai _ IN and ars _)UT, a-! racin agairlE'~ the Add to this. `_aff for `-le Centel-. 1-- r11VFi'Ies of focri a:id Gueration :pt l ies, vai 17Us 0r d'eliv-ries - aQ31n with _::edules to }-.eep - a-,d Vou na.'= well over 500 veh r.les racing up ana d--wn Sagebrush S_i�e' bef ;re A.Y. kith a ::Pa"ly F• 1-. 1 -1cf. a. -I ac'a:n :r. `he late On thi_ _ -fee*_ ar-' a_-7ed w:.-- wi l to schecl and the bus-strp, at the sue.:.._ tame as cn _ems_ traffic fi­nw. Since this street nc,- c,,7)sted fci sr� ilmit, the evei-ace speed driven on it ;_thou,?-1 it is two e-:ti-a-lone blocks .n len(_th) is i:. excess f= T:... 71-1Fi c- =1 = aire3,_'y ri:d.`}c- r .' _ - acc._i �1.. one ca.,: pa -.-Kea n 5d 1'_, i u .. has an:t .er tiC'rap'•?,_. by Ive e from these Etre_:ts down Sagebrus:, Street. Ais.,. Farc Ouinta will score ( up, _'sedly) have c,niy right turn i.i _I out cf tlte_r developrient, and willth--ref:i-e he Lei ced tr �jgebrus: St. t._, make left tul - in '�r 2ut. Betw en three pr,:,pi-,sed changes. it a.das an unn•aI:_)ered all.c'unt r' traffic_ to one Small street. Letter to La Quinta Planning Dev. Dept. i3age 2 J :1`1'!I��'=T+NIETITR: " 7',P.r'd ;. Since the -�i a aTa � �t`e2 n�_: i _r ~'-..._ si s were dra.3ti-ally changed at the t= .e Parc :.a Quin --a was developed, Street floods each r i:: e at ra ; ris . As much as a foot and a half of water -as on the street, trappdrig hoc:= owners on the wes'er ly ena. In the early spring of i991. rainwater backed-_p on 7 lots. so deer the children were swimming in the street. There is no effective drainage for this water, and that particular flood was not evaporatr-d out of our street, driveways and yafas until :,ing aft:r a swamp -like condition had developed. The prcposed :.gay Ca. e Center has also _een plane-d wit,-. an e:evat:on much ':,gher than the existing lots an h(mes. This will only add to the drainage problem. and wits. Sageb::Sh St. e only means c�)`_ entrance and exit, w::l mean closure for the Center, and %,..ich ve :cu1ar dama,e. as well as t_in;e loss at school and at work, for the residents of both DeveicNments -r.•✓o I ved . Anr_,the enviror.m=-.`al concern :s the are.at:y ...-ceased poi:utant emiss:i -.s fr,Dm such heavy tr=_ f:c. The %�crr wall._ or. t_Y e Southprr. e..d of Parc La (-,u,nt,z r.3Fe an �_`fect_4 _ tea: i e:-:rl.xusr_ fumes and n- ase. Small cl _dren. ant the c:l,ieriy - both of whom we have in year-- Duna residence - are ex'_reme ly suscep- :>_ : F to these oo. i uta-._s . we -:3 : i::e to eay a : ae a _ not a ; _ n t a _ay 'a` e we ryu�st r. t..= T. �a _ _r �.r., rr 3rest-n- . _SFr' nQ the n,=ber = f 1 =.. ` l ert:7urrer.- bE in3 built ir, 'has area. We ARE oppoti­d to a Cen`er ir. a '_'esidE•::'-a: area, with ai: ~he inevitable _=rGbleni_ :i ted :.~Jove. and many, riany more. -7- -7 T ate, o ose +o +he- �P buy �di �, a �a a u; .n �c L ► tf l e g home G} `79 (P35 50. uo,ro e have ,bo -t h v�or K ed har� anc� �r,ad Q Qn SGcri� 1C2s ih ordef �o �►Ue r� y e i h bo � h oo d j n +�\s Po mk�y Or i end e n h e v e r t-h"Y) +h cki qo �h�s G -t fi ra c 4 ed u s y ne�► h hocx� C v 1 s e -t f -i n) w 11 y 5 he School 7 also LooukA3 SIcL Gam, t-'ifs ra8 e 4-eac ker a tin a �er,cher1 —1 Kno0 that I a /6 0 ' love 1pa4 le rl c e 1 and Kr) 0u) how oLkn ch',ldr�en - �ecau5e. Y ham} +� k5 c cal live ve +0 lino o w crecjen+i a.i5 Glre, 0na/ rn rs. anr, q u� P S S �n o ►�� ec� e ip ske has fie f o r un a h iLL Cl e -rA-ts sckwl 1 S +b 6u,( Cl\ d(gan, 1, e 4 o rya ke sure- f�a f I t 1+ S aoir�3 �O be bui 1 f i f will be run by 5orneone W, )b is �ro.'kne4 fO JO -the Jv b prope r �- .En Would s,►�,ply J �e - -O s } a. fe CLYVN -Co r day care ,bui nd f of my Ghtl d re n s aY\d -my 4.key)js Ck'113'rens ex ense. Sy . buiJinj +his schoc) .in, Q res'►c1 en+icd C(req ydCk rlaK� our children - m o v i n f a.c e fs, 0 ux � t l den Fee I Safe ere. PY Gpe n i rn hIs sc �O� _ 5 You Jeove f h e rn f -ox5 eJ-o all , - - K►nds s�' s 3-ran e rs. - - Q 01:z. y c,-pro o _r- c h',18 re n.. jv ehte ; t eas v (q c cess s+re el orwJ ma-ke ver_ y orte haepV • . -- - - -- - - - s. u S�IGr► 4)ef 1610u�r406 off' ommerc� ch Q rnap fho-f li-:s+s +ho wool Qs alreaoky, eX�St�n� teas the decis%or) beer\ �maJ e w'k hoist- Our t�ncu=W&e4v r,L. 7 le - Gentleman I Ladies of the Plannin j & Development Del We have authorized and delivered to you our notice g jection relating to the construction of the childcare cen in the Desert Club Manor, Permit 91-010. Our inabitit; to be present for the July 9, 1991 Pl blic Hearing will thi indicate our objection to the Construction and Operatio9 of a Preschool/Daycare Center and Associate Parking Area on the 1.8 acres South of Sagebrush East of Date Palm: Signatur (� Address;3Z- O '"� Date Gentleman is Ladies of the Planning & Development Del We have authorized and delivered to you our notice of i jection relating to the construction of the childcare cen in the Desert Club Manor, Permit 91-010. Our inabilit; to be present for the July 9, 1991 Public Hearing will thi indicate our objection to the Construction ,and Operatia of a Preschool/Daycare Center and Associate Parking Area on the 1.8 acres South of Sagebrush East of Date Palm. - : �' /-3- b Signature An 7? Address / -- -'y� -.-- 0 _ Gentleman.adies of the Planning & Development Dept We have authorized and delivered to you our notice of rg jection relating to the construction of the childcare cent in the Desert Club Manor, Permit 91-010. Our inability to be present for the July 9, 1991 Pilblic Hearing will thu Indicate our objection to the Construction and Operation of a Preschool/Daycare Center and Associate Parking Area on the 1.8 acres South of Sagebrush East of Date Palm. Signature ��Vto 4� sn P n' Address/,�5'9' Y/Irl '',.�w _'�'i Date 1/a P( 7 'l Gentleman 3c Ladies of the Planning & Development Df We have authorized and delivered to you our notice of jection relating to the construction a the childcare cc .in the Desert Club Manor, Permit 91-010. Our inabill to be present for the July 9. 1991 Public Hearing will tl indicate our objection to the Construction and Operatic of a Preschool/Daycare Center and Associate Parking MArea on the 1.8 acres South of Sagebrush East of Date `Palm. wd" oppvsF.�Jr.�acT�sq ("�1 cF A Pii6SCy oL ,✓cAT v>? �ifo/6R Signs U' Addresses 1 y'? _Date 6 - aG• f —4rowz: cam, Cili �10 6 �o - Gentleman 3t Ladies of the Planning &Development De We have authorized and delivered to you our notice of jection relating to the construction of the childcare cet in the Desert Club Manor. Permit 91-010. Our inabilil to be present for the July 9. 1991 Public Hearing will indicate our objection to the Construction and Operatic of a Preschool/Daycare Center and Assiiclate Parking Area on the 1.8 acres South of Sagebrush East of Date Palm_ ' ' - Signature V- A Address aU � Date OA . .�7X 3 Gentleman 3t Ladies of the Planning & Development De We have authorized and delivered to you our notice of jection relating to the construction of the childcare cet in the Desert Club Manor. Permit 91-010. Our inabilil to be present for the July 9. 1991 Public Hearing will & indicate our objection to the Construction and Operatic of a Preschool/Daycare Center and Associate Parking Area on the 1.8 acres South of Sagebrush East of Date Palm. - - Signature U,= -WOn— Address b 'w _ Date 4' 24- 9I Gentleman Ladies of the Planning & Development D We have authorized and delivered to you our notice of jection relating to the construction of the childcare ce in the Desert Club Manor, Permit 91-010. Our inabili to be present for the July 9, 1991 Public Hearing will d indicate our objection to the Construction and Operatic of a Preschool/Daycare Center and Associate Parking Area on the 1.8 acres South of Sagebrush East of Date Palm. Signature Address_ Date Iq Gentleman I Ladies of the Planning & Development De We have authorized and delivered to you our notice of jection relating to the construction of the childcare cei in the Desert Club Manor, Permit 91-010. Our inabilil to be present for the July 9, 1991 Plzblic Hearing will d indicate our objection to the Construction and Operatic of a Preschool/Daycare Center and Associate Parking Area on the 1.8 acreWsouSagebrush East of Date Palm. Signature _ `9 Address s9// Date, B � 9� d7�%lQ' mil /30/ ventleman I Ladies of the Planning & Development De We have authorized and delivered to you our notice of jection relating to the construction of the childcare ce in the Desert Club Manor, Permit 91-010. Our inabili to be present for the July 9, 1991 Nblic Hearing will d indicate our objection to the Construction and Operatic of a Preschool/Daycare Center and Associate Parking Area on the 1.8 acres South of Sagebrush East of Date Palm. Signature S (u2Qnn•u, �'1, �� Address pS%D 5creri L4fle-- Da e 7-7 - 9 1 Gentleman 3c Ladies of the Planning & Development Del We have authorized and delivered to you our notice of 1 jection relating to the construction of the childcare cen in the Desert Club Manor, Permit 91-010. Our inabilit; to be present for the July 9, 1991 Nblic Hearing will thi Indicate our objection to the Construction and Operatia of a Preschool/Daycare Center and Associate Parking Area on the 1.8 acres South of Sagebrush East of Date Palm. Signature Address (G1d *1-Z nJ_ Date q Gentleman I Ladies of the Planning & Development Del We have authorized and delivered to you our notice of i jection relating to the construction of the c ldcare cen in the Desert Club Manors Permit 91-010. Ift inabilit to be present for the July 9, 1991 Public Hear ' g will th indicate bjection to the Construction and Operatio of a Preschool/Daycare Center and Associate Parking Area on the 1.8 acres South of Sagebrush East of Date Palm. , Signature Address -x! Dr�te��reW � �., CAA 10 .e-7 Gentleman 3: Ladies of the Planning & Development Dep We have authorized and delivered to you our notice of r jection relating to the construction of the childcare cent in the Desert Club Manor, Permit 91-010. Our inabilit) to be present for the July 9. 1991 Public Hearing will thL indicate our objection to the Construction and Operation of a Preschool/Daycare Center and Associate Parking Area on the 1.8 acres South of Sagebrush East of Date Palm. Signature ®dress a� Date Paula Noll " 78_725 Bottlebrush 6-,25 " 9' La Quinta, CA, 92253 To: The La Quinta Planning and Development Department The La Quinta City Council I am writing in response to the July 9th hearing. I have already spoken with Glenda Bangerter about my position opposing the proposed project and now will present it to you. I am a teacher at a local Private School and Daycare Center, and am cT mother of two young girls. I have worked in the field of Early Childhood Education for over 11 years and am aware of all the aspects running a school intales. As an owner of a home less than 300 yards away from the proposed project, I am very concerned with the problems that will arise in our area and therefore am opposed to this project being started in the back of a quiet, family and retizement oriented neighborhood. I am for education, daycare, and childcare, but the sight chosen for this project isn't practical or suitable. * Noise Pollution Factor: Centers like this run 12 months a year 12 hours a day with yard time both early morning, late afternoon, and all during the day. This will effect the "peacefulness" of the neighborhood. Not to mention the noise of the cars and delivery/ service people to and from the school. * Unsafe Roads: The project will be bringing in too many cars and people from out of this area through our residential area and on Washington, creating unsafe roads and traffic for a family oriented neighborhood putting our children and ourselves in danger. A private business this large should be put on a main street. * People: There is no guarantee.of where the children and families will come from to enroll in this school, thus increasing the crime rate to our homes... I recently became a victom. * Direction: Working in a family owned and run school, I am aware or the long hours it takes to keep a school running, I cannot see how the Bangander's, parents of 9 children, can be able to give the 100% of time to maintain and direct the school and it's staff members properly. * Finances: I am very concerned with the infant care center proposed also. There are many struggling schools in the area and are equally good. Infant care is extremely expensive to run and most schools cannot make ends meet for their school, how can this school antisipate this? * YMCA: The YMCA is just opening a preschool for our area, let's let them get a start and see how full they get and find out if there is such a large demand to put two schools so close together. It seems more practical to put the proposed a bit further from the YMCA. Let's think about the people that have to live with this school everyday practically in their front yard, people who have not built their home yet, backing into traffic from your driveway, increasing traffic on Washington, and decreasing our property value! Yes, maybe we need more childcare centers in our area, but not at the end of a private neighborhood. Paula Noll F`� I (-C-: C CP� PETITION TO THE CITY OF LA QUINTA AND THEIR PLANNING COMMISSION RECtI u JUN 1 ! Sac' C11 V ur Lm %JvINTA PIAIMIRG 9 MYEWFMENT DW Dated this 1st day of June, 1991, We,the Residential Property owners of Desert Club Manor Tract No.1, in the city of LaQuinta PETITION TO THE CITY OF LAQUINTA, County of Riverside, State of California by personal delivery at vour Council Meeting, and also by mail certified at your offices in the City of LaQuinta, "TO REJECT AN APPLICATION" presented by a . Ms, Glenda Bangerter to obtain a permi t to build and operate a daycare center lice ise for approximately 200 children, operating 12 hours daily, and S days weekly, for reasons set forth hereinbelow; and based upon existin; statutes relating to residential property owners, for themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, and for additional reasons affecting their safety, security, as real property taxpayers rights, of residential property owners of Desert Club Manor Tract No.1 as follows, to wit: A. For the record, a copy of this Petition is being sent to all Regulatory Agencies that have any jurisdiction in the subject area of this proposed development such as the Traffic Control Division, the Fire Department, the Ambulance Service, the Police and Sherrif's Department, the Utility Departments of Water and Power, the Environmental Protection Agency and others whose concern and interest will be affected dramat- ically, and risk increaseu. B. We propose an immediate rational and accurate functional analysis to be conducted by experts in these divisions of the County of Riverside and our local divisions as well, so that such a proposal will receive a just and non -prejudicial opinion and judgement. C. A FEW LETTERS ONLY were delivered by Ms. Glenda Bangerter. Most homeowners received no notice or letters at all from anvone. A 907 majority homeowners of Desert Manor Club Tract No.l, are opposed to this for the following reasons, to wit: D. Based upon Ms Bangerter's letter, and upon a full capacity of two hundred 'YOUNGSTER CLIENT", an increase traffic flow of 200 cars in each am and 200 cars in each pm, and 200 cars drive in each pm, and 200 cars drive out each am (which totals thus far 800) in and out Sagebrush per day, and added to this the autos of the existing homeown- ers primarily dayworkers, but also some seniors, and added the service trucks that will service the daycare facility, and added to that, the school buses that pick up, and take home the homeowners children, and added to that the additional traffic anticipated by the planned culdesac improvement to Saguaro and Bottlebrush, and added to that the increase traffic from planned right in right out on Parc LaQuinta's entrance onto Washington, plus of course the conventional traffic that occurs daily currently. -t- so 9306 June 26, 1991 RE: #91-010 io.... La Cuinta Planing And Developnent Comm. We recently purchased property in the desert Club Manof Tract, Lots 19,20,21 As we plan to retire in the desert area. When we purchased the property sagebrush St. was a nice quite st. Its hard to belive the Planing Comm. Assessment that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. What environment?. If dfinitely plays a large part in our enviroment. The traffic alone plays a large part. Parents shuttling childern to and fro,workers to and from the complex, delivery trucks in and out, salesman in and out. Children who live in Desert Club Manor would be also in danger on the streets. Also noise, from cars, trucks 230 children and just plain business noise from running a commercial project. This projest not belong in a residenLal area, especialy with small streets in this area. Sincerly, a .n 3E Ladies of the Planning & Development Dept.: authorized and delivered to you our notice of re-; dating to the construction of the childcare center sect Club Manor, Permit 91-010. Our inability sent for the July 9, 1991 Public Hearing will thus wr objection to the Construction and Operation ,.hool/Daycare Center and Associate Parking he 1.8 acres South of Sagebrush East of Date ('h f 20 Date /9 Cop y Q{ GGs (!�e- —/ / Gentleman 3z Ladies of the planning & Dai clopment EV-1 We have authorized and delivered to nu our notice of i jection relating to the construction o1Ythe childcare cen in the Desert Club Manor. Permit 91 010. Our inabilit to be present for the July 99 1991 Pilblic Hearing will th indicate our objection to the Construction and Operatio of a Preschool/Dayeare Center and Associate Parking Area on the 1.8 acres South of Sagebrush East of Date Palm. (' / � - s 1? 7 L Signature Address a Date_ Gentleman 3, Ladies of the Planning & Development Del We have authorized and delivered to you our notice of i jection relating to the construction of the childcare cen in the Desert Club Manor, Permit 91.010. Our inabilit to be present for the July 9, 1991 Public Hearing will th, indicate our objection to the Construcrion and Operation of a Preschool/)aycare Center and Associate Parking Area on the 1.8 acres South of Sagebrush East of Date Palm. i 7 . 3 gz -a 31 Signature ' Address Date_ / -� 7 Av 0 P 7) PARC LA QUINTA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION P.O. BOX 1032 PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92261 June 26, 1991 Ms. Katie Barrows La Quinta Planning Commissioner 75105 Calle Estado La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Commissioner, C1TY u1r '.`�� � "I" vL, Vis G & Dr i, on behalf of the homeowners in the Parc La Quinta subdivision we would like to express some areas of concern and recommended solutions regarding the proposed day care center at Date Palm and Sagebrush Drives in La Quinta. Tide concerns we feel that need to be addressed are as follows: -Limited Access (Sagebrush Drive) to and from the proposed site. According to Mr. Steven Spiers, the traffic count anticipated would be in excess of 2,400 cars per day. As there are currently only 5 homes on Sagebrush and Parc La Quinta is only two-thirds occupied, this road is not currently being used to this extent. -We further contend the Washington Avenue general plan must be reviewed and revised to present an accurate picture of the traffic impact resulting from 5 years of extensive development in the City of La Quinta. Also, as Mr. Spiers indicated, both Saguaro and Bottlebrush will be closed at Washington Street. Parc La Quinta residents were told of a median being placed on Washington, which will cause an unneccessary diversion of traffic to Sagebrush Drive. -Another concern connected to this increase in traffic is the bus stop, located at Sagebrush and Via Bolero. Placing the stop at Washington and Sagebrush will only increase the potential for harm to our school children, as will moving the stop further from the neighborhood. These issues are not without solution however and we would like to recommend the following as solutions to these unsettling concerns. 1). Install 25 MPH speed limit signs on Sagebrush. 2). Allow left turn access into Parc La Quinta from Washington Street, thereby eliminating 1,050 car trips, on Sagebrush daily as represented by Mr. Spiers calculations. PAGE TWO 3). Extend Date Palm Drive along wash to Avenue 50. This will allow the burden of traffic to be shared by two streets, not just one and will prevent all traffic from having to enter Washington Street (a major thoroughfare). This extension will also allow school buses the ability to service that area without having to turn around and solve ingress/egress concerns for undeveloped land at the Northeast Corner of Washington and Avenue 50. 4). Sidewalks on Sagebrush will become a necessity, incurring additional cost. The eventual development of this parcel as proposed would most certainly violate the intent if not the letter of the R-2 zone. Its size is simply overwhelming and more accurately qualifies as a commercial endeavor operating in a residential neighborhood. Your approval would seriously compromise the residential quality of life and therefore serve to reduce our property values. As a neighborhood of 300 plus Voters, our concerns must be addressed and we hope to hear your positive comments during the July 9th hearing. Thank you for your time and attention and we to -forwa d to this meeting. Sincerely, dent e-President Rq<fiard Cro ket , Treasurer Terrie Miller; Secretary Charles Bisho Member at Large C *ackKlein, ember at Large TM/tgh NAME 2. CoAKY AV' ADDRESS '18'190 vl*CLI &Vqg, If(- 910 Vl/ SOAAU 3. 4. 5. 6. �,-N DA 7. ,i!�,y BAIxLey " - 730 V( a :� 79- 7qr P/ * so&I.4q Vim �a4a ?,9-700 IX AW 46h5 cT• 8 - 17A w 7e 710 Me�g C50- 9 . 10. vic� i��5j,o '� C��t0 hytACA 11. ct wZ0004;��� 7P( 6'U 1A, �� 4 CT 17 g- (9 9 S /yl An I+ c t4 S c +- , 13. ..�.�:- .�.vv�vso� 78 -tof r /f/41CA4" 0-r-' 14. �,SAf� bP�"r' % Co 10 AW-WCASC'�" " 15. � � ice- F�4d Fl ' 7 u 16.� " NR �8 -gyp Ur,C'cSoa4�l9 18 . JLl Sr-c rl >C2A1' 7/ 5 19. 20. 61n� i�� 21. '�J L ile 22. 4%51;��E 23. l%t' 24. , 25. ADDRESS 7 8� WA vi-e NAME 1. tat 2 . Qom&kj 3. v W"-- 4 . 5. C��V-d" 8. �QUXU4., y9-Z2o n� CLr,mbc%, 9. --�] i, t 12. jA, G i< 13RO MC-` l 13. k vct- 14. l° 15. yg.�Iktt��?X 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. l Lh - (Zu-dVk2irc.L'. 7 R. t VT NAM ADDRESS SIGN 1L. Ana, ��Re 2s" i 2. A' 3. CV OT F+/,j P1 S(-c)7'TE 095 -raZa C+ rxlc TA�v�-0 �r i 50 6. �n �rtL wL %urnol g -$fz,an cvil�wS •��-Zo5 ✓,a m�1od;�. �,.'�,-- G! 9. i�Eb/Il� `d a!1 N S t� f lo.LG� AWI72W �f ? Aj A r rn AA Ifis 9A I.,42>A 12 .� 13. ��, S�I� S�—eiv Fr `� /0 . 14. 15. L' 17. , kk vk070 ` 190 2 0 . TT 111 Ice,�' mil, 21. � � L 9 9 - /170 7ANTo CuJ x` 22. J roil 23. c 5—�- 24. V /� cue �c �' JC ►� %f 9 �� Ct'1�C�7 /tLl L�'L 25. Iri,�l a �, 64 a . � _30 . r NAME 1. &Aar. k. igev,nrryt r 2. ��Ql 3.J Q.0 _ X 4. 5. 7. S. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. f� 15. 16. 17. 18. cam' 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. ADDRESS gYGKikTURE yf-ogi' irar,nn%� C 4� zll ©�d NIA f u n.&A, J S ��104 5 /n9,rtin6� NAME cQt O seP%1 A 1. • 2. 3. 4. CAA S. Li/Aozo 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. ADDRESS $ZGNATVRN y4-a7� ja k3 Q', %?�u 8 boa v c�K�o Lck ADDRESS 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. SIGNATURE NAME 1. &PAY , D,�►At SAmtk rn' 2. '1 3. e AA4,K 4.b CAS 5. CAROL BAYLESS 6. JIM BAYLESS 7. E!!�<<20 be-+-k L-4- Rt4" e . ejC-AkX U"e:- K 9. J 164 \ � 10. Lc 'sA 11. /� • . 12. (�. evld �� �oo5�.i� 5 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. ADDRESS 7a -7iS i�i► %lam � f 78-675 VIA MELODIA 78-675 VIA MELODIA -J T--14 5 V (At SDn i4TA -7 �Il+S u k ^ SAD fqA"%P I fs-7o S ty\A r- -&-5 c . SIGNATURE .� n NAME 3. 7. S. 9. 10. I1. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. ADDRESS '9q/67) I SIGNATURB 1. �• e�OuSewr� 2 . �X 3.Mi 5.VI5qlc2(V 6. t, �s a, S R WAr- 7 . 12 1 iz; ,tZ`r"A00 . a. 9. 10. 11. 22. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Iii ADDRESS SIGNATW f 1- iev SertafA - C. if K y9-oq.� y L�9 - IS s' ,, .IW tA� 00000 P�� C City of La Quinta: 68.4M HiGHVMY III CATHEDRAL CITY, CA 624 As the property owner of 78-720 Saguaro and 78-730 Saguaro, I would like to add my support to the petition that was circulated throughout the neighborhood - TO STOP THE DEVELOP- MENT OF THE PROPOSED PRESCHOOL AND DAY CARE CENTER BY GLENDA L. BANGERTER. I feel that the preschool would hurt our property value, and cause a terrific traffic mess every- day. With 800 car trips by parents dropping off and picking up their children everyday down the narrow streets that currently exists in the neighborhood, the preschool would create a quite a safety risk to the residents and their children of the neighborhood. Please take into consideration that non a of the residents are in favor of the preschool, and it would do nothing to improve the area. MAP ;r!(�LJ SALES • LEASING • SERVJCE I To: La Quinta City Planning Commission La Quinta City Council 6-24-91 I am writting this letter in opposition to the proposed Daycare Center at Sagebrush and Date Palm Drive. To begin with, let me state that we have a quiet, friendly neighborhood that talks to one another. So far all the people I've talked to are opposed to this project; and have signed a petition to this effect. These people will be directly effected by this daycare, are we just being ignored?! My wife is active in this and at a recent meeting she was told by the contractor, Michael Bangerter, that she had better move! This was stated in front of C. Anderson and her assistant. Your public notice said that the project negative declaration after the environmental assesment had been completed. Yet when my wife went to the planning commission on 6-20-91, Glenda Lainis informed her it wasn't finished. And I can believe it isn't finished, for how can a 2000 plus more cars in the area not have an impact on the environment? I have a lot directly across from this proposed project and own a house within 300 yards from it, so yes I am taking this personally: Would you choose to build the house of your dreams there? I think it would be in the best interest of the Planning Commission to listen to the people it is supposed to be safe- guarding, instead of worring about the size of the city treasury! Sincerly,,% Jack Nelson 78 -7o754 c,4;�,v 921.53 D. (Con't) THE UNIMPROVED LOTS that are being planned for development and workmen and deliveries to these lots have not even been considered or estimated. E. Can anyone with any experience or logic imagine what an estimated (greater than one thousand cars) create? How will ingress and egress be affected? Another very profound point. THE LEFT TURN LANES AS PER CURRENT TRAFFIC PLANS PROVIDE FOR ONLY 2 CAR LENGTHS W WAITING TO ENTER ONTO SAGEBRUSH: The same type left turn lane to Madera going North. Have gentlemen any idea what it means to stop on a "RACE TRACK" Washington St. in the am & pm. F. There are other concerns as well. What about Medical Emergencies? Fires? Police Alarms? Accidents? G. The accident rate currently on Washington and in Desert Club Manor Tract No. 1 may be headlined in local papers more often than not! H. On the PLUS SIDE the dissenting approximately 907 group of home- owners definitely support an additional day care center, but not in inaccessable locale as the 106 residential lots and home thereon.' It should be situated in an area that WILL NOT create congestion, gridlock the Washington left lane exits, and statistically it will cause traffic accidents and perhaps fatalities. Little accessability in and out is impossible to improve or expand from any angle. I. An honest and fair decision supercedes all pro and con on this matter. We advise those responsible for any errors in decisions, and expressly advise the LaQuinta City Group and Planning Commission that if this matter slides through without a thorough functional analysis, and our dissenting home- owners are ignored AGAIN with no regard, the consequences of any accident, loss, or fatality, all liability, SHALL INURE TO THEM. We desire no more POOR JUDGEMENT ON SAGEBRUSH, since we have had a sump to beautify our area, a very sad event that cannot be undone. Txperience is the best teacher, let us have the wisdom to apply it..... uS,o,� V1 Ca► I d co✓ -1( 50 S 4 G vA4eD S s/ 54e-4 - I't 31 �6Y- �foo L G s6g1 �? -cco� �,C : 17 Avail property 4VIaRaQeigei1t Pc 35 June 8, 1991 City of La Quinta 78-106 Calle Estado La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: Proposed pre-school/daycare center TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: The Board of Directors for Parc La Quinta Homeowners Association and myself, as their management representative, shall be present for the city council meeting dated June 13, 1991. We are concerned regarding the proposed pre-school/day care center to be constructed on Sagebrush, regarding access routes through the Parc La Quinta complex. Sincerely, ( �' aveQ�� Cam Anderson Project Manager REM-'U Ju% 12 toQ' �Il % ur LA Qu1NTA Vi'Ii IX & DB'LtMEW DO- P. O. BOX 1032 I PALM DESERT, CA 92261 1(619) 568.2717 City of LaQuinta Planning Commission LaQuinta City Hall 78105 CAlle Estado LaQuinta, CA. 92253 rc R c !'3 78565 Sagebrush LaQuinta, CA. 92253 June 20, 1991 J U N u ` iG 4 CITY of t_,, t4u1NTA PtANN11'X 9, nEV1__L0P!VcN' KEPT RE: Public Use Permit 91-010 Preschool/Da.ycare Center Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning Commission: I am in receipt of the Notice of Public Hearing re: the construction and operation of the Daycare Center at the end of my street (Sagebrush) at Date Palm, and fail to see how the location of the center cannot have an adverse effect on the OBVIOUSLY BIASED Environmental Assessment conducted by the Bangerter project. When I purchased my home on Sagebrush, I choose this Desert Club Manor for the family community setting it offered, its location to a quality school, its easy access to my employment, and its security of owning property that after much hard work and improvements could provide a solid investment for myself and my two schoolage children. In the past 22 years, I have seen added traffic from Parc LaQuinta, I have witnessed a burglary, an automobile theft, an "almost" vehicular homicide, and numberot: s other break-ins We can all argue it is growth, but I see it as an infringe- ment on my rights to allow for a FOR•PROFIT DAYCARE CENTER to be placed right in the middle of our residential neigh- borhood! Our working class neighborhood has now already become a raceway, even prior to taking on the additional 2000 cars estimated from parents racing to drop kids off and racing again to pick them up. This creation of this death trap is not needed in this neighborhood. In the near future, we will assume traffic from Bottlebrush and Saguaro and the Park LaQuinta residents wanting to turn left in to their development. In addition, the beautiful view I once had at the mountains, has been removed and now I look at a 6ft. retention wall atop a 6ft. property eleva- tion that somehow got approved by the City. Now this wall will allow all the fumes from the some 2000 cars to breeze throught my home, and the noise from the added traffic to echoe from 6a.m. to 6p.m. Monday through Friday. I can no longer sacrifice my rights to allow for such a poorly thought out plan for an easily accessible daycare center at the expense of the homes here to allow these greedy investors to continue with their total disregard for the homeowners in the already developed plot of Posert Club Manor. -2- I don't believe our "fine" Mayor Pena and our Planning Commission whose meetings I have attended would allow for a daycare center to be situated in this plot. Wouldn't a better location on a major road in LaQuinta be a more optimal plan???? I'd personally like to see the new YMCA daycare get on its feet before we open another facility with capacity for 230 kids within 3/4 mile of each other. This childcare project sounds like another serious project or shall I say accident to the Desert Club Manor. I plead with you for your help in hearing our community and assist the Bangerter's to locate in an area more conducive to the added 2000 cars we estimate. Sincerely, Mary Kate Kelly kk cc: J. Pena, Mayor J. Herman, Planning Commission Director To the LaQuinta planning and Development Depart,ffRtO 100. CITY Ur LA VUINTA '3 ANNIN, & OpT This is in regards to the preschool/daycare center that the Bangerter's want to build. I am a school teacher and I am all for children being educated and taken care of, especially if a nice school is being built for needs of children. I am glad that they want to build an attractive building... for 200 children. What I don't agree with is the location of the school. I own a house on 78 695 Saguaro and a lot on Bottlebrush. I do not wish to have the flow of traffic increase in this neighborhood. Glenda states in a letter that only an increase c 5% traffic flow would occur. I happen to know that this is not true. I work in a private school and believe me I am aware of the traffic coming and going ALL DAY LONG. Not just to drop off the children and pick them up at the end of the day. Parents come and go all day. I also am aware of all the night time functions, Parent night, open house ..... that will have these three streets lined with traffic during the occasion, and the noise that goes along with it. This is a neighborhood, not a business area. So what happens to my quiet walks with my twins that I just had, do I have to foreit my quiet time after I teach school all day. I get home at 4:00 but I will hear pre- school noise from 4:00-6:00... and will not be able to walk down the end of the street with my babies for a relaxed quiet time. I worx with children all day long and would like to enjoy the quiet neighborhood that I purchased a house in. How can you ta} that away from my family???????? I know from speaking to everyone in this neighborhood that NO ONE IS HAPPY ABOUT THE SCHOOL BEING BUILT. We are asking thi this school be build in another area. They will never have the neighborhood in sport of their school if they build here. I am not a c4lainer at heart but I do not want to see my neighborhood change with traffic and noise. I think that yoi should seriously think about this. If you lived at the end of these strists with your family, would you seriously want a school t:; ue built so close to your home. Please answer honest: and realize that we are families with children and homes. We cherish our quiet, peaceful neighborhood, we want to have con- tinued safety ... with minimum traffic flow. I would be very supportive of a school but not at the end of my street. Thank you for taking the time to read this. I will be at the hearing on July 9, 1991. This letter is written on behalf of my husband and I. Sincerly, _T1-,L Mr. and Mrs. Robert Norlin i IF LA QUINTA 5 CALLE ESTADO INTA, CA 92253 AUGUST 309 1991 CITY ur t-h VuMD-, =oncerned citizen,V)esident, taxpaper and voter, I am writing to you in Is to the proposed F'RESCHOOL/.DAY CARE CENTER, SOUTH SIDE OF SAGEBRUSH FIVE 3ION EAST SIDE OF DATE PALM DR, PUBLIC USE PERMIT 91-(-)10, BANGERTERS. d below are the items the I object to: INCREASED TRAFFIC BUSINESS IN RESIDENTIAL AREA LOWEi'ED PROPERTY VALUES items that concern me are: ADEO'-1ATE POLICE PROTECTION ADEO _'FATE FIRE PROTEC T I OIV ADEQUATE WATER OVERFLOW OF GAt"BAGE DISPOSAL. OF SEWAGE NORM WATERS not think. Date Palm and Sagebrush is the best location for a child-care r. May I remind Michael and Glenda that the City of La Quinta extends Highway 111 (to the north) where there are many main streets and avenues can carry the overflow of traffic that this day-care center would draw. ems a nightmare to me, but, if by some chance this project is approved in conditions need to be made: MAXIMUM NUMBER OF CHILDREN HOURS THE CENTER CAN OPERATE DAYS THE CENTER CAN OPERATE because of the hot summer months, many local residents are out of the t and a decision should not be made until they return and can voice an on. against any type of pollution. RELY, IA J AIr I SON i ROTTLEBRUSH (INTA, CA 92253 ip19 TRAFFIC AND NOISE being two of them. 'OHN F'ENA, MAYOR, CITY OF LA OUINTA IILLIAM RUSHWORTH, MAYOR PRO-TEM .D i.IEDROWSKI, CITY MANAGER HERMON, PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR I LMEMBERS �, CITY OF LA QU I NTA OF LA OUINTA 5 CALLE ESTADO INTA, CA 92253 AUGUST :330, 1 6i%11E_LJ a UG - 8 100+ ur LM YUINTA ANNiNf RENELOPMFIv nEPT LJ U concerned citizen, resident, tarpaper and voter. I am writinq to you in ds to the proposed PRESCHOOL/DAY CARE CENTER, SOUTH SIDE OF SAGEBRUSH AVE SIGN EAST SIDE OF DATE PALM DR, PUBLIC USE PERMIT 91-010, BANGERTERS. d below are the items the I object to: INCREASED TRAFFIC BUSINESS [N RESIDENTIAL AREA LLIWERED PROPERTY VALUES items that concern me are: ADEQUATE POLICE PROTECTION ADEQUATE FIRE PROTECTION ADEQUATE WATER UVERFLOW OF GARBAGE DISPOSAL OF SEWAGE STORM WAFERS L I�' �� t i � •' � I �� 1 I CITY OF LA UINTA j CITY MANAGELI 111T. ? not think Date Palm and Sagebrush is the best location for a child-care r. May I remind Michael and Glenda that the City of La Quinta extends Highway 111 (to the north) where there are many main streets and avenues can carry the overflow of traffic that this day-care center would draw. ems a nightmare to me, but, if by some chance this project is approved in conditions need to be made: r1Ax i MUI.1 NUMBER OF CHILDREN HOURS THE CENTER CAN OPERATE DAYS THE CENTER CAN OPERATE because of the hot summer months, many local residents are out of the t and a decision should not be made until they return and can voice an on. against any type of pollution. TRAFFIC AND NOISE being two of them. RELY, nlX1/ ti I JAMISON '5 BOTTLEBRUSH I I NTA , CA 9_2253 OHN PENA. MAYOR, CITY OF LA OUINTA IILLIAM RUSHWORTH, MAYOR PRO-TEM .D KIEDROWSKI. CITY MANAGER HERMAN, PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ILMEMBERS, CITY OF LA QUINTA 78565 Sagebrush LaQuinta, CA. 92253 June 20, 1991 City of LaQuinta RECEIV17-L Planning Commission JUN u 199, LaQuinta City Hall 78105 CAlle Estado CITY 0r LAVUINTA LaQuinta, CA. 92253 'LANNiNf & DEVELOPMENT DEPT. RE: Public Use Permit 91-010 Preschool/Daycare Center Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning Commission: I am in receipt of the Notice of Public Hearing re: the construction and operation of the Daycare Center at the end of my street (Sagebrush) at Date Palm, and fail to see how the location of the center cannot have an adverse effect on the OBVIOUSLY BIASED Environmental Assessment conducted by the Bangerter project. When I purchased my home on Sagebrush,. I choose this Desert Club Manor for the family community setting it offered, its location to a quality school, its easy access to my employment, and its security of owning property that after much hard work and improvements could provide a solid investment for myself and my two schoolage children. In the past 212 years, I have seen added traffic from Parc LaQuinta, I have witnessed a burglary, an automobile theft, an "almost" vehicular homicide, and numberou s other break-in! We can all argue it is growth, but I see it as an infringe ment on my rights to allow for a FOR PROFIT DAYCARE CENTER to be placed right in the middle of our residential neigh- borhood! Our working class neighborhood has now already become a raceway, even prior to taking on the additional 2000 cars estimated from parents racing to drop kids off and racing again to pick them up. This creation of this death trap is not needed in this neighborhood. In the near future, we will assume traffic from Bottlebrush and Saguaro and the Park LaQuinta residents wanting to turn left in to their development. In addition, the beautiful view I once had at the mountains, has been removed and now I look at a 6ft. retention wall atop a 6ft. property eleva- tion that somehow got approved by the City. Now this wall will allow all the fumes from the some 2000 cars to breeze throught my home, and the no.i.se from the added traffic to echoe from 6a.m. to 6p.m. Monday through Friday. I can no longer sacrifice my rights to allow for such a poorly thought out plan for an easily accessible daycare center at the expense of the homes here to allow these greedy investors to continue with their total disregard for the homeowners in the already developed plot cf Desert Club Manor. 1 -2- I don't believe our "fine" Mayor Pena and our Planning Commission whose meetings I have attended would allow for a daycare center to be situated in this plot. Wouldn't a better location on a major road in LaQuinta be a more optimal plan???? I'd personally like to see the new YMCA daycare get on its feet before we open another facility with capacity for 230 kids within 3/4 mile of each other. This childcare project sounds like another serious project or shall I say accident to the Desert Club Manor. I plead egerter'sto locate inanarea moreconducive tBanonelng ummunity d assist the to the added 2000 cars we estimate. Sincerely, Mary Kate Kelly kk cc: J. Pena, Mayor J. Herman, Planning Commission Director ✓ ATTACHMENT No. 6 PUP 91-010 THE [,> C Y'13 August 5, 1991 City of La Quinta P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, California RE: PROJECTED DAY CARE FOR THE CITY OF LA QUINTA CiEwtt AUG 61a4' CITY Vt- LA quINTA "UNNINC: R DEVEL(PUM flFPi On behalf of the projected Day Care project in the city of La Quinta, California 1 am writing this letter to help get this project approved and making it become a reality. I speak for myself and several other working mothers in La Quinta on how much this project is needed and is definitely a must in our community. We have only lived in La Quinta for 3 years but since moving here have experienced a strong need for good, quality Day Care. Not only is it inconvenient to drive out of our way to reach an alternative day care but feel the care is not always adequate. Our oldest youngster will be starting kindergarten this September but my concern is not only for her but for our new baby that we are planning to have. Having a Day Care in La Quinta would definitely alleviate a lot of working parents worries and problems. Uke most working mothers our main reasons for leaving our children are financial ones which must take us away from our children during the day. The people who have worked to make this project a reality have done aiot of research and planning and I strongly support their efforts in helping to get this project started. If there is anything else I can do to further assist in this project please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Debbie Walker /dw Glenda L. Bangerter 53-245 Avenida Martinez La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Neighbor, This letter is to introduce myself and the proposed preschool and day care center now being planned for the triangular piece of property at the end of Sagebrush and Bottlebrush. My name is Glenda Bangerter. My husband Michael and I have lived here in La Quinta since 1986. We are the parents of nine children. My background is in children's education and business management. Currently, I am president of an organization for children's education, a program consisting of over 130 children under the age of 12. As you are probably aware, there is.a critical need for child care in our area. To meet that need, I have been meeting with the City of La Quinta and it's planning deparLment, for a number of months, to find an appropriate site. At the above location, I am planning an attractive building which would correspond with and enhance this neighborhood. I will personally own and operate the facility which will be properly licensed for approximately 200 children, ages 2 to 5, with a future toddler center for 30. The scheduled operational hours will be Monday through Friday from 6:30 A.M. to 6:30 P.M. Based on a study of traffic flow with housing development and street improvements, the center would only increase the traffic flow by 5% on these' days. However, we have recently been informed —by tTie doper of the new housing project at the end of Sagebrush, that the entrance for that subdivision will now be someplace other than Sagebrush. Prior to a formal hearing, I am looking for neighborhood input. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions, concerns or suggestions. I would sincerely look forward to your support of this very needed project. Yours/ truly, Glenda Bangerter A ✓`:ham r �'� • ' mow. �� \ Nam LOT 1 t f r iii 6ii lilt - ..e 7.2 .... so ? elb I ts Tni Id 0 its tA • � f � , � � _:.r--� -;• -ice- `� � �i , f� 8 i �i r i t i � '' • �� �; ii# ;���� 1 �iilltili; IA UWrA LTl TI.E SCHOOL — i > _ U OUWAA.. PALM CAUFORM LMIA LANDSCAPE & SITE A X(1N(Im,PTR it VTFW �illl I r 1• ! ' IJ, �t I�'/'�Jii/7'�7�V� •' �m� N . a1 Q� i oc- ��` �i. $�. .• � n Zn Q DMw b O C��• f1 M--ZT- �bNb oOO 7f I i I NM ♦0 O o A a 7e npl yr -1 Ktl•tjVrU JUN it June 19, 1991 E . 3j 3tA 24 199 Citvt_ LN Q�j1iV 1 N P.O.y of BoxL1504inta �NN1NG & DE�tL�PMENi DEPj La Quinta, CA 92253 Attn: Planning & Development Department To whom it may concern: I would like to request.that the city approve the plans for the preschool/daycare center to be built on property located at the corner of Sagebrush and Date Palm Drive in La Quinta as proposed by Michael and Glenda Bangerter. Our city desperately needs a high quality child care center and I feel this facility will meet the needs of many La Quinta residents. Thank you for your consideration. Sincer y, tI _-Lau a Nelson 52- 00 Avenida Diaz La Quinta CA 92253 619)564-9107 0 RECEIVEV JUL 0 t t981 CM OF LA tjUINTA PiANN1NG & Dfl W of". r/ 4a 25 June 1991 City of La Quinta Development Department P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta CA 92253 To whom it may concern: Pc, 1 711 �L JUN 2 FV'EL VU1 ETA QPyjFjyT0, The purpose of this letter is to express my full support for the proposed preschool/child care center to be located at 49-500 Date Palm Drive in La Quinta, California. Our society has chosen to ignore the dangers of not providing a nurturing environment for our children as more parents are forced to work outside of the home every day. It is in our best interest, as a community, to allow Mrs. Glenda Bangerter to provide this desperately needed service as she has lovingly and very effectively nurtured nine high achieving and self confident children of her own. Sincerely, Bettye W. George -Anderson La Quinta Resident Enclosures -�1�4_ C1 JUL 0 2 t�qt ()t- LA �t�1�yT °EV_!LpVj, A 5 afx/ez ty o� �� culr�tA CITY OF L A VUINTA -ly �,q;.�aF_ t_ E.� PLANti17T & 'RiEftTKEPI. "vA C\l')\,Jk 4,0( 4 A'l ` S�hoA L�(ra�vt,t�� sN'1� Gar o.G L4oa�� �rwoC `if�v,\ C�b,V(Jr-'�Q( 1 7� � n -Fn. •rv. �� ��. S � � � Qv � n� �. L�e�c � _ o c it CQ.o.S �,, c>,�� 6 (Q Co t-,\)Q-, r 1�S nca CQNA 1 Lid L��Y: m� , PFr7iVED *v',- 2 6 '--'1 v cz� �U REcti u JUL 0 2 19,91 CITY 0� LA yuiNTA -3LANivr;,'� s -t 'l�`CA1T OEF Lis,, 149 1 IR7 1 k iifti., JUL 0 2 a9gi CITY Ut- LA VUINTA a')El�c .o PAIENT OEPT. June 2TA1991 La Quinta City Council La Quinta, CA. 92253 Dear Council Members: I ]FJ.M - ILI P� �7�c.? It has come to my attention that there is a chance that Glenda Bangerter's planned day care may not come to fruition because of some unhappy home owners near the planned building site. I find it unbelievable that a day care facility would be protested. I understand that the planned location is zoned for school buildings. AE a home owner myself, I would much prefer a child day care business tc most any other sort of business in my neighborhood. The operatinc hours are during the day, when most people are most likely out of the house. The weekends and evenings would be noise free and traffic fre( as the school would not be in operation at that time. I just don't sei the problem. On the other hand, I have been a home owner in La Quinta for thref years now and am also a parent. I know from my own experience an( frustration that one of the things that is sorely needed, and quite lacking in La Quinta is a quality day care. It is unfortunate that the citizens of La Quinta must drive into other desert communities to find quality day care. Besides the inconvenience La Quinta is losing revenues to other cities. I believe that you should support Glenda Bangerter and her planned da care because so very many would benefit from it, perhaps even those complaining the most loudly about it now. Sincerely, Diane Boulanger 52-580 Avenida Ramirez La Quinta, CA. 92253 (619) 564-2879 Etot J JUL 0 2 1991 C1T1' OF LA VuriyTA ' AN&WjG & DE4'r'LOr MEl I)FP7. CV: (?Q, cm� N'G June 25, 1991 i�,CC �,� 40 F9,rr. City of La Quinta P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Re: Tie La Ouinta Little School Dear City of La Quinta: I note with great interest that plans are being submitted to the City of La Quinta for a Pre-School/Day Care Center in La Quinta. As a full-time worker, I can assure you that this news is heaven sent. Certainly, any support given to this Little School will be appreciated by many distraught parents who must now rely on the ever -changing list of babysitters and/or limited -enrollment home day care centers in the area. Not only would we parents benefit greatly from the stress relief of having a reliable, permanent and well -organized pre-school/day care center, but our employers would surely emit a sigh of relief to have us on the job all day and every day without the curse of canceled sitters, etc. Of particular interest is the fact that the center will have extended hours --a joy to any employer who on occasion needs a working parent to put in a little overtime without hearing the time -worn excuse that their "kids" have to be picked up because the day care center closes at 6:00. May I take this opportunity to adamantly support plans for The La Quinta Little School project. Sincerely, Verna M. Loeffler 53-445 Avenida Obregon P.O. Box 1004 La Quinta, CA 92253 EC+t1tj` JUL 0 2 1991 cil� cap UHF � TA I AMI �dG & D UU A - 2199, I July 1, 1991 City of La Quinta P. O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 To whom it may concern: As a resident of the City of La Quinta, I would like to express my opinion regarding the proposed Pre-Schooi/Day Care Center to be operated by Glenda Bangerter. I am very much in favor of her project and I hope the City of La Quinta will agree that this is a great necessity in our community. As our city grows with development, the more in demand Day Care Centers will be. if we deny this now, what will happen to the working family? Weigh all the options and the only reasonable conclusion could be is to approve plans for The 'La Quinta little School. Sincerely, Pamela Jo Stull 54-545 Ave Ramirez La Quinta, CA 92253 RECEIVEU JUL 02 1991 CITY 0� LA quINTA aIANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT. pG 7! RECEIVEu JUL 0 2 1991 CITY OF LA VUINTA °CANNING & DEVELOPMENT IFPT. Please see uaaSYAP (amp c , n somumiSwbaClam scomm) preSPoDmg jr o —a: on ;,n as' Cages A0NROEAC Asso,iatm Inc. July 10, 1991 City of La Quinta 78-105 Calle Estado La Quinta, Ca 92253 Att: Ron Kiedrowski, City Manager Dear Mr. Kiedrowski, 7I23 P C J� 3 f Monroe -Kest Associates is one of the largest professional mail houses in the Coachella Valley and we recently provided mailing services to the developer of the La Quinta Little School. We would like to explain exactly what we provided and explain the almost unbelievable results. In the end of June we mailed a very simple one page letter with a postage paid response card enclosed to a random sampling of homeowners in La Quinta who received their mail at a 92253 zip code. This meant we were mailing to people who own and live in La Quinta, and the list contained a little less than 1900 name and addresses. Our list which is generated from assessor's information can only be about 80% accurate. In conclusion we mailed to and reached about fifteen hundred residents. In the beginning of July we received ,on behalf of our client, bundles of response cards through our permit (Palm Desert 328),and we were very surprised with the results. All told we received over TWO HUNDRED cards! This is clearly a response rate of 13.3% The cards are still arriving. In the mailing business a 1% or 2% result or response rate is considered good. What was most interesting about these cards was the fact that all but a six cards were uproariously positive. The positive responses included newlyweds without children, retired couples with no children at home, and even several requests for employment! 74-818 Vehe Way, Suite #3, Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 (619)779-0460 FAX (619)779-0463 The cards had volunteered phone numbers, addresses and other very personal information, some even went to the trouble of affixing a postage stamp when one was not necessary. Overall our findings based on the response cards and all of the other information we have,indicate the following: 1. A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF RESIDENTS ARE POSITIVE AND INTERESTED IN DAY CARE IN LA QUINTA. 2. A VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE OF RESIDENTS ARE NOT INTERESTED TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY WOULD RESPOND NEGATIVELY. 3. THERE ARE A LARGE NUMBER OF RESIDENTS WITH SPECIFIC DAY CARE NEEDS AND/OR HAVE MORE THAN ONE CHILD IN A PRE-SCHOOL AGE GROUP. While our initial findings were very interesting we have advised our client, La Quinta Little School to mail to the entire City of La Quinta as it is clear that the results would be proportionately positive. I hope I have been able to make clear the actual services results and findings of the La Quinta Little School mailing. Please feel free to call on me if you have any questions. Thank You, Malia Monroe President, Monroe -Kest Associates 9V1 ff/4-� c rt 0 r,v� JUL I T 1991 La Quinta Planning Commission La Quinta, California 92253 CITY OF AgUINTA d%1TV ueNecc -c nrer Dear Planning Commissioners, It seems peculiar that I am even writing you this letter. However, after the public hearing you hosted July 9, 1991 for the proposed La Quints Little School I thought I had better get something on paper. I live on Sagebrush and am in favor of the day care. I am not the only one on Sagebrush that feels this way as you would be led to believe at the public hearing. My neighbor Craig Toohey has signed the petition that I am enclosing, also Robert Reynolds has verbalized his positive feelings towards the school also. I remember the public hearing for the Parc La Quinta project a few years ago when the residents of Montero Estates called the proposed project "like putting a Ford Pinto next to a Cadillac." I was opposed to the project at the time also, feeling it would ruin my desert surroundings. The Planning Commission and the City Council went on and cleared the project, and now even though it is not quite sold out I see Parc La Quinta as a successful project that adds a great deal to the community. once it is gated, which should happen in the next few months, it will be an even more valuable address. The planners and council members had insight beyond the complaints of the community, and that insight silenced the critics of that development. The critics are loud once again, only against a day care nursery for children. "Noise pollution" stated one, who says she can't sleep during the day. "Air pollution," yelled another, her children will be affected she fears, even though she is a smoker. "Traffic congestion," claimed the Parc La Quinta residents who must be afraid they will not be able to run the stop signs and speed down Sagebrush once the school is finished, never mind that the gates are going in prior to the day cares opening. "The danger of the cars," cried another though she is not worried about her seven and eleven year old boys illegally riding a Honda three wheeled vehicle, no longer manufactured because the danger is too great a risk. "Everyone is against it," yells another, who distorted traffic figures to such a degree that she managed to instill fear in the neighborhood. I am a teacher, and for the life of me I can never understand people who are willing to help parents with the job of parenting. Maybe they want those things, they just are not willing to sacrifice in order to have them. We have become a society that is not willing to sacrifice a little for the benefit of our children. We want it now, in our own way, and we want to be sure it does not interrupt the sitcoms that must be watched on television. I believe in children, and I know you do also. That is why you set up a task force, before the state thought it an ia=iiA_ to address some of the child care problems. We have to be willing to put our children first if they are going to succeed. The Little School's location is a good one. It is in a nice community, near schools, not on a main street, and has nice people willing to operate it. The few problems are all solvable. Barricade the streets of Saguaro and Bottlebrush. Be sure that Parc La Quinta puts up it's gates, and then put in a light at the main gate on Washington that allows left hand turns in and out of the project. Put Date Palm through to 50th and put in a light there; this will slow down traffic to the schools and make the entrance to the day care flow more easily when parents drop or pick up students from both school sites. If you must cul de sac Sagebrush at the end near the school and this will allow traffic in to the Little School only by Date Palm, thus eliminating the traffic problem all together (this is possible now that the housing project by CV Land is using The Pyramids access.) I do ask the Planning Commission and the Council to show the kind of insight that they have used in the past. our only real legacy to anything we do is what we leave for our children, and I believe any school where the teachers are good is a very valuable asset. I greatly respect the job you are doing, and fully understand how difficult it is. Good luck and God Bless. Ser ly, R. t ony Harvey Lam= dam &I rr July 15, 1991 City of La Quinta P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 To whom it may concern: I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed "La Quinta Little School,,' project. It is in our best interest as a community to assist in the efforts of Mrs. Bangerter to provide a safe, nurturing environment for our youngest citizens of La Quinta. Very truly yours, rt e �4� Robe 48-175 Avenida Fernando La Quinta, CA 92253 N,V wCoutu JULV lgq" Cal ur Lfo, %JUATA DEVI - c:Q DENICE A. BROADHEAD 53--395 Avenida Bermudas La Quinta, CA 92253 July 1, 1991 To: La Quinta City Council, It is with great pleasure that my husband and I lend our support for the project: La Quinta Little School. We have a 3 year old son and it was a concern of ours on where he would be attending preschool. We feel that this project will be nothing but a asset to our community. Not only is our city in need of this project but the entire Coachella Valley. We appreciate the opportunity to voice our opinion and hope that it will make a difference on your vote. Sincerely, • 6(' Denice A. Broadhead Resident dab/me Rice11r� trfi r' ? • .• CIl V Ur err yUINTA QIANNENG & DEVLUMAT DEPT. r//, C� C C?�Y-Xci P lo_n n l v\5 Cibrn ym Ss t u'., �cur Srrs Th iS i S tzD 1 r)Zb r m c� fowof of 4e �x�pvse� Cs�xe S�ncerel� , Sane She 0 �� 9QA--"/ CheLi Shea sa-4�o Acre. kua-rrcldo CA- RECEI1 U JUL 19 Inc. C1TY l:ki- l.j$,�quitiTA FME�o � pLA%NING & DEV RECEIVE+ JUL 19 9 "' CITY U1o�A�.oP��i�to �� Cc: CqrAt cIry,cltkIk y CF (�)uI tt.TA Box b-I I-F IS 3C A UICK'OC�F�C. ADD i?7Ct`% 7Z CC 9 CC -HI I J tTLY- Tr q t--g c i s Q Ate CAE HE)Ce ; ti: LA / c.,v14GLE �4 6ple-nl)Lj� SC. PPc - i ?N C.CtiCCEPi cF CA CkuI1�� LtTT .0 ` CHCCu PA-IJ HCPF Ti:,, SEE l T N4TEV I RL; ZE /Aj 7746- r L: TL� P t= . HC f'E-Fc:C L t,1 T-P I S PQAC J ELT LL: i CC- L ti .JC y TN E �C riI�-E t�►`=DLCScHE7�i C-F -71-1E PcC -L' ClL;� i1I &L)I,'Ci L . CC: Ccicj4lcOOl,-,,,,rl7c7,-X U TttG k,1- 6LU r�'ll7YY 6796 , -.77 y lL �:. Cij Y %'. ; .a,i'' A ` C,Alb �, 1� City of La Quinta P.O. Box 1504 La Ouinta CA 92253 ii�i��►�I�I�li�i,i IIIIfIilIII July 15, 1991 City of La Quinta P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 To whom it may concern: Jui- PLANNING & DE\,LLgMM1 NT DEPT I would like to take this opporLunity to express my support for the proposed "La Quinta Little School" project. It is in our best interest as a community to assist in the efforts of Mrs. Bangerter to provide a safe, nurturing environment for our youngest citizens of La Quinta. Very truly yours, Robert e 48-775 Avenida Fernando La Quinta, CA 92253 C CG lea, wo y��xs 1,4 To S THY= 7�/4e- lrs . Mr. & Mrs. Michael Bond 53.705 Ave. Cortez La Quinta, CA 92253 CC : CG/C/n/Cir� CC.E�tk lPcAivNiN9 �O/R . D juL 23 1991 CITY OF LA QUINTA CITY MANAGE 'S DEPT. ' To 4)bm Vk mrz,.p CbnCern ; CITY L,- :--' -,--wNTA PIANNi'4G ? 9L....:U?N1rNT 0E FT (esaw� 6 Ahe, eA�q b� Co�nc�rnS 0� d op; �i �ns �n�v CbM i d ual, t�n . y uc)wl� b-e, 0.n Ouse+ �n c. a obs as Uy-�\ as( Crea�i r� Q- sow ou.�- 14)6 A r gal A.- a d R =04� -- INC r P Q u') O Q0 � TL Q � U > A O r O .C, O N ..S O<tZ C) co CD co N N M ai 3 (D z 0� o r w fV CD fV .� C cep 'Z) Q d r =U to Y E L m m y a°,eS�dc {U•� '.7 y 0 Nq> N V E� v 'O d w y1 L � y. CV+ G0 d K C G•p I U > IL Sa ELm 4AW aCyS H�a co LO N O J o 4 N O� O m nm V y a� N . co m C.,V �n z. �Ny a) W On>Fq-O W aMP.r) pp yy Lpp+ L E y,q, m mm3do L v C= en0 L d 3 a V i c ti "o �L4 c e p Jm A E ivS E m > y C C t7 00 U O dU- mt;La =a$Lo _ '` a VQ c u $a Y uM L m F�� v v (;o yv7—t O•� O mcnspgpCs—%I���� CO y„ r t A u mI r Z. C� m Qi.� -9 S'EvdeaeESE W Q `' w O L .a0 t C• : I V E� O z V r �a m N Sri Qozwc M Y. E f D H m L s0 Ic C .a N cr 0 N A V ov r v 2 �o aeecu� cm N'-o°d° o I7a �3 gsd uc m e oejs qm 8 Lia aC dC °. c ��SG' fit; s m`°°� v� O ejem,'s� d p M4,9 A. 5,0 �- OZ='m. P+omo ,:�'' mvs5°Caps w. of mown d C Qm��� y�guu��3�m�Ea�C °mom>`�ayOZR= Iv C La° A C m1', tL 3 —'v', & .oN�ii'J �� � �•a°O�~, W °:A.a .� .v o= _'� 'x��:�':'.��•� LE ■ Color comics ■ N Week \ ■ Religion ies' 'n Mexico ,pinr!ud 'atn Hnu In.,ran. •r .,I%. r. \,•w l.d^ age 0! L twa�,"P p�� P'• SO Firms give lonely homes � TLC/E1 Valley day care called scarce The (oachella Valley. need for child i.,re is crrical according In d repo„ in be reieased next week Research by the Coachella Valley ARWIation of Government.+ shows the area has 3 000 spaces to senle 43 DM rhildren Other findings • \..paces exist for 15 W ele. merL,rn school chtidren who need tare before and after school ■ No licensed care exists for chil- drer soimRer than 6 months %1n­ than 3 000 of the valley's {.i dren younger than 2 are a -I 1— by reinhaes Inend� and Complete coverage A3 Nude dance 3 i The La Quinta Little School June 14, 1991 Dear Friends and Neighbors, I am hoping to open a Pre-school / Day care center in La Quinta for approximately 200 children. This will be a professionally run facility for children ages 1-6 and will include a kindergarten class. The school will have extended hours, will be conveniently located, and will be very affordable. Your help, by sending in the enclosed card, will show interest and "need" necessary to make the school a reality. Thank you very much, Glenda L. Bangerter A:_,, 12:,, 199► C1F QUINTA CITY MANAGE 'S DE Q �• s3 .fie. ,�ji C'.v C`'�—n�te�✓ �•C� -s.e - G 'd",-�, 444'.., )/� . ,fir ram; PETITION We the undersigned, respectfully petition the City of La Quinta to approve the proposed pre-school / day care center, that would be located at 49-500 Date Palm Drive La Quinta, California. This facility is desperately needed in our community. Thank you Name 1. 2. 3. 5 11 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Address 45 0� -T��o G>z � 9zz53 �P�Q� Ae 1�� 1 R, '°• I� �3 17 S"y r z y 1991AUG -12 VUINTA PLANNING & DEVELOEMEM O* fe�p- projaz6