1993 01 12 PC1'An0
uinW
Ten Carat Decade
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall Council Chambers
78-105 Calle Estado
La Quinta, California
January 12, 1993
7:00 P.M.
**NOTE**
ALL AGENDA ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. MAY BE CONTINUED
TO THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING
Beginning Resolution 93-001
Beginning Minute Motion 93-001
CALL TO ORDER - Flag Salute
ROLL CALL
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Item ............... CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-004
Applicant .......... Carl's Jr. Restaurant (Carl Karcher Enterprises, Inc.)
Location ........... North side of Highway 111 and east of Washington Street in
the 111 La Quinta Center.
Request ............ Approval to construct an operate a fast food restaurant with
a drive-thru.
Action ............. Resolution 93-
2. Item ............... ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 92-029
Applicant .......... City of La Quinta
Location ........... City wide.
Request ............ To amend Chapter 9.117 Overlay Zone for Equestrian Uses
on Smaller Lots.
Action ............. Request to continue
PC/AGENDA 1
3. Item ............... CHANGE OF ZONE 92-073
Applicant .......... City of La Quinta
Location ........... Madison Street on the west, 52nd Avenue on the north,
Monroe Street on the east, and 55th Avenue on the south; and
approximately 32 acres south of 50th Avenue and east of
Jefferson Street.
Request ............ To add the Equestrian Overlay Zone District designation to
existing zoningdesignations in order to create two new
Districts (area.
Action ............. Request to continue
PUBLIC COMMENT
This is the time set aside for citizens to address the Planning Commission on matters
relating to City planning and zoning which are not Agenda items. When addressing the
Planning Commission, please state your name and address.
BUSINESS SESSION
1. Item ............... TENTATIVE TRACT 23269
Applicant .......... Century Homes
Location ........... Southwest corner of Adams Street and Fred Waring Drive.
Request ............ Review of house mix change and architectural elevations for
proposed new Unit #5.
Action ............. Minute Motion 93-
2. Item ............... APPROVAL OF LANDSCAPE DESIGN FOR CENTER
MEDIANS
Applicant .......... City of La Quinta
Location ........... Washington Street medians between Highland Palms Drive
and 48th Avenue.
Request ............ Approval of landscape design for center medians.
Action ............. Minute Motion 93-
3. Item ............... GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
Applicant .......... City of La Quinta
Location ........... Jefferson Street between 50th Avenue and Whitewater Storm
Channel.
Request ............ INSTALLATION OF FORCE MAIN AND SEWAGE LIFT
STATION
Action ............. Minute Motion 93-
4. Item ............... LA QUINTA 66-ACRE MASTER PLAN
Applicant .......... City of La Quinta
Location ........... Northeast of the intersection of 48th Avenue and Jefferson
Street.
Request ............ Review of alternate plans for the City owned property.
Action ............. M:'Lnute Motion 93-
CONSENT CALENDAR
Approval of the Minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held December 8,
199.
OTHER
ADJOURNMENT
PC/AGENDA 2
STUDY SESSION
MONDAY, JANUARY 11, 1993
4:00 P.M.
1. All Agenda items.
CANCELLED
PC/AGENDA 3
PH # 1
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
DATE: JANUARY 12, 1993
CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-004
APPLICANT: CARL'S JR. RESTAURANT (CARL KARCHER ENTERPRISES, INC.)
OWNER: WASHINGTON/ADAMS PARTNERSHIP
REPRESENTATIVE: FRANK T. OLEY, SITE DEVELOPMENT MANAGER
REQUEST: APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A FAST FOOD
RESTAURANT WITH A DRIVE-THRU.
LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 111 AND EAST OF WASHINGTON
STREET IN THE 111 LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER.
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE
DESIGNATION: MIXED COMMERCIAL WITH A NON-RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY
ZONING: C-P-S (SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL)
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION: A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
(EA 92-246) WAS PREPARED FOR THE CASE. BASED ON THIS
REVIEW, NO MAJOR IMPACTS WERE FOUND.
SURROUNDING
ZONING AND
LAND USES: NORTH: C-P-S/ALBERTSON'S MARKET WITH SHOPS WHICH
ARE PART OF THE 111 LA QUINTA CENTER.
SOUTH: C-P-S/VACANT (SIMON PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER).
EAST: C-P-S/VACANT LAND WHICH IS PART OF THE 111
LA QUINTA CENTER.
WEST: C-P-S/AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA BUILDING (UNDER CONSTRUCTION).
PCST.100 1
BACKGROUND:
The site is a part of the 111 La Quinta Shopping Center (SP 89-014) which was approved by the
City Council on April 17, 1990. The specific plan was amended in October, 1992 to allow
drive-thru facilities on pad sites within the 111 La Quinta Center. This site is one of three
allowed by the approved specific plan.
Presently, Wal-Mart, Albertson's Market, AM/PM gas station are open for business, and the
Automobile Club should be open soon.
DESCRIPTION OF SITE:
The property is an irregularly shaped parcel containing approximately 20,500+ square feet of
area. The site fronts directly on Highway 111 and is bordered by a right turn only entrance at
the southeastern end of the property. Future buildings are anticipated directly to the west and
east of this site.
STATISTICAL DATA:
1. Building square footage ±3,385 sq. ft.
2. Exterior playground square footage ± 1,200 sq. ft.
3. Parking spaces required and provided *30/16
4. Seating provided 92+ outdoor seats
*NOTE: 1. Additional par -king available within the shopping center.
2. Drive-thru lane not counted as parking.
3. Outdoor seating not counted toward required parking since it is part of the
playground.
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
The Applicant has submitted a plan for a fast food restaurant with drive-thru containing 3,385
square feet. The restaurant will serve breakfast, lunch, and dinner with no alcoholic beverages.
The single story restaurant will be able to accommodate 92 walk-in customers plus patrons who
wish to use the drive-thru facility. An outside playground structure has also been provided at
the southwest corner of the project. A 40-foot high flagpole is proposed at the southwest corner
of the site.
SITE LAYOUT:
The restaurant is on the north side of the site with the drive-thru lane on the south facing
Highway 111. The building is laid out parallel to Highway 111 with parking to the west and
north (or front of the building). Access to the drive-thru lane will be from the west and egress
will occur at the northeast corner of the property.
PCST.100
CIRCULATION:
The project can be accessed from an approved Highway 111 driveway. Additionally, the site
can be accessed from the other shopping center driveways throughout the entire site.
LANDSCAPING:
The Applicant has submitted a preliminary landscaping plan for the property. The plant
materials consist primarily of native and other low water usage plants. In the perimeter area
between Highway 111 and the site, the landscaping will need to be coordinated with the
perimeter landscaping which is being provided by the master developer of the shopping center.
The landscape material was selected based on the master developers plant list.
The Applicant has provided a mounded landscaping to screen the view of the site from the
street.
SIGNAGE:
The Applicant has indicated sign locations for the property. A freestanding menu sign is shown
in the landscape area adjacent to the drive-thru lane and other miscellaneous signs and logos are
on the building. Numerous directional signs will be necessary due to the circulation pattern
proposed. A freestanding monument sign has also been proposed, but the specific location is
not noted on the attached plans.
ARCHITECTURE:
The architecture of the project is contemporary Spanish Revival in nature with exterior materials
consisting of exterior plaster and a clay tile roof. For the most part, these materials and colors
match the main shopping center buildings with the exception that the Applicants wish to use
yellow and red awnings around three sides of the building. A 20-foot high red and yellow
outdoor playground apparatus is proposed adjacent to the west side of the entry.
DEVELOPMENT ISSUES:
A. Drive-Thru Lane - The drive-thru lane location was conceptually approved by the City
Council in October of this year when the specific plan document was modified to allow
three drive-thru pad sites on the 111 La Quinta Shopping Center site. The final design
solution would have to be approved by the Planning Commission and City Council
through the conditional use permit process. The City Council also required two pick-
up/delivery windows for each future drive-thru restaurant pad site.
The location and design of the drive-thru is consistent with City design standards except
for two areas. The first matter is the Off -Street Parking Code which requires the project
to have shaded areas for the vehicles being serviced for each pick-up/delivery window
PCST.100 3
of the project. In this design, there are two windows; therefore, two shaded covered
areas are required. The proposed service window awnings do not provide shade for the
vehicle being services. The other issue is the visibility of the drive-thru lane and its
relationship to Highway 111. The adopted specific plan requires the lane to be fully
screened with a retaining wall next to the drive-thru lane and the perimeter mounding
bermed up to the wall. The Applicant's landscape plan does show mounding and trees
for this area but in Staffs opinion the lane is only partially screened. Staff recommends
additionally measures as approved in the specific plan modification be taken to rectify
this deficiency (e.g. masoni-j wall).
B. Building Design and Awnings - Various awnings have been proposed for the exterior of
the Carl's Jr. Restaurant. The awnings are yellow (with red stripe) and red. The
awnings add color to the building and it reflects the corporate identification program that
is prevalent in many of the existing restaurants in Southern California. The awnings
typically are opaque but fluorescent lighting is used behind the awning to accent the
building and for pedestrian lighting at night. The colors match the colors which are used
for the building signs.
Staff is not comfortable with the yellow awning over the exterior windows and the red
awnings over each entry (sloped awning) into the building. The awnings should be in
keeping with the colors of the shopping center. The colors for the shopping center did
not include yellow or red. The shopping center is designed to reflect a southwestern
design theme.
C. Roof Design - The roof design is not in keeping with the general style of the shopping
center because of the use of the gable roof design for the tower element of the building.
In past approvals, the City has tried to incorporate an arched parapet design (with accent
tile) into the design theme in conjunction with the flat roof architectural design. Staff
would recommend that at a minimum the tower element be revised to incorporate the
arched parapet design theme in the shopping center or that it match the design theme of
Shop Building "B".
D. Sign Program - The Applicant has proposed various signs for the project, they include:
1. Building Signs
4 - Carl's Jr. (red)
4 - Happy Star Logo (yellow)
2. Directional Sign (various)
3. Menu Sign (1)
4. Freestanding, Identification Sign (1)
PCST.100 4
± 22 sq. ft. (ea.)
3 sq. ft. (ea.)
3 sq. ft. (ea.)
± 28 sq. ft.
± 50 sq. ft. (± 5'0" high)
The site is part of the Transpacific Development Company project. Therefore, the
proposal is required to meet the provisions of the approved sign program (excerpt
attached).
The approved building sign program allows a maximum 24-inch high letters with the
length being 75 % of the frontage up to a maximum of 50 square feet. The approved
letter style is Helvetica Light or as approved by the City. Approved colors are white,
red, blue, green, yellow, or as approved by the developer and City through a
modification. The approved material is a plexi-glass face, matte black painted cans for
returns, and internally illuminated letters. National or regional tenants with more than
five outlets are allowed to use their standard sign if approved by the Design Review
Board and Planning Commission. Additionally, only one color per sign is allowed unless
specifically approved.
The sign proposal is generally in agreement with the adopted sign program for the
shopping center with the exception of the drive-thru menu board sign, the freestanding
identification sign, and the number of building signs. The existing Sign Code allows a
menu board sign to be attached to the building or window but the size should not exceed
three square feet. In order to permit the request, a sign adjustment will be necessary.
The freestanding identification sign is not permitted in front of this property based on the
approved master sign program. The original approval requires an Albertson's sign at this
site. The Albertson's sign was recently installed and an area was left on the sign for
other "major" tenants. If Carl's Jr. project does desire a freestanding identification sign,
it would be necessary to amend the sign program to incorporate this new concept. The
amendment would require review by the Planning Commission independent of tonights
review of the restaurant facility. The final sign package should be submitted separately.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD:
On December 2, 1992, the Design Review Board met to examine the development request of
the Applicant. The Board felt the site plan design was consistent with the conceptual ideas of
the approved specific plan, however, there were other areas of the site which the Board felt
needed to be revised or changed. The first issue which was discussed was the proposed colors
on the awnings. The Design Review Board did not believe the colors were consistent with the
approved palette selection and either the shade covers should be deleted from the project or the
Applicant should find a color which matched the color scheme for the shopping center (e.g.
teal). The second issue was the proposed roof design. The Design Review Board did not
believe the Applicant needed to mirror the arched parapet theme within the center, but they felt
the gable design would be appropriate if a stucco parapet was used at the end of each respective
portion of the tower as long as it matched the tower theme at Shop Building "B-1" (next to
Albertsons).
PCST.100
The third issue debated was the playground equipment and flagpole. They recommended to
permit the flagpole provided it was only 13 feet higher than the ridgeline of the roof structure
for the restaurant (±24'0") and the playground was allowed also provided the facility was
lowered by one floor, and screened by both fencing and landscaping to insure that it would not
be viewed from Highway 111. The final vote was unanimous.
FINAL STAFF COMMENTS:
Staff is in agreement with the recommendation of the Design Review Board, however, we would
request that the Planning Commission limit the height of the flagpole to the same height as the
restaurant building so that it is in scale with the development request.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission should certify the proposed Negative Declaration and adopt Planning
Commission Resolution 92- approving the development request subject to the Conditions
of Approval.
Attachments:
1. Location map
2. Plans and exhibits
3. Excerpt from approved sign program/Carl's Jr. sign graphics
4. Playground exhibits
5. Letter from Carl's Jr.
6. Letter from the property owner
7. Design Review Board minutes
S. Specific plan exhibit (cross-section)
9. Environmental Assessment
10. Draft Resolution with Conditions of Approval
PCST.100 6
. o0
r _
N N
o4-3 _ t7
a
N
N 4,1
I
W � � 9•! I O
I— O
w
• a .� I � a� rn
a u O
CD° x S_
= w n
N
4-3
Ln
ui
Epl
11
• Q E
• � W p �
i � O
Q �� •r
(/) N
�
H (, .i p •• � •�1 J
4
4-
-
O C e 1� �: ��/'
1 rd
S- r
�— to
r • � �' � X
w cn • )
�
U
� M
fo CIO
Q)
-C3
•r
S-.
CD
ONE
PLANNED
75% 1 EOi
EO. 75% E0
w I "AREA 6"
"AREA A"LET SIGN AREA i
N — NET SIGN AREA.
I - H-
5880
o i R�EC W.
y-T- r 0
Leasehold Width Leasehold Width
(Varies) (Varies)
Lease Line --� Lease Line
MINOR TENANT SIGNS,(RRIMARYI
PURPOSE: MAJOR IDENTIFICATION
OUANTITY: ONE PER LEASE AREA FRONTAGE.
CORNER END Cafes SPACES MAY SPLIT
ALLOWABLE FRONTAGE SIGN AREA AMONG TWO SIGNS.F�'� r
NET SIGN AREA A: AS DEFINED ABOVE, NOT TO EXCEED 50 S.F. MAX.' i
(INCLUDING TENANT LOGO) 01^ `�}%C(✓'A'i
NET SIGN AREA 8: AS DEFINED ABOVE (TOWER LOCATIONS), NOT
TO EXCEED 50 S.F. MAX.' - INCLUDING TENANT LOGO
LETTER STYLE: HELVETICA LIGHT OR AS APPROVED BY CITY AND DEVELOPER. -
COLORS: WHITE/RED/BLUE/GREEN/YELLOW OR AS APPROVED BY
DEVELOPER.'
MATERIAL: PLEXIGLAS FACE, MATTE BLACK PAINTED ALUMINUM CAN. INTERNALLY
ILLUMINATED INDIVIDUAL LETTERS.
NET SIGN AREA C (ADDRESS):
LETTER STYLE: W HELVETICA LIGHT
COLORS:'FRAZEE", CZ-588OW Ao haJ 6 Dea vt (&vt eiVI r
MATERIAL: DIECUT FACED LETTERS TT
NATIONAL OR REGIONA NANTS WITH MORE THAN 5 OUTLETS WILL BE ALLOWED TO USE
THEIR STANDARD SIGN 0 TWO ADJACENT SEPERATE TENANT SIGNS SHALL BE THE SAME
COLOR W17HOUT CITY APPROVAL. ONE COLOR ONLY PER SIGN OTHER THAN LOGO UNLESS
APPROVED BY CITY.
22
o,1- S11
4- X 4- ACCENT TILE
EXTERIOR CEMENT; STUCCO
P D
COL BASE PAINTED
,/ Existing Sinn (recently installed)
ATION
�7iim
CENTER I.D. SIGN L= "
DOUBLE FACED SIGN WITH 12" HT.
INDIVIDUAL INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED
PLEXIGLASS LETTERS EXTERIOR CEMENT
STUCCO.
Y
EXPOSED ACCENT NECK)
PRECAST CONCRETE CAPS PAINTED
TO MATCH BACKGROUND
EXTERIOR CEMENT STUCCO BACKGROUND
INTERIOR ILLUMINATED INDIVIDUAL CHANNEL LETTERS
THREE MAJOR TENANT NAMES MAXIMUM
ARE ALLOWED. TENANT LETTER COLORS 3 Ir
STYLE TO MATCH THEIR BUILDING SIGNS.
PURPOSE: PROJECT IDENTIFICATION
QUANTITY: 4
SIGN AREA: 150 S.F. PER SIGN
LOGO COLOR: GREEN & PINK NEON
BACKGROUND COLOR: BEIGE & CREAM WITH TAN BASE
MATERIAL: EXTERIOR CEMENT STUCCO
!V
r, .4 o
PAYLESS
ALBERTSON'S
H.I.C./SOFT GOODS
WAL-MART
3
47 cac"e► W D • r—�
IV two e e. _ r� ti�wno n I
rod �
E:1
�
t
=-
m
=
Y
i �s • j
an
rn
V)
0)
C
r
•r.
m
3
�
all
dr
O 0000 0 000000006
w
UU g
N\f V W Jr
}i
4-
(A C)
00 Lf)
N +I
:.z
1
M
PRECAST CONC. CAP•PAII
TO MATCH BACKGROUND
4'k4 ACCENT TILL:
j
— EXTERIOR CEMENT PLASTER
(PNNTED)
—� X-9a 3•.9..
A•a aZvia n
M NUMEN IGN •-. -
DOUBLE FACED SIGN W" W HT.
INDIVIDUAL INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED PLEXIGLAS LETTERS EXTERIOR
CEMENT STUCCO.
THIS EXHIBIT H 13 WENDED TA SET FORTH THE PLQMO SIGN PAOORALI AND TO PROVIO@
EXAMPLES Of THE SA AE 13Y LLUSTRATION AND iS NOT A REPRESENTATION THAT ANY
SPECIFIC TENANT. NUUBER OF TENANTS OR TYPES OF BUSINESSES SHALL OCCUPY ANY
SPACE !N THE PROJECT OUA.NG THE TEAM HEREOF.
SCHEME 2
OPTIONAL
4b
PRECAST CONC. kP•PAINT
TO MATCH BACKGROUND
4"X4" ACCENT T1LF.
51 cli,
i
0
ui
ONUMENTStN
.TERIOR CEMENT PLAST
(PAINTED)
DOUBLE FACED SIGN WITH W HT.
INDIVIDUAL INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED PLEXIGLAS LETTERS EXTERIO
CEMENT STUCCO.
THIS EXHIBIT H IS INTENDED TO SET FORTH THE PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM AND TO PRC
EXAMPLES OF THE SLIME SY ILLUSTRATION AND 19 NOT A AEPAESENTATION THAT
SPECIFIC TENANT. NUMBER OF TENANTS OR TYPES OF BUSINESSES SHALL OCCUP'
SPACE IN THE PROJECT OLSRING THE TERM HEREOF.
SCHEME 3
OPTIONAL
.iFlYr.Fl�. in
SXYSPACE #4
PACE: 1 Of 3
24' -5.,
LEVEL ONE ,t s ik
otYSPALPIJIU #4
2Q' -5,
6' -I
;LIDS
I1111MANk 14a_ *
lit -to „ r10
��1
Tran>pacifIC
Dcvclopment
C o m p a n y
November 18, 1992
Mr. Frank T. Oley
Carl Karcher Enterprises, Inc.
3941 North Freeway Boulevard
Suite 185
Sacramento, California 95834
Re: Proposed Carl's Jr.
One Eleven La Quinta
La Quinta, California
Dear Frank:
Corporate Headquarters
Crcn.h.lp H oii�aru
Sint;• ZrNI
Tr,rran:c CA lnlcrll
0 10 1 hll.-INN
lzlru ?'_u-4.a' Fax
0101 III1 782-K-128 Fax
Please be advised that Washington/Adams Partnership, the developer/owner of One Eleven La
Quinta, has approved the preliminary plans submitted November 12, 1992 and is of the opinion
that the plans conform to the architectural theme of One Eleven La Quinta. Please be advised
that developer's approval pertains only to the aesthetics of the proposed improvements and does
not make any reference, or warranties, that the plans conform to any codes, restrictions, or
requirements.
Should you need further authorization, or information, please do not hesitate to contact me
directly at (310) 618-3612.
Sincerely,
WASHINGTON/ADAMS PARTNERSHIP
By: 'Transpacific Development Company
Colm Macken
Vice -President Development
cm/jta
cc: Carl L. Karcher
Stan Sawa, City of La Quints
r w
3 !
m
'606 *Van 00 YUAN*
CARL'S JR. RESTAURANTS
Carl Kocher Enterprises, Iw- 3841 !north Freeway Boulevard, Suac 185 Sacmmcm, California 95834 (916) 922,2029
November 25, 1992
City Council
City of La Quinta
79-105 Calle Estado
La. Quinta, CA 92253
RE: Flagpole Request
Proposed Carl's Jr.
Located in the 111
Restaurant
La Quiff Shopping Center
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
�N°P3o
�t
iµ
Please allow this letter to act as my formal request to allow a 40' high flagpole at the Carl's Ir.
Restaurant referenced above.
Although I am aware that current City standards limit flagpole bight to 18', it is felt that this
would create a less than desirable appearance, in that it would be out of proportion to the balance
of the site. With the building being 27' high, a 40' high flag pole would be more proportionate
to the site without being excessively high. The following breakdown will display how a 40' pole
would be proportionally correct.
Flagpole Height W'
Building Height
ZZ 12'9" (above building)
Actual Flag Height (-)
US 4'9" (from top of building to
bottom of flag)
The 4V difference between the top of the building and the bottom of the flag would allow the
American flag to be minimally visable from any direction. Not only is it desirable to fly the flag
above obstructions for aesthetic purposes, but in doing so, it also displays patriotism by placing
the flag in a prominent position.
Sincerely,
C RISES
Frank T. Clkey
Site Development Manager
i~Tb/md .
cc: Carl L. Karcher
Design Review Board Minutes
December 2, 1992
93
the
the location
Won stand, service
with Staff.
restrooms, size of the
I the different uses]
Planning Chairwoman s inquired if the bike
getting the childre k Avenue and school. S
be a bikepath he park. Discussion N
pool fees, 1 out shops in the facility, a ligI
5. rthesPark
ng no further di:
and seconded by F
plans to the City
P"was moved
er Curtis to rf
Unanimously
uld facilitate
ted there would
C. Conditional Use Permit 92-004; a request of Carl's Jr. Restaurant for approval
to construct and operate a fast foot restaurant with drive-thru on the north side of
Highway 111 and south of the Whitewater Storm Channel in 111 La Quinta
Shopping 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.
2. Boardmember Anderson asked where the trash enclosure would be
located. After describing the location discussion followed as to relocating
the trash enclosure.
3. Boardmember Wright inquired about the allowed height of the structure
and the service entrance. Staff stated the issued would be taken up by the
Planning Commission but the General Plan allows a one story structures
within 150-feet of Highway 111.
4. Mr. Frank Oley, site developer for Carl's Jr., stated the building sits 27-
feet from Highway 111. Boardmembers discussed the height of the
towers. Mr. Oley stated the towers were being utilized to break up the
building elevation as well as for signage. He further stated that the trash
enclosure could be relocated in the berm closer to Highway 111 and the
berm could 'help to act as a screen for the drive-thru area.
5. Boardmembers, Staff and Mr. Oley discussed Staff s recommendation for
a double lane for the drive-thru. Mr. Oley noted that a double lane is not
needed since the first window is for paying with the second window for
pick-up.
DRB12-2 3
Design Review Board Minutes
December 2, 1992
6. Boardmember Wright questioned the height of the building. Discussion
followed regarding the relationship between the foundation level, finish
floor level and the pad height. Boardmember Curtis inquired if the
Applicant would be willing to hold the height of the building to 23-feet
high as measured from Highway 111. Mr. Oley stated that he would as
long as the four foot pad depth was there. Boardmember Wright further
stated that he felt the towers should be lowered. Planning Director Jerry
Herman stated that City had not determined the specific height of a one
story building. Most approvals had been between 20-28-feet.
7. Mr. Oley were through the Conditions of Approval. Questions were
raised as follows:
a. Condition #1: Regarding the masonry wall. They felt the berm
would be sufficient. Boardmember Anderson felt the screen wall
should run the entire length of the drive-thru. It was suggested
that the berm be alternated with the masonry wall and tie in the
trash enclosure. It was determined that the area would be a
combination of landscaping and terming with a concrete block
wall as required in the Specific Plan Amendment.
b. Condition #2: Mr. Oley asked that the trellis cover not be
required unless patrons requested them. Staff stated this was not
an option since City Code required their installation.
C. Condition #5: Regarding the flagpole, the Applicant requested
apprcval for 40-feet high. Following discussion it was determined
that the flagpole would be allowed to be 13-feet above the roofline.
d. Condition #6 & 8: Eliminated.
e. Condition #10: It was stated that the Carl's Jr. menu would not
fit on a standard size and requested a larger size. Boardmembers
had no general problem. This would be reviewed with the sign
program.
f. Condition #11: The Applicant requested they only be required to
add shrub landscaping to the wrought iron fencing around the
playground. Boardmembers agreed with the landscaping but
additionally requested the Applicant work with Staff to provide a
different design for the wrought iron fencing.
DRB12_2 4
Design Review Board Minutes
December 2, 1992
g. Condition #12: Boardmembers expressed their concern for the
height of the building and discussed different alternatives.
Following the discussion, it was suggested that the Applicant add
a parapet to the tower structure like that used in the shopping
center to bring it more in line with the rest of the center. The
parapet would be the maximum height of the building and subject
to the approval of Staff.
8. Boardmember Wright inquired about the play equipment. Members
discussed with the Applicant the color and material to be used; the floor
material, the height, the sun cover, the number of levels, and where it was
located. Members felt it should be heavily landscaped and not be visible
from Highway 111. Planning Commission Chairwoman Barrows asked
that the height be reduced one level. Boardmember Campbell stressed his
disapproval of the wrought iron fencing. He felt it gave it a "kennel"
look. Mr. Tom Childers, Washington/Adams Group stated they could
work with Staff to redesign the fence.
9. Boardmember Campbell questioned the Applicant regarding the material
used in the awning. He felt the material gave off to much of a glowing
effect at night. Discussion followed with the Applicant regarding the
material to be used.
10. Boardmember Anderson stated he felt the awnings were a good
opportunity to integrate the colors of the center and enhance the
architectural design of the center. Mr. Oley stated he felt they had
integrated the colors of the center into the design and the red/yellow were
the corporate colors and they were needed for identification.
Boardmember Anderson stated the "Happy Star" and sign were the
identification for the restaurant but the awnings need to tie into the center
colors. Mr. Carl Karcher, applicant stated that the building was set back
from Highway 11 l and with the heavy landscaping the colors were needed
to help catch the public attention. Discussion followed between the
Applicant and the Boardmembers.
11. There being no further discussion, it was moved by Boardmember Curtis
to approve Conditional Use Permit 92-004, subject to Staffs
recommendations. The motion died for lack of a second.
12. Boardmember Rice moved to approve Conditional Use Permit 92-004,
subject to Staff s recommendations and with the above noted amendments
including amending conditions to require the awning colors be the same
DRB12-2 5
Design Review Board Minutes
December 2, 1992
as the center and with Staff approval and that the play equipment be
reduced by one level. Boardmember Campbell seconded the motion and
it carried unanimously.
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
Boardmember Anderson that the minutes be amended to show h in
attendance. Boardm Ouwrtis asked that page 4, C.2. the word "potion" anged
to "portion". ember Campbell asked that page 4, C.3. thedecorative
nature" be c, to "decorative texture"; that the word "lump "y page 6, C.6. be
deleted; iat page 5, D.6. have verbiage added to the "that no exterior
signa uId be provided for any tenant occupying the iimr arcade".
"re being no further corrections to the minu Boardmember Rice moved and
4 easdmember Curtis seconded a motion to appr, m _"the Minutes of November 4, 1992,
corrected. Unanimously approved.
V. OTHER 0
A. Boardmember Curtis as &'Lhic'al
taff to bring before the Committee a future
agenda a discussionding City standards for design concept or Highway
I I I and other geo areas of the City. 'y '
B. Boardmem derson requested that Staff require projmts brought before the
Board complete to give the Board a better opportunity to review what is
bein `` sed.
C. dmember Campbell asked Staff to defies what was the Boards purview for
discussion relative to the projects. Planni'birector Jerry Herman discussed
Board responsibilities with the Membei*.
VI ADJO�T
It was moved by Boardmember Rice and.: ," ` nded by Boardm 'Wright to adjourn to a
regular meeting of the Design Review don January 6 P `fit 5:30 P.M. This meeting
of the La Quinta Design Review /,was adjourn a.: 0 P.M., December 2, 1992.
E�
DRB12-2 6
C
(a
lu
Q.
U
N
-0
fu a)
J 07
Q
O
c
rd
U
-0
N
i
a�
O
U
WI
AON
w
H
N
to
H
r♦
U- =41�
H 4-
H i
m
w
Q¢
a�
U O
Lj-
H 1
H CO
U
W d
d N
N '.-.
CITY Of 1A QMWfA
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
I. BACKGROUND
1. Name of Proponent:
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent:,
3. Date of Checklist: 1
4. Agency Requiring Checklist:
S. Name of Proposal, if applicable:
II. ENVIROVENTAL IMPACTS -
(Explanation of all "Yes" and "Maybe" answers is required on attached sheets.)
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: Yes Maybe No
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in
geologic substructures? _ —
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or
overcovering of the soil? — ' —
c. Change in topography or ground surface
relief features? —
d. The destruction, covering or modification of
any unique geologic or physical features? _
e. Any increases in wind or water erosion of soils,
either on or off the site? —
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach, sands,
or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a river or
stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay,
inlet or lake? _
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud-
slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? _ —
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or 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 or direction
of water movements, in either marine or fresh
waters? — —
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? — —
c. Alterations to the course of flow of flood
waters? — —
d. Change in the amount of surface water in any
water body? — —
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality, in-
cluding but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity? — —
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow
of ground waters? —
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or with-
drawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations? — —
Yes Maybe No
h. Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies? _
i. Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding or
tidal waves? — —
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or number
of any species of plants (including trees,
shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic
plants)? _
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 result in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing species? —
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural
crop? _ S. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers
of any species of animals (birds, land animals,
including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms, insects or microfauna)? — —
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare,
or endangered species of animals? —
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? —
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
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 any use of any natural
resources? —
b. Substantial depletion of any renewable
natural resource? — —
10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk
of an explosion or the release of hazardous sub-
stances (including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions? _
11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location,
istribution, density, or growth rate of the
human population of an area? _ r
12. Housin . Will the proposal affect existing housing,
or create a demand for additional housing? —
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement? — —
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking? — —
Yes Maybe No
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 govern-
mental services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection? _ T
b. Police protection? _
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads?
f. Other governmental services? _ —
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing
sources of energy, or require the development
of new sources of energy? _
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)?
b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards?
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the
obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to
the public, or will the proposal result in the
creation of an aesthetically offensive site open
to public view? _
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact
upon the quality or quantity of existing recrea-
tional opportunities?
20. Archeological/Historical. Will the proposal result
in an alteration of a significant archeological
or historical site, structure, object or building?
21. Mandatory Finding of Significance.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially re-
duce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plan or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory? —
(5)
n
Yes Maybe No
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, en-
vironmental goals? (A short-term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a relatively
brief, definitive period of time while long-term
impacts will endure well into the future.) — —
c. Does the project have impacts which are indi-
vidually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(A project may 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
IV. DETERMINATION
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation;
_ I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared.
T I find that although the proposed project could have a
significant effect on the environment, there will not be
a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added
to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
— I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect
on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required.
Date:
y .
Signature
CITY OF LA QUINTA
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
CASE NO. CUP 92-004 (EA92-246)
CARL'S JR. RESTAURANT
GENERAL DESCRIPTION: The applicant has requested the development of
a +3,400 sq. ft. fast food restaurant on 0.4 acres within the TDC
Development (111 La Quinta Shopping Center). The site is located
500 feet east of Washington Street, and north of Highway 111. The
restaurant site is one of 17 pad sites within the 111 La Quinta
Shopping Complex. The shopping complex is presently under
construction.
PAST ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: During the review of the 111 La
Quinta shopping center by the City in 1989 and 1990, the City
processed Environmental Assessment 89-150 for the project. A
mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and adopted by the City
Council on April 17, 1990. The master study examined the assumed
impacts that the project (618,000 sq. ft. on +60 acres).
Therefore, this past review can be used in the updated review of
this case by each review body. The attached assessment is a
supplement to the original document.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
EXPLANATION OF "YES" AND "MAYBE" QUESTIONS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
1. EARTH: The soil on this property has been classified as
Coachella Sand/Loam. This type of soil has rapid permeability and
it can be used for crop production, homesite or other urban
development. The site is vacant and was graded during the overall
construction of the Albertson's Grocery Store. The applicant is
purchasing the land from the TDC Development Company.
The general elevation of the site is approximately 60 feet above
sea level. The site is in a Zone 4 Seismic/Geologic Hazard (MEA -
General Plan, 1992). A Zone 4 is an area with moderate shaking
qualities but less severe than a Zone 12 (highest level). It is
categorized as: "effect on people: felt by most people indoors
(windows and doors rattle). Some can estimate duration of
shaking." Earthquake damage should not be a major problem at the
site.
MITIGATION MEASURES: Grading of the site shall occur pursuant
to the approval of the future grading plan as specified by the
City's Engineering Department. All building structures shall be
designed pursuant to the standards as prescribed by the Uniform
Building Code based on the code which is in affect at the time of
plan check consideration, and the plans shall be prepared by a
licensed architect or structural engineer.
2. AIR: The project site is located within the Southeast Desert
Air Basin (SEDAB) and is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast
Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). With the proposed
construction, there may be air pollutant sources which may
deteriorate ambient air quality. These sources are stationary and
mobile sources. Stationary source considerations include emission
from on -site construction activities and natural gas combustion.
Mobile source consideration include exhaust emissions resulting
from short term construction activities and long term generation
associated with the project.
It could be anticipated that with the construction of the proposed
project there will be an increase in the overall mobile emission
releases because of personal vehicle usage by employees or
customers. The levels will be consistent with other projects in
the area and no abnormalities are expect by the implementation or
development of this project. Public transportation is available
and provided by Sunline Transit.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
1). Adequate watering techniques shall be employed to partially
mitigate the impact of the construction generated dust.
2). Grading and construction shall comply with all applicable City
Ordinances and the requirements of the Air Quality Management Plan.
3). Two delivery windows shall be provided as required by the
approved Specific Plan for this site.
4). Public transportation should be encouraged.
3. WATER: With the proposed construction it can be expected that
there will be a change in the absorption rate (due to impervious
surfaces), drainage patterns and amount and rate of surface water
run-off. The project proponent or the shopping center developer
(TDC) will provide an on or off -site retention/detention basins for
the collection of storm water and nuisance water run-off.
The site has been recently protected by the installation of
concrete levee in the Whitewater Stormwater Channel pursuant to the
design standards of the City and the Coachella Valley Water
District. Riverbank erosion within the channel should not be a
problem at the site based on these new improvements. The site is
in a Zone X Flood area which means an area of "... 500 year
flooding; areas of 100 year flooding with an average depth of less
than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; and
areas protected by levees from a 100 year flood." (Source: MEA,
1992)
This area is not subject to liquefaction (similar to the problems
of the Downtown area). Liquefaction is the term which is used
when the ground water table is very close to the surface, and
during an earthquake the ground has a tendency to vibrate building
structures from their respective foundations and, thus causing
failure and other adverse side -effects.
MITIGATION MEASURES: The project shall comply with all
applicable City requirements regarding storm water and nuisance
water containment.
4. PLANT LIFE: The subject site is presently vacant and void of
any significant plant life. The site has been graded during the
construction of the Albertson's Grocerty Store and in -line tenant
stores. No impact is anticipated by the development of this site.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None required.
5. ANIMAL LIFE: The subject site is located in an area defined
as a Fringed -Toed Lizard Habitat area (a Federally protected
species). The City is required to contribute the money to the
Valley's Nature Conservancy, and the Conservancy is required to use
the money at their Thousand Palms preserve (1300 acres) to protect
and maintain this endangered species. All the valley cities
contribute to this preserve through contractual arrangements which
were made in the early 1980's. The property owner (TDC) paid the
lizard fee when the site was graded this year.
MITIGATION MEASURES: The fee was paid by the existing
property owner during the grading of the site.
6. NOISE: Because of the proposed construction and subsequent
operation of the commercial restaurant, it can be expected that
there will be some increase in the existing noise levels on the
site. Most of the noise generated will be from motorized traffic
coming to the site since the use of the property will be for indoor
commercial activities plus outdoor use (drive-thru and playground
facilities).
It is anticipated that no internal noise will be projected
externally outside of the building mass, however, a noise study
will examine both projected noise and external noise of project
onto abutting properties if the project is within 1000 feet of a
residential area.
MITIGATION MEASURES: As required by the General Plan, this
project shall prepare a noise analysis to minimize noise impacts on
surrounding land uses if the project is within 1000 feet of a
residential area. The City's General Plan Guidelines for indoor
and outdoor noise shall be met.
7. LIGHT AND GLARE: It is anticipated that the project will
include building and/or parking lot lighting. The lighting for
the parking lot will be provided by the master developer ( TDC) , but
the development of the building willl include indoor and outdoor
lighting too. However, at this time, much of the material has not
been submitted to staff but it is assumed that during the plan
check process of this case in the future the applicant will be
required to gain approval of this material from the Planning and
Building Department prior to construction permit issuance.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
1). All lighting will have to comply with the City's "Dark Sky
Ordinance". Additionally, light sources shall be shielded to
eliminate light glare and off -site spillage onto abutting vacant or
developed properties.
2). A lighting plan shall be submitted for the on -site parking
lot if additional parking lot lights are proposed, and the plan
shall include a photometric study of the lighting which analyzes
the necessary footcandle light intensity as well as identifies the
height of the light poles, spaces of the poles, type of lighting
fixtures, and any other pertinent information which is necessary to
assure compliance with the City's Off-street Parking Ordinance and
the Dark Sky Ordinance.
8. LAND USE(S): The General Plan has designated the property as
fit for commercial development. The proposed plan is consistent
with this intent, and the Planning Commission and City Council will
review the development plan in the next few months.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None is required because the project, if
approved, will be conditioned to meet the City's requirements for
on and off -site improvements commensurate with the level of
development.
9. NATURAL RESOURCES: No major adverse impacts are anticipated
with by the construction of this project.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None required. However, the applicant
shall meet all necessary requirements of the local serving agencies
as outlined in the attached agency comments or as mandated during
construction plan implementation. This shall include compliance
with Title 20 and 24 of the California Administrative Code relating
to conserving energy resources which is handled by the Building
Department during plan check review.
10. RISK OF UPSET: No adverse impact is anticipated due to
explosion or release of hazardous substances.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None required. However, all
construction activities whether or not they are permanent or
temporary shall meet all necessary safety standards of the Federal,
State and local government requirements.
11. POPULATION: It is not anticipated that the proposed project
will have an adverse or significant impact on population
distribution, density or growth rate in the area. The development
of the site will increase the need for the City to provide housing
opportunities for its residents to support this commercial venture.
At this time, the City has approximately 55 percent of its land
designated for residential needs.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None required.
12. HOUSING: With the proposed project there may be an
incremental demand for additional housing for employees of the
development, however, due to the size of the restaurant any demand
would be insignificant because the City presently has an
overabundance of land either vacant at this time, but slated for
residential development, or developed at this time with housing
units. Single family housing is the primary type of housing at
this time, however, multiple family housing projects will be
forthcoming in the City's high density areas in the future.
Approximately half of the City is designated for residential
development or growth.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None are proposed.
13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION: The site is generally located at
the northeast corner of Washington Street and Highway 111 (a State
roadway). With the proposed project it can be anticipated that
there will be a generation of additional vehicular traffic movement
in the immediate area. The project is fronting on two existing
partially developed major arterial streets of the City which are
planned to have divided median islands to discourage cross traffic
vehicular movements. T11is intersection is one of the primary
areas of the City which is currently impacted by vehicular traffic.
The Engineering Department (and Caltrans) has expressed a need to
mitigate traffic problems in this area through various means, which
can include: additional traffic lanes, right -turn medians, center
island medians, and other options which might assist traffic
through this area in a faster pace thus reducing delays for either
north/south or east/west travel. These improvements will be
installed by the master developer of the entire 111 La Quinta
Shopping Center.
The site is served by the Sunline Transit bus system and no impacts
to the Sunline serves are anticipated by the development of the
project.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
1). Compliance with all applicable City requirements regarding
street improvements unless gauranteed by the master developer of
the 111 La Quinta Shopping Center.
2). The project shall provide adequate on -site parking to
accommodate the proposed use of the property or provided shared
parking with the 111 La Quinta Shopping Center.
3). Permit for any work cn Highway 111 shall require permission by
Caltrans since the roadway is a State Highway.
14. PUBLIC SERVICES: The project may create a need for
additional fire protection, police protection, solid waste
collection, and maintenance of public roads in the area. However,
it is anticipated that any increases in this area will be
incremental, and further, should only have negligible impacts on
existing personnel or services.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
1). Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant will
be required to pay an infrastructure fee of $6,000.00 per acre.
This fee will help mitigate any associated impacts which are noted
above.
2). The project shall comply with all requirements of the Fire and
Riverside County Sheriffs Department prior to building permit
issuance.
3). The School District mitigation fees shall be paid prior to
permit issuance pursuant to the adoption of AB2986 in 1986.
4). The project developer shall make provisions with Palm Desert
Disposal to have the project serviced to assure waste products are
disposed of without creating health hazards to the community.
Necessary facilities shall be built to dispose of product waste and
recycling shall be encouraged.
16. UTILITIES: No significant impacts are anticipated in the area
of utilities which include natural gas, communication systems,
water, sewer, and solid waste.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None Required. All necessary
improvements as mandated by the City or any other public agency
shall be met as part of the development of this site. Copies of
the Agency Comments are attached.
18. AESTHETICS: The site is presently vacant but graded in order
to permit the construction of the restaurant. The City presently
has a policy which discourages multi -level building along Highway
111 within 150 feet of the future property line. The applicant
has proposed a plan which is one story. The Planning Commission
and City Council will determine the necessary height of the
building during the review process.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
1). The restaurant should be one story in overall height pursuant
to the City's adopted General Plan standards.
2). The development of the on and off -site landscaping program
should take into consideration the visual affect of the project and
its relationship to Highway 111, an image corridor. The on -site
plans of the restaurant owner should reflect the design theme of
the master landscape theme by the master developer (111 La Quinta
Shopping Center).
19. RECREATION: No significant adverse impacts are anticipated in
this area.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None required. However, the developer
has indicated that they desire to build a playground facility on
the property in conjunction with the development of the fast food
restaurant. No problem are anticipated by the development of the
playground.
20. ARCHEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL: The master developer has performed
the necessary studies and the required on -site work to mitigate the
development of the site. This work was done during the initial
phase of development and prior to any on -site grading. The
historical data gathering was done under the direction of qualified
individuals and recorded with the Riverside County Archeological
Research Unit.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None required. The site has been
mitigated pursuant to the conditions of approval for Specific Plan
89-014.
21. MANDATORY FINDINGS: It is not anticipated that there will be
any adverse impacts by the project in the areas of plant and animal
life, long term environmental goals, cumulative impacts, or impacts
on human beings since the site has been graded to permit the
development of the Carl°s Jr. Restaurant.
Attached: Agency Comments
Reference: Previous EA 89-150
Prepared by: Greg Trousdell
JOW.-All AT
ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY
�BTRa COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
POST OFFICE BOX 1058 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (619) 398M1
DIRECTORS
TELLIS CODEKAS, PRESIDENT
RAYMOND R. RUMMONDS. VICE PRESIDENT
JOHN W. McFADDEN
DOROTHY M. DE LAY
THEODORE J. FISH
Planning Commission
City of La Quinta
Post Office Box 1504
La Quinta, California 92253
Gentlemen:
OFFICERS
THOMAS E. LEVY, GENERAL MANAGER -CHIEF ENGINEER
November 23, 1992 BERNARDI NE SUTTON, SECRETARY
OWEN McCOOK ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
REDWINE AND SHERRILL, ATTORNEYS
File: 0163.1
k� Nov 2 5 199Z
Subject: Conditional Use Permit 92-004, Portion of the
Northeast Quarter of Section 30, Township 5
South, Range 7 East, San Bernardino Meridian
This area is protected from stormwater flows by the Coachella Valley Stormwater
Channel and may be considered safe from stormwater flows except in rare
instances.
This area is designated Zone X on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which are in
effect at this time.
The district will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in
accordance with the current regulations of this district. These regulations
provide for the payment of certain fees and charges by the subdivider and said
fees and charges are subject to change.
Plans for grading, landscaping, and irrigation systems shall be submitted to
Coachella Valley Water District for review. This review is for ensuring
efficient water management.
If you have any questions please call Bob Meleg, stormwater engineer,
extension 264.
Yo rs very truly,
C;
Tom Levy
General Manager -Chi
RF:kf/e/92004
cc: Don Park
Riverside County Department of Public Health
79-733 Country Club Drive, Suite D
Bermuda Dunes, California 92201
TRUE CONSERVATION
USE WATER WISELY
a
IMPtRi I IRRI 11 1
COACHELLA VALLEY POWER DIVISION
81.600 AVENUE 58 • P.O.BOX 1080 •LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253.1080
TELEPHONE (619) 398-5811 • FAX (619) 398.5848
PD-DDC
Mr. Greg Trousdell,
City of La Quinta
78-106 Calle Estado
La Quinta, CA 92253
Dear Mr. Trousdell:
December 1, 1992
Associate Planner
RD
DEC 0 4 1992 I
f.t_.
0 .
Subject: Conditional Use Permit 92-004 / Carl's Jr. Restaurant,
East of Washington Street and North of Highway 111
I have reviewed the plan for the proposed Carl 's Jr. Restaurant
described above and I have the following comments:
1. This project will not, in itself, have a significant
impact or adverse effect on the Imperial Irrigation
District's (District) power system. However, combined
with all of the other proposed additions in the area, the
peak demand that would be generated by a project of this
nature would result in the need for additional generation,
transmission, substation(s) and distribution facilities.
Also, additional generation purchases to provide service
to the development will impact future power rates in the
District's service area.
2. The District will be installing a padmount transformer
approximately 170 feet to the east of this location. The
load used for the restaurant was 400 amps at 120/208
volts. If the load size or voltage is different than
stated here, the District needs to be notified
immediately.
3. No mention as to the location of the service panel. It is
assumed to be adjacent to the employee lockers (No. 72 on
Sheet 7 of 7). If the panel is to be located in a
different area, the District needs to be notified
immediately.
City of La Quinta -2- December 1, 1992
Should you have any questions, please contact me at 398-5854.
Yours very truly
THOMAS F. LYONS, JR.
Engineer, Senior
Coachella Valley Division
CARLWA11.LTR
�.. RIVERSIDE COUNTY
c UNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
RIVER3REi. .oi,
210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE i PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370
�i (714) 657.3183
)LEN J. NEWMAN November iB, 1992
FIRE CHIEF
To: City of La Quinta
Planning Division
Attn: Greg Trousdell
Res Conditional Use Permit 92-004
With respect to the condition of approval regarding the above
referenced CUP, the Fire Department requires the following fire
protection measures RiversideeCountyded FiirenDeparotmentewith La protectionQuinta standards:opal
Code and/or Riverside
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.
2. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super hydrant(s)
(6" x 4" x 2 1/2"), located not less than 25' nor more than 165'
from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved
vehicular travelways.
3. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be
installed and operational prior to the start of construction.
4. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #109 but
not less than 2A108C in rating. Contact certified extinguisher
company for proper placement of equipment.
5. Install a Hood Duct automatic fire extinguishing system. System
plans must be submitted, along with a plan check/inspection fee,
to the Fire Department for review.
6. Install Knox Lock Boxes, Models 44009 3200 or
130 must mounted per
recommended standard of the Knox company.Plansof mounting
submitted to the Fire Department for approval
location/position and operating standards. Special forms are
available from this office for the ordering of the Key Lock
Boxes. This form must be authorized and signed by this office
for the correctly coded system to be purchased.
-1-
PLANNING DIVISION
O TFMEctna oFFIc>
(� INDIO OFFICE 41002 County Center Drive. Suite 225, Tanaub, CA 92390
M733 Country Chub Drive, Suke F, Indio, CA 92201 (714) 694.5070 a FAX (714) 69*5076
(619) 342a m ® FAX (619) 7752072 0 RIVERSIDE OFFM
376012th Street, Rlvmid% CA 92501 A grin►ee on recycle=
Tot City of La Quinta
Res CUP 92-004
November 18, 1992
Page 2
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 questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be
referred to the Fire Department Planning L Engineering Staff at (619)
863-8886.
Sincerely,
RAY REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
By
Tom Hutchison
Fire Safety Specialist
imp
cc B-7
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
INDIO STATION
Memorandum
To: Greg Trousdell November 9, 1992
From: IA. Denver Pittman
Re: Conditional Use Permit
I have reviewed the plans for a Carl's Jr. (92-004). At this time,
I do not foresee any potential problems with the design.
NOV 10 1992 ` �'
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 93-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS
AND APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION OF A FAST FOOD RESTAURANT.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-004
CARUS P. RESTAURANT
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did
on the 12th day of January, 1993, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of
the for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a fast food restaurant in
the C-P-S Zone located generally at the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street,
more particularly described as:
A PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 19, T5S, R7E, S.B.B.M.
WHEREAS, said Conditional Use Permit has complied with the requirements of
"The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (Resolution 83-
63,), in that the Planning Director has determined that after an initial study, the project will not
have an significant adverse effect on the environment and that a Negative Declaration should be
filed; and,
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any,
of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following
facts and reasons to justify approval of said Conditional Use Permit:
1. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the
community.
2. The Conditional Use Permit, as conditioned, is consistent with the approval and
conditions of which this site is a part of.
3. The Conditional Use Permit, as conditioned, is consistent with the zoning requirements
and intent of the C-P-S zone and Transpacific Development Company (SP 89-014).
4. That the environmental impacts associated with the development of this project can be
mitigated through the approval conditions imposed upon it.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
RESOPC.095 1
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
Commission in this case.
2. That it does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit 92-004 for the reasons set forth in
this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions, labeled Exhibit "A".
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission, held on this 12th day of January, 1993, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
KATIE BARROWS, Chairwoman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY ]HERMAN, Planning Director
City of La Quinta, California
RESOPC.095 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-004 - CARL'S JR. RESTAURANT
JANUARY 12, 1993
* Modified by Staff after Design Review Board meeting of December 2, 1992.
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT' DEPARTMENT:
1. The development of this site shall be generally be in conformance with the exhibits
contained in the file for Conditional Use Permit 92-004, unless otherwise amended by
the following conditions.
2. The approved conditional use permit shall be used within one year of the Planning
Commission approval; otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect
whatsoever. "Be used" means the beginning of substantial construction which is allowed
by this approval, not including grading, which is begun within the one year period and
thereafter diligently perused to completion.
3. All applicable conditions of SP 89-014 and Parcel Map 25865 shall be complied with as
necessary.
4. An exterior lighting plan for the parking lot area and building shall be approved by the
Planning and Development Department prior to issuance of a building permit. Lighting
fixtures shall be shielded to eliminate glare on the adjacent streets.
5. Should mandatory recycling be required at sometime in future, separate recycling bins
if needed shall be provided within a masonry enclosure.
6. That all conditions of the Coachella Valley Water District and Imperial Irrigation District
in their letters dated September 25, 1991 and December 1, 1992, shall be met as
required.
7. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City adopted
infrastructure fee program in affect at the time of issuance of a future building permit.
8. Construction shall comply with all local and State building code requirements in effect
at the time of issuance of a building permit.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD:
7. Final landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Agricultural Commissioner
and the Coachella Valley Water District, prior to issuance of a building permit.
CONAPRVL.067
Conditions of Approval
CUP 92-004 - Carl's Jr. Restaurant
January 12, 1993
8. Applicant shall work with master developer to provide coordination of landscape planting
along the south and west sides of the building.
9. The drive-thru lane shall be screened by both a landscaped berm and masonry retaining
wall along the entire length of the proposed drive-thru lane. A screen wall should be
built along the drive-thru lane so that the top of the wall is approximately four feet above
the finish floor height of the restaurant.
10. A covered trellis or canopy, should be built over both drive -up delivery windows as
required by the provisions of the Off -Street Parking Code. The design and location of
the shade structures shall be approved by the Design Review Board.
*11. In order to enhance existing sight distance visibility at the drive-thru lane, the trash
enclosure shall be relocated to another area of the site, recessed in to the ground to
reduce the height to no higher than three feet, or shifted south of its present location by
approximately eight feet.
12. All amplification equipment and lighting for the drive-thru lane should be screened by
appropriate building materials or landscaping to muffle or conceal their existence.
*13. The height of the flagpole at the west side of the site shall not exceed the height of the
restaurant. The American flag and California flag may be flown on the pole if it is
constructed and the size of each flag shall not be longer than three feet by five feet.
14. Concrete bumper stops shall be used in the customer parking lot to discourage parked
cars from encroaching into the five foot wide pedestrian sidewalk.
15. The attached awning colors shall be revised to match the colors used in the shopping
center.
116. Any roof lighting for the restaurant should be done with bullet fixture units to accent the
clay roof file and be subject to Staff approval.
* 17. The provisions of the Transpacific Development Company sign program shall be met.
18. The playground area shall be screened from view of Highway 111 with tall, dense
landscape material and fencing, to the satisfaction of the Planning and Development
Department. The wrought iron fencing which encloses the playground area shall be
designed so that it is an architectural element of the building. The fence should include
a design pattern that reflects the character of the shopping center. The playground
equipment shall not exceed two levels or twelve feet, whichever is less.
CONAPRVL.067 2
Conditions of Approval
CUP 92-004 - Carl's Jr. Restaurant
January 12, 1993
* 19. The overall height of the one story restaurant shall not exceed 24 feet.
20. The tower elements of the building shall be redesigned. The gabled roof ends should
include a stucco parapet (±2 feet high) above the height of the tile roofing material.
Similar to the design theme for shop building "B-l" within the shopping center. The
design shall be approved by Staff during plan check.
CITY FIRE MARSHAL:
21. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 1500 gpm for a two
hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any
combustible material is placed on the job site.
22. The required fire flow -shall be available from a Super hydrant(s) (6" X 4" X 2-1/2"),
located not less than 25-feet nor more than 165-feet from any portion of the building(s)
as measured along approved vehicular travelways.
23. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and operational prior
to the start of construction.
24. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2AlOBC
in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment.
25. Install a Hood Duct automatic fire extinguishing system. System plans must be
submitted, along with a plan check/inspection fee, to the Fire Department for review.
26. Install Knox Lock Boxes, Models 4400, 3200, or 1300, mounted per recommended
standard of the Knox Company. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for
approval of mounting location/position and operating standards. Special forms are
available from this office for the ordering of the Key Lock Boxes. This form must be
authorized and signed by this office for the correctly coded system to be purchased.
27. 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.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT:
28. Prior to issuance of a building permit, plans showing site grading, parking, circulation,
and access to streets, shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Development
Department and Engineering Department to insure compatibility with the overall
approved plans.
CONAPRVL.067 3
Conditions of Approval
CUP 92-004 - Carl's Jr. Restaurant
January 12, 1993
29. All storm water and nuisance water run-off produced on this site shall be discharged in
accordance with the approved drainage plan prepared for Specific Plan 89-014, unless
otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
30. All off -site improvements adjacent to the site and site grading shall conform to approved
improvement plans prepared pursuant to Specific Plan 89-014.
31. 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 responsibility shall make the following
certification 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 finish building pad elevations conform with the approved grading plans."
32. 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
affect at the time work is undertaken and accomplished by the City.
33. All on -site parking spaces shall comply with the City's Off -Street Parking Code.
SPECIAL:
34. The State Fish and Game fees shall be paid within 24-hours after review of the case by
the City Council.
CONAPRVL.067 4
DATE:
CASE NO.:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS:
BACKGROUND:
PH #2
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JANUARY 12, 1993
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 92-029 (EA 92-243)
CITY OF LA QUINTA
TO AMEND CHAPTER 9.117, OVERLAY ZONE FOR EQUESTRIAN
USES ON SMALLER LOTS.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 92-243 HAS BEEN
PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS APPLICATION
PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HAS DETERMINED THAT NO
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WHICH
CANNOT BE MITIGATED WILL RESULT FROM THIS
PROJECT. THEREFORE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IS RECOMMENDED FOR
ADOPTION.
In response to public comment emanating from the proceedings of Annexation #5, Staff has
prepared an amendment (Attachment #2) to the existing Overlay Zone for Equestrian Uses on
Smaller Lots (Attachment #1). Extensive changes are proposed to Chapter 9.117, which include
deletions, new sections, and clarification of several subsections. Proposed amendments consist
of the following:
I. AMENDMENTS.
A. New Sections: Two new sections have been added. The first is 9.117.005.
Pu ose, which provides a statement of the zones intent. The second new section
is 9.117.030 Prohibition, which clearly lists particular animals that are not
permitted in this zone. The Equestrian Overlay is not intended to permit
agricultural uses, but rather to allow rural equestrian -oriented residential
development. This type of development could either be individual homeowners
keeping horses on their property in private facilities, or a planned residential
development with a community equestrian facility managed by a property owner's
association.
PCST.096
B. Where Permitted: This section has been expanded to provide clarification of
zoning application. The minimum lot size has been reduced to one acre in order
to be more compatible with development patterns and lot sizes in the area.
C. Permitted Uses: Subsections "B" and "D" have been expanded. Llamas have
been added as a permitted animal, as they are a popular pack animal used by
equestrians. A policy on the counting of foals in the maximum number of horses
allowed on a lot has been provided in Subsection "B".
Subsection "D" has been expanded to clarify what a "farm project" is and have
such project comply with this Ordinance.
D. Development Standards: This section has been renumbered and changes are
proposed in some subsections. Subsection "C" has been expanded with additional
standards for pasture fences. White painted three -rail fencing shall be required
adjacent to public or private streets.
Section "D" subjects equestrian properties to dust control regulations as required
by Title 13, Chapter 13.52 (Fugitive Dust Control) of the Municipal Code.
Items number 3 of Subsection "E" is amended to include a statement concerning
enforcement of City and County Codes.
Subsection "F" is a new standard requiring a minimum corral size for each horse.
The standard is based upon County requirements.
E. Review/Approval Process: This section has been renumbered. Square footage
limits have been modified as have the requirements for City approval of any
changes to the Equestrian Overlay Zone District.
II. PROPERTY OWNER SURVEY
In early October, Staff prepared a survey questionnaire consisting of seven questions to ascertain
the desires of the effected property owners concerning the proposed overlay extension and
possible development standards for the Equestrian Overlay Zone. A copy of the questionnaire
and map is attached to this report (see Attachment #3). This survey was mailed to 21 individual
property owners of the 25 parcels in the proposed Equestrian Overlay District #2. Thirteen (13)
questionnaires were returned to the Planning Department (Attachment #4). This amounts to an
approximate 62% response. Nine of these parcels are located within Riverside County
jurisdiction and will probably be considered for annexation in the future. Those property owners
of proposed Equestrian Overlay District #3 were not included in the survey due to the lateness
of their request to be included.
PCST.096 2
The results of this survey are as follows:
1. Do you currently stable horses on your property?
Yes = 4
No = 7
No Response = 2
2. Do you desire to stable horses on your property in the future?
Yes = 5
No = 5
Not sure = 1
No Response = 2
3. In your opinion, what should be the smallest sized lot allowed for horsekeeping in
residential areas?
1 acre = 3
1.5 acres = 5
10,000 sq. ft. = 1
20,000 sq. ft. = 0
2 acres = 1
3 acres = 1
No Response = 2
4. How far should equestrian properties be located from designated equestrian trails?
1/4 mile = 1
1/2 mile = 2
3/4 mile = 1
1 mile = 3
Adjacent = 3
No Response = 3
5. Should there be fencing standards for equestrian properties fronting public and private
streets and equestrian trails?
Yes = 11
No = 0
No Response = 2
PCST.096 3
6. If you answered "Yes" to the above question, what type of fencing should be required
along public and private streets and equestrian trails?
Rustic split rail = 1
Three -rail white = 3
PVC fencing — 1
Block wall = 1
Any of three or comparable = 1
Three rail white and Rustic = 1
Don't know = 1
No Response — 2
7. What large animals, other than horses, should be allowed within the Equestrian Overlay
Zone District?
None = 4
No Response = 2
Llamas, donkeys, burros = 1
Llamas only = 2
Don't know = 1
Mules, donkeys, burros, llamas = 2
Cattle, bulls, sheep, goats,
mules, donkeys, llamas, & burros = 1
8. Other comments: See Attachment #4 for various comments.
With a 62 % response, a representative sample of property owners within proposed EOD #2 was
obtained. It appears roughly equal in those that currently keep horses and desire to continue
keeping them to those that do not.
Minimum lot size for horsekeeping had a wide range of responses from 10,000 sq. ft. to 3+
acres. Five of the thirteen responses favored at least 1.5 acre minimum size, which is the
current requirement. Three responses supported a one acre minimum which is what Staff
proposes to amend the Ordinance to read. A one acre country estate lot is currently a popular
size in several subdivisions.
Access to a designated equestrian trail system is an important factor in the creation of an
Equestrian Overlay District. The survey responses favored either being within one mile or
adjacent to such a trail. This question was asked in order to assist in determining the boundaries
of the proposed District #2. Madison Street has been designated as an equestrian corridor in the
General Plan Update. Projects being approved along the east side of Madison Street are being
required to construct their segments of the equestrian corridor trail.
PCST.096 4
A uniform fencing standard for equestrian properties was supported by 87.5 % of the survey
responses. However, there is not a strong consensus for a particular type of fencing. The top
two ranking fence types were the three -rail white painted fencing and the currently popular PVC
fencing that can be made to look like the traditional wooden three -rail painted white fence.
As far as what other large animals should be permitted in the Overlay Zone in addition to
horses, the response was mixed. The selection for "None" received the largest support with four
noes.
FINDINGS:
1. The proposed amendments to the Overlay Zone for Equestrian Uses on Smaller Lots are
compatible with the goals and policies contained in the General Plan for the City of La
Quinta for future development in the project areas.
2. There will be no significant environmental impacts resulting from the proposed
amendments that cannot be mitigated by existing measures.
RECOMMENDATION:
Move to continue this item to the January 25, 1993 Planning Commission Study Session for
further discussion and then to the January 26, 1993 Planning Commission meeting for
consideration.
Attachments:
1. Current Ordinance
2. Draft Amended Ordinance
3. Survey letters and forms
4. Survey responses
PCST.096 5
Attachment 1
CHAPTER 9.117 - OVERLAY ZONE
FOR
EQUESTRIAN USES ON SMALLER LOTS
SECTIONS:
9.117.010 Where Permitted
9.117.020 Permitted Uses
9.117.030 Development Standards
9.117.040 Review/Approval Process
9.117.010. Where Permitted. The creation of an Overlay
District shall be limited to contiguous areas being a minimum
size of 2.5 acres. The minimum lot size within the District
shall be 1.5 acres.
9.117.020. Permitted Uses. Uses permitted in the Overlay
Zone shall be as follows:
A. Any Use permitted in the underlying zone.
B. The keeping of horses, including ponies, for personal
uses as well as breeding. The boarding of horses for the
purpose of breeding, training or boarders personal
pleasure. The maximum number of horses shall be no more
than 5 horses per acre.
C. Accessory buildings and uses; including stables, corrals,
barns, tack rooms, hay barns and other buildings and uses
customarily appurtenant to the permitted use.
D. Future Farms, 4-H or similar projects conducted by the
occupants of the premises.
E. Caretakers and employee housing for on -site employment,
providing that the unit does not exceed 1000 square feet
and the second unit observes the setbacks in the
underlying zone.
F. Attached or detached guest houses, without cooking
facilities, but with sleeping and sanitary facilities may
also be approved.
BJ/ORDDRFT.019
- 1 -
9.117.030. Development Standards:
A. Accessory structures, including barns shall be limited to
two stories in height and a maximum of thirty-five feet,
measured from the pad elevation.
B. Stalls, barns, corrals and the storage (temporary) of
manure shall be 20-feet from any property line.
C. Pasture areas shall consist of fences at least four feet
high and of such construction so as to confine the horses.
D. The pasture and stable areas shall be sprinkled or
otherwise treated to a degree so as to prevent the
emanation of dust, and in addition, all accumulation of
manure, mud, or refuse shall be eliminated so as to
prevent the breeding of flies.
E. Removal of manure must occur on a regular basis so as to
promote the health, safety, and welfare of residents and
visitors to the area by one of the following methods:
1. Stalls: Must be cleaned on a daily basis.
Manure is to be placed within an enclosed container
expressly for this purpose, and setback a minimum
of 20-feet from an perimeter property line and
shall be removed within 7-days; or taken to an area
on the property, that is dragged, mixed and watered
with the soil on a weekly basis.
2. Pastures: Must have manure removed or dragged,
mixed and watered with the soil on a weekly basis.
3. Any condition that results in odors, unsightly
areas or infestation shall be deemed a public
nuisance and/or health hazard and shall be abated
within seven days of proper notice.
9.117.040. Review/Approval Process.,
A. Accessory buildings, detached or attached, including
caretaker and employee houses, barns, tack rooms, hay
barns and similar buildings.
1. Up to 120 square feet, exempt from review, provided
that setbacks are observed.
2. over 121 square feet up to 400 square feet, to be
reviewed by plot plan over the counter.
3. over 401 square feet, to be reviewed by plot plan,
by the Planning Commission.
BJ/oRDDRFT.019 - 2 -
B. All other permitted buildings are subject to the process
identified in the underlying zone.
C. Change of Zone process shall be used when adding the
overlay zone to a given District.
BJ/ORDDRFT.019 - 3 -
Attachment 2
CHAPTER 9.117 - OVERLAY ZONE
FOR
EQUESTRIAN USES ON SMALLER LOTS
SECTIONS:
9.117.005
Purpose
9.117.010
Where Permitted
9.117.020
Permitted Uses
9.117.030
Prohibition
9.117.040
Development Standards
9.117.050
Review/Approval Process
9.117.005, PURPOSE: The Equestrian Overlay District is intended to permit the keeping
of horses (stabling and riding) for personal recreational pleasure of City residents, on lots not
smaller than one (1) acre.
9.117.010. WHERE PERMITTED: Whenever it is placed on the official Zoning Map, the
designation "Equestrian Overlay District" shall be indicated after the zoning designation of the
area over which it is placed, and the regulations of said "Equestrian Overlay Zone" shall apply
in addition to the regulations of the principal zoning designation of the area to which it is
applied. Whenever a use is permitted in said "Equestrian Overlay Zone", said use shall be
permitted in addition to the uses otherwise allowed in the zoning designation over which it is
placed.
9.117.020. PERMITTED USES: Uses permitted in the "Equestrian Overlay Zone" shall be
as follows:
A. Any use permitted in the underlying zone.
B. The keeping of horses, (including ponies, donkeys, burros, or llamas) for personal uses
as well as breeding, the boarding of horses for the purpose of breeding, training, or
boarders personal pleasure. The maximum number of horses shall be no more than five
(5) horses per acre. Foals under one (1) year of age shall not be counted in the
maximum number of horses permitted.
C. Accessory buildings and uses; including stables, corrals, barns, tack rooms, hay barns,
and other buildings and uses customarily appurtenant to the permitted use.
DOCLB.003
D. Farm projects (Future Farms, 4-H or similar projects) conducted by the occupants of the
premises. Such projects shall involve only the permitted type and number of animals by
this ordinance being trained in connection with the education of a person as a member
of a recognized farm education organization.
E. Caretakers and employee housing for on -site employment, providing that the unit does
not exceed 1,000 square feet and the second unit observes the setbacks in the underlying
zone.
9.117.030. PROHIBITION: A person shall not keep or maintain any of the following
animals:
A. Pigs, swine, and other omnivorous hoofed animals.
B. Any male animal (horse, pony, donkey, burro, mule, or llama) over the age of two years
that has not been castrated, to prevent public nuisance and safety hazards.
C. Sheep, goats, cattle, or bovine animals.
9.117.040. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
A. Accessory structures, including barns shall be limited to two stories in height and a
maximum of thirty-five feet, measured from the pad elevation.
B. Stalls, barns, corrals, and the storage (temporary) of manure shall be 20-feet from any
property line.
C. Pasture areas shall consist of fences at least four feet high and of such construction as
to confine the animals. Corral fences which are on boundary lines or are adjoining and
running parallel to private streets or bridle trails, shall be three -rail and painted white,
with a minimum height of four (4) feet from grade, and with posts spaced not more than
ten (10) feet apart. All posts shall be 4" X 6" minimum with 2" X 6" minimum rails.
D. The pasture and stable areas shall be regularly sprinklered or otherwise treated to a
degree so as to prevent the emanation of dust, and in addition, all accumulation of
manure, mud, or refuse shall be eliminated so as to prevent the breeding of flies. Open
stable/pasture areas shall be subject to the requirements of Title 13, Chapter 13.52
(Fugitive Dust Control) whenever applicable.
E. Removal of manure must occur on a regular basis so as to promote the health, safety,
and welfare of residents and visitors to the area by one of the following methods:
DOCLB.003 2
1. Stalls: Must be cleaned on a daily basis. Manure is to be placed within an
enclosed container, e.g. three yard bin, expressly for this purpose, and setback
a minimum of 20 feet from any perimeter property line and shall be removed
from the property within seven (7) days; or taken to an area on the property that
is dragged, mixed and watered with the soil on a weekly basis.
2. Pastures: Must have manure removed or dragged, mixed and watered with the
soil on a weekly basis.
3. Any condition that results in odors, unsightly areas or infestation shall be deemed
a public nuisance and/or health hazard and shall be abated within seven (7) days
of proper notice. All violations are subject to enforcement provisions of Chapter
9.236 of the Municipal Code, and County Health Codes.
F. Horses shall be maintained in a fenced corral area containing at least eight hundred (800)
square feet for the first horse, and for each additional horse beyond one (1), an additional
three hundred (300) square feet of corral area shall be provided.
9.117.050. REVIEW/APPROVAL PROCESS:
A. Accessory buildings, detached or attached, including employee houses, barns, tack
rooms, hay barns, and similar buildings.
1. Up to 400 square feet for each structure to be reviewed by plot plan for approval
by the Planning and Development Department.
2. Over 401 square feet to be reviewed by plot plan, by the Planning Commission.
B. All other permitted buildings are subject to the process identified in the underlying zone.
C. For any changes made to the Equestrian Overlay Zone District, the requirements of
Chapter 9.228 of the Municipal Code shall be met.
DOCLB.003 3
Attachment 3
78-105 C:ALLE ESTADO — LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 564-2246
FAX (619) 564-5617
Dctober 2, 1992
Dear Property Owner:
The City of La Quinta Planning and Development Department is conducting a study concerning
the expansion of the Equestrian Overlay District within the area depicted in the map below. The
ievelopment standards for the Equestrian Overlay zone are also being reviewed for any necessar3
revisions. In order to determine the most appropriate boundaries of the Equestrian Overla3
District you are requested to complete the attached questionnaire and return it to City Hall b3
October 16, 1992. Your input into this study is both needed and appreciated.
For any questions concerning this study, please contact Leslie Blodgett in the Planning anc
Development Department at (619) 564-2246, Extension 236.
LTRLB . 001
Existing Overlay
Proposed Overlay;;:"*":
Study Area mon
MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX •1504 - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253
)ctober 9, 1992
)ear Property Owner:
'he City of La Quinta Planning and Development Department is conducting a study concerning
he expansion of the Equestrian Overlay District within the area depicted in the map below. This
,rea includes approximately_ 240 acres within Riverside County that have been pre -zoned for
uture annexation. The development standards for the Equestrian Overlay zone are also being
�eviewed for any necessary revisions. - In order to determine the most appropriate boundaries of
he Equestrian Overlay District you are requested to complete the attached questionnaire and
,eturn it to City Hall by October 23, 1992. Your input into this study is both needed and
Lppreciated .
or any questions concerning this study, please contact Leslie Blodgett in the Planning and
)evelopment Department at (619) 564-2246, Extension 236.
Existing Overlay
Proposed Overlay;:;:'::;:;
Study Area rr®.
LTRLB . 002
CITY OF LA QUINTA
EQUESTRIAN OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT EXPANSION
PROPERTY OWNER SURVEY
1. Do you currently stable horses on your property?
YES NO
2. Do you desire to stable horses on your property in the future?
YES NO NOT SURE
3. In your opinion, what should be the smallest sized lot allowed for horsekeeping ir
residential areas?
1.5 acre minimum 10,000 square foot minimum
1 acre minimum 20,000 square foot minimum
4. How far should equestrian properties be located from designated equestrian trails?
1 mile 3 /4 mile 1/2 mile
5. Should there be fencing standards for equestrian properties fronting public and private
streets, and equestrian trails?
YES NO
B. If you answered "YES" to the above question, what type of fencing should be required
along public and private streets and equestrian trails?
Rustic split rail PVC fencing
Three -rail white
7. What large animals, other than horses, should be allowed within the Equestrian Overlay
Zone District?
Mules - Llamas
Donkeys & Burros
a. Other comments:
OPTIONAL:
NAME:
ADDRESS:
PHONE:
CITY OF LA QUINTA Attachment 4
EQUES - AIAN OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT EXPANSION
PROPERTY OWNER SURVEY
1. Do you currently stable horses on your property?
YES _4 NO
2. Do you desire to stable horses on your property in the future?
YES - �NO NOT SURE
3. In your opinion, what should be the smallest sized lot allowed for horsekeeping h
residential areas?
1.5 acre minimum �_ 10,000 square foot minimum
1 acre minimum 20,000 square foot minimum
4. How far should equestrian properties be located from designated equestrian trails?
1 mile 3 /4 mile 1/2 mile
5. Should there be fencing standards for equestrian properties fronting public and private
streets,` and equestrian trails?
YES NO
S. If you answered "YES" to the above question, what type of fencing should be require(
along public and private streets and equestrian trails?
Rustic split rail PVC fencing
Three -rail white
7. What large animals, other than horses, should be allowed within the Equestrian Overlai
Zone District?
Mules - Llamas
Donkeys & Burros
8 . Other comments: Gu dzt(, 2
OPTIONAL:
NAME: C
42
ADDRESS:
PHONE: (�z
In my opinion hotcses a4e not conducive bon homes .in this atcea.
1 betieve 6o>t this type o6 home you wound be bettete with a main
equestAian seAv.iee in a cent4at anea where .they can stabie theitc
hotcses with cane more s.impte and e66ic.ient.
Who .is going to take cane o6 the tAa.it6? Who .is going to keep the
dust down? who .is going to keep the tna.it6 clean? etc.
you wound have to have an assessment d.ist,%ict bon maintenance bon the
tna.its .
1 wound not want my pnopetty zoned Got horses only.
16 you want a typical example oS what a city with tna.its .books Like
just visit NoAco, Ca. in R.ivens.ide Co. Dust and diAt .in 6tcont ob
evenyones house every day. I would not want to have to clean my
house evekyday because ob the dust that .is made 6tcom the ttca.i.bs . ! ! ! !
CITY OF LA QUINTA
EQUES1 _ .AN OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT L,.PANSION
PROPERTY OWNER SURVEY
1. Do you currently stable horses on your property?
YES NO
2. Do you desire to stable horses on your property in the future?
YES NO NOT SURE
3. In your opinion, what should be the smallest sized lot allowed for horsekeeping in
residential areas?
1.5 acre minimum 10,000 square foot minimum
1 acre minimum 20,000 square foot minimum
4. How far should equestrian properties be located from designated equestrian trails?
1 mile 3 /4 mile 1/2 mile
5. Should there be fencing standards for equestrian properties fronting public and private
streets, and equestrian trails?
YES NO
6. If you answered "YES" to the above question, what type of fencing should be required
along public and private streets and equestrian trails?
Rustic split rail PVC fencing
Three -rail white
7. What large animals, other than horses, should be allowed within the Equestrian Overlal
Zone District?
Mules Llamas
Donkeys & Burros
8. Other comments: 1-^
i
t C-T- oC 4 a Stint
�� keG �c s t-r2 r
OPTIONAL:
NAME:
ADDRESS:
n
�' '
uh &I.
PHONE: T?� a� �3`F^ S C7//
CITY OF LA QUINTA
EQUES'., _ JAN OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT i_&PANSION
PROPERTY OWNER SURVEY
1. Do you currently stable horses on your property?
YES NO
2. Do you desire to stable horses on your property in the future?
YES - NO NOT SURE
3. In your opinion, what should be the smallest sized lot allowed for horsekeeping ii
residential areas?
1.5 acre minimum 10,000 square foot minimum
1 acre minimum 20,000 square foot minimum
4. How far should equestrian properties be located from designated equestrian trails?
1 mile 3 /4 mile 1/2 mile
5. Should there be fencing standards for equestrian properties fronting public and privat
streets, and equestrian trails?
YES NO
S. If you answered "YES" to the above question, what type of fencing should be require
along public and private streets and equestrian trails?
Rustic split rail PVC fencing
Three -rail white
7. What large animals, other than horses, should be allowed within the Equestrian Overls
Zone District?
Mules Llamas
Donkeys & Burros
3 . Other comments:
�—�
A � t9 rc"S'i� � tirh �4CU
�p r s s�o T� To
OPTIONAL: Q
NAME:
ADDRESS: S D v _ !1 3 ?ZS
PHONE:
CITY OF LA QUINTA
EQUESI. AAN OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT L,�PANSION
PROPERTY OWNER SURVEY
1. Do you currently stable horses on your property?
YES NO
2. Do you desire to stable horses on your property in the future?
YES NO _Z_ NOT SURE
3. In your opinion, what should be the smallest sized lot allowed for horsekeeping I
residential areas?
1.5 acre minimum 10,000 square foot minimum
X1 acre minimum 20,000 square foot minimum
4. How far should equestrian properties be located from designated equestrian trails?
1 mile 3 /4 mile � 1/2 mile
5. Should there be fencing standards for equestrian properties fronting public and privai
streets, and equestrian trails?
YES NO
6. If you answered "YES" to the above question, what type of fencing should be require
along public and private streets and equestrian trails? .
Rustic split rail PVC fencing
Three -rail white
7. What large animals, other than horses, should be allowed within the Equestrian Overb
Zone District?
Mules -
\� Llamas
_ Donkeys & Burros
8. Other comments:
OPTIONAL:
NAME:
ADDRESS:
PHONE:
CITY OF LA QUINTA
EQUES',L _.1AN OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT L. (PANSION
PROPERTY OWNER SURVEY
1.
4
I
Do you currently stable horses on your property?
YES � X NO
Do you desire to stable horses on your property in the future?
_ X YES - NO
NOT SURE
In your opinion, what should be the smallest sized lot allowed for horsekeeping it
residential areas?
1.5 acre minimum fib) 10,000 square foot minimum
(a) 1 acre minimum 20,000 square foot minimum
4. How far should equestrian properties be located from designated equestrian trails?
Adjacent or as close as possib
1 mile 3/4 mile 1/2 mile to Yesidential lots or to a
commercial boarding area.
5. Should there be fencing standards for equestrian properties fronting public and private
streets, and equestrian trails?
X YES NO
8. If you answered "YES" to the above question, what type of fencing should be requires
along public and private streets and equestrian trails?
X Rustic split rail PVC fencing
X Three -rail white
7. What large animals, other than horses, should be allowed within the Equestrian Overla
Zone District?
Mules 4 _ Llamas
Donkeys & Burros None
8. Other comments:
Item 3 (a) If horses are stabled on individual lots: 1 acre minimum
(b) If horses are stabled in a common barn, supervised by a
private association: 10,000 square foot minimum.
OPTIONAL:
NAME:
Bernard Debonne
ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1935 Palm Desert, CA. 92261
PHONE: (619) 564-6099
CITY OF LA QUINTA
EQUESZ - AN OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT kAPANSION
PROPERTY OWNER SURVEY
1. Do you currently stable horses on your property?
YES NO
2. Do you desire to stable horses on your property in the future?
YES NO NOT SURE
3. In your opinion, what should .be the smallest sized lot allowed for horsekeeping i
residential areas?
J` 1.5 acre minimum 10,000 square foot minimum
1 acre minimum 20,000 square foot minimum
4. How far should equestrian properties be located from designated equestrian trails?
1 mile X 3/4 mile 1/2 mile
5. Should there be fencing standards for equestrian properties fronting public and priva,
streets, and equestrian trails.
YES NO
6. If you answered "YES"
ES"to the above question, streets and equestrian trails?ttype of fencing should be require
along public and private
Rustic split rail PVC fencing
Three -rail white
7. What large animals, other than horses, should be allowed within the Equestrian Overl
Zone District?
_ Mules Llamas
Donkeys & Burros
8. Other comments:
OPTIONAL:
NAIME. i L, (�
F
ADDRESS:
PHONE:
CITY OF LA QUINTA
EQUES i .iAN OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT r nPANSION
PROPERTY OWNER SURVEY
1. Do you currently stable horses on your property?
YES xx NO
2. Do you desire to stable horses on your property in the future?
YES xx NO NOT SURE
3. In your opinion, what should be the smallest sized lot allowed for horsekeeping iz
residential areas?
xx 1.5 acre minimum 10,000 square foot minimum
1 acre minimum 20,000 square foot minimum
4. How far should equestrian properties be located from designated equestrian trails?
xx 1 mile 3 /4 mile 1/2 mile
5. Should there be fencing standards for equestrian properties fronting public and private
streets, and equestrian trails?
xx YES NO
6. If you answered "YES" to the above question, what type of fencing should be requires
along public and private streets and equestrian trails?
Rustic split rail PVC fencing
Three -rail white any of three or comparable
7. What large animals, other than horses, should be allowed within the Equestrian Overlal
Zone District?
Mules Llamas
Donkeys & Burros xx None
8. Other comments:
a. Before any large animals are allowed would like to see
info sheet from Ag Dept on susceptability to disease of
those requesting to be allowed.
b. Properties near hills should be allowed greater flexibility.
OPTIONAL:
NAME:
John Turco
ADDRESS: P.O. Box 2437 San Jose CA 95109
PHONE., 408 297 2026
CITY OF LA QUINTA
EQUES', .AAN OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT "APANSION
PROPERTY OWNER SURVEY
1. Do you currently stable horses on your property?
YES -�NO
2. Do you desire to stable horses on your property in the future?
YES - �NO NOT SURE
3. In your opinion, what should be the smallest sized lot allowed for horsekeeping i
residential areas?
1.5 acre minimum 10,000 square foot minimum
1 acre minimum
20,000 square foot minimum
4. How far should equestrian properties be located from designated equestrian trails?
1 mile 3 /4 mile 1/2 mile
5. Should there be fencing standards for equestrian properties fronting public and prival
streets, and equestrian trails?
YES NO
S. If you answered "YES" to the above question, what type of fencing should be require
along public and private streets and equestrian trails?
Rustic split rail PVC fencing
Three -rail white
7. What large animals, other than horses, should be allowed within the Equestrian Overly
Zone District?
Mules - Llamas
Donkeys & Burros
8. Other comments:
OPTIONAL:
NAME:
ADDRESS:
PHONE:
CITY OF LA QUINTA
EQUES, .IAN OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT i.APANSION
PROPERTY OWNER SURVEY
1. Do you currently stable horses on your property?
1. YES NO
2. Do you desire to stable horses on your property in the future?
YES NO NOT SURE
3. In your opinion, what should be the smallest sized lot allowed for horsekeeping iz
resideptial areas?
1.5 acre minimum 10,000 square foot minimum
1 acre minimum 20,000 square foot minimum
4. How far'should equestrian properties be located from designated equestrian trails?
t 1 mile 3/4 mile 1/ 2 mile
5. Should there be fencing standards for equestrian properties fronting public and private
streets, and equestrian trails?
i
YES NO
6. If you answered "YES" to the above question, what type of fencing should be requires
along public and private streets and equestrian trails?
Rustic split rail PVC fencing
_ Three -rail white
7. What large animals, other than horses, should be allowed within the Equestrian Overla3
Zone District?
Mulesy Llmas
Donkeys & Burros
8. Other comments:
OPTIONAL:
NAME:
ADDRESS: t� Add.
PHONE:
CITY OF LA QUINTA
EQUES1..iAN OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT ; 2ANSION
PROPERTY OWNER SURVEY
1. Do you currently stable horses on your property?
YES _.r/NO
2. Do you desire to stable horses on your property in the future?
YES - �O NOT SURE
3. In your opinion, what should be the smallest sized lot allowed for horsekeeping in
residential areas?
1.5 acre minimum 10,000 square foot minimum
1 acre minimum 20,000 square foot minimum
4. How far should equestrian properties be located from designated equestrian trails?
1 mile 3/ 4 mile 1/ 2 mile
S. Should there be fencing standards for equestrian properties fronting public and private
streets, and equestrian trails?
YES NO
6. If you answered "YES" to the above question, what type of fencing should be required
along public and private streets and equestrian trails?
_4Rustic split rail PVC fencing
Three -rail white
?. What large animals, other than horses, should be allowed within the Equestrian Overla3
Zone District?
Mules Llamas
Donkeys & Burros
8 . Other comments:
OPTIONAL:
NAME:
ADDRESS:
PHONE:
1.
2.
3.
CITY OF LA QUINTA
EQUE.. _ RIAN OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT .!XPANSION
PROPERTY OWNER SURVEY
Do you currently stable horses on your property? 0 C T 0 8 1997
YES NO'
Do you desire to stable horses on your property in the future?
L_ YES
pilrej
NOT SURE
In your opinion, what should be the smallest sized lot allowed for horsekeeping i
residential areas?
li 1.5 acre minimum 10,000 square foot minimum
1 acre minimum 20,000 square foot minimum
4. How far should equestrian properties be located from designated equestrian trails?
1 mile 3 /4 mile 1/2 mile
5. Should there be fencing standards for equestrian properties fronting public and prival
streets, and equestrian trails?
I YES NO
6. If you answered "YES" to the above question, what type of fencing should be require
along public and private streets and equestrian trails?
Rustic split rail �/ PVC fencing
Three -rail white
7. What large animals, other than horses, should be allowed within the Equestrian Overle
Zone District?
Mules Llamas
Donkeys & Burros
8. Other comments:
OPTIONAL:
NAME:
ADDRESS:
PHONE:
CITY OF LA QUINTA
EQUES _ AIAN OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT A_ PANSION
PROPERTY OWNER SURVEY
1. Do you currently stable horses on your property? 0 C T 0 8 1992
YES NO
2. Do you desire to stable horses on your property in the future?
YES NO NOT SURE
3. In your opinion, what should be the smallest sized lot allowed for horsekeeping in
residential areas?
1.5 acre minimum 10,000 square foot minimum
1 acre minimum 20,000 square foot minimum
4. How far should equestrian properties be located from designated equestrian trails?
1 mile 3 /4 mile 1/ 2 mile
5. Should there be fencing standards for equestrian properties fronting public and private
streets, and equestrian trails?
X YES NO
6. If you answered "YES" to the above question, what type of fencing should be required
along public and private streets and equestrian trails?
Rustic split rail --,,Y,— PVC fencing
Three -rail white
7. What large animals, other than horses, should be allowed within the Equestrian Overlay
Zone District?
Mules _ A Llamas
_X Donkeys & Burros
8. Other comments:
Z-Ha- ®V%/rpAREA e RoM r-o M49*A 0E- 0- Aae 5S;Z
ro , 4dE, S G S%f0414iJ a e- iNCLv�E1j //1/
OPTIONAL:
NAME: VnFZQT Z . 6
ADDRESS: �� %�% /✓%D/�/�E- S'�}F�i+�% �f} 9'aa7
PHONE:
PH #3
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING CONEMSSION MEETING
DATE: JANUARY 12, 1993
CASE NO.: CHANGE OF ZONE 92-073 (EA 92-243)
APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA
REQUEST: TO ADD THE EQUESTRIAN OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT
DESIGNATION TO EXISTING ZONING DESIGNATIONS IN ORDER
TO CREATE TWO NEW DISTRICTS (AREAS).
LOCATION: THE AREA BOUNDED BY MADISON STREET ON THE WEST,
52ND AVENUE ON THE NORTH, MONROE STREET ON THE
EAST, AND 55TH AVENUE (ALIGNMENT) ON THE SOUTH; AND
APPROXIMATELY 32 ACRES SOUTH OF 50TH AVENUE AND
EAST OF JEFFERSON STREET.
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATIONS: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DU/AC);
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - RURAL RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT;
VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - RURAL RESIDENTIAL
OVERLAY (0-2 DU/AC);
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL;
RIVERSIDE COUNTY (FUTURE ANNEXATION AREA)
RESIDENTIAL 3A (.4-2 DU/AC)
RESIDENTIAL 3B (.2-.4 DU/AC)
ZONING: EXISTING - R-1; R-1-10,000; R-1-20,000; C-P-S
RIVERSIDE COUNTY (R-1-14,000)
l�►�IIIiml'rIW�IIm
CONSIDERATIONS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 92-243 HAS BEEN
PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS APPLICATION
AND ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 92-029. THE
INITIAL STUDY INDICATES THAT NO SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WILL OCCUR THAT CANNOT
BE MITIGATED BY THE IMPOSITION OF MITIGATION
MEASURES. THEREFORE, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT. THE
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IS ATTACHED.
PCST.095 1
SURROUNDING
EXISTING & PROPOSED
LAND USES: PROPOSED EQUESTRIAN OVERLAY DISTRICT #2
NORTH - EXISTING: VACANT, MOBILE HOMES, POLO
CLUBS, RANCHETTES (CITY OF INDIO).
PLANNED: COUNTRY ESTATE PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL.
SOUTH - EXISTING: VACANT & AGRICULTURE
PLANNED: SPECIFIC PLAN 90-015, 1,060
RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND GOLF COURSE ON 265
ACRES; TT 26768, BESTCO, 21 SINGLE FAMILY R-1-
20,000 LOTS.
WEST - EXISTING: VACANT & AGRICULTURE
PLANNED: SPECIFIC PLAN 90-020, 850 SINGLE
FAMILY UNITS IN 7 VILLAGES ON 271 ± ACRES; SP
90-019.
EAST - EXISTING: AGRICULTURAL (RIVERSIDE COUNTY)
PLANNED: AGRICULTURAL (1 DU/10 ACRES).
PROPOSED EQUESTRIAN OVERLAY DISTRICT #3
NORTH - EXISTING: AGRICULTURAL (CITY OF INDIO).
PROPOSED: UNCHANGED
SOUTH - EXISTING: VACANT, HORSE KEEPING, RURAL
RESIDENTIAL.
PLANNED: TENTATIVE TRACT 26855 - KANLIAN,
73 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 23 ACRES; SP 90-016
LANDMARK LAND COMPANY 1208 RESIDENTIAL
UNITS, GOLF COURSE, 21 ACRE COMMERCIAL ON
327 ACRES; TT 26718-HANSCH, 125 SINGLE FAMILY
LOTS ON 39.3 ACRES.
PCST.095 2
WEST - EXISTING: AGRICULTURAL
PLANNED: TOURIST COMMERCIAL, COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL, AND LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
(OAK TREE WEST), AND SP 84-003 (THE ORCHARD-
86 ROOM HOTEL).
EAST - EXISTING: AGRICULTURE, GREEN VALLEY
ESTATES
PLANNED: SP 90-016 LANDMARK LAND COMPANY
CONTINUATION.
RELATED PAST ACTIONS:
On July 3, 1990, the City Council approved Ordinance 174 which added Chapter 9.117,
Equestrian Overlay Zone, to the Municipal Code. On that same date Ordinance 175 was
adopted that added the Equestrian Overlay Zone to the Green Valley Estates area in a prezoning
action prior to annexation. This area was included in Annexation #5 that was approved in
January, 1991.
During the Council meeting of September 3, 1991, Council raised the issue of expanding the
Equestrian Overlay Zone onto newly annexed properties. Council was advised by Staff, that if
requested, such a zone could be processed. In October of 1992, Staff initiated a study of the
expansion of the Equestrian Overlay Zone and began the Change of Zone process.
PROPOSAL:
Staff proposes to expand the Equestrian Overlay District Zone designation to approximately 1010
acres in two separate new districts. The existing overlay area is to be designated as Equestrian
Overlay District (EOD) #1. This district consists of the Green Valley Estates and is located
within the eastern half of Section 4.
The two proposed districts will be designated as EOD #2 and EOD #3. District #2 will consist
of all of Section 10 and the northern half of Section 15. A portion of this district is within
Riverside County and consists of approximately 240 acres. This land is within the Sphere of
Influence of the City of La Quinta and is slated for future annexation. By applying the EOD
designation to the 240 acres, the City will be pre -zoning in anticipation of annexation.
Proposed EOD #3 originated through the request of the four property owners involved in this
district. Staff' received a letter on December 7, 1992 (dated October 15, 1992) from the four
property owners requesting that they be included in the Equestrian Overlay Study. This district
will contain four parcels totalling 30± acres.
PCST.095
DISCUSSION:
The historical tradition and land use of the eastern portion of the City of La Quinta has been
rural and agricultural for many years. This area has been long considered a desirable area for
the small gentleman farmer and rancher to live and work; a rural and open atmosphere offering
a quiet and healthy lifestyle. A part of this lifestyle has included the keeping of horses.
Policies contained in the newly adopted General Plan Update call for retention of the rural
character in this area. One mechanism created to ensure that future development is consistent
with the General Plan is the Rural Residential Overlay land use designation. Another mechanism
is the Equestrian Overlay Zoning designation. The Equestrian Overlay currently allows property
owners to keep horses on parcels at least 1.5 acres in size. Staff is proposing to reduce this to
a one acre minimum. More information on this proposed amendment will be presented in the
Staff report for Zoning Ordinance Amendment 92-029.
The area currently designated with the Equestrian Overlay is relatively small when compared
to the rural area that should be retained as a rural residential sector of the City. Horses are
currently being kept on several parcels within proposed EOD #2 and EOD #3, as well as
surrounding properties within the City of Indio and Riverside County. The exact number of
horses kept within EOD #2 is not known. However, seven parcels in EOD #2 totalling over 330
acres do have horses.
Within proposed EOD #3, there are approximately 41 horses currently kept on three of the four
parcels. One of the four property owners does not now have horses but wants to have the option
to so. The area proposed to be within EOD #2 was selected because of its traditional rural -
equestrian land uses and the close proximity to surrounding equestrian uses such as the two large
polo clubs nearby, the several smaller polo ranches and equestrian properties and proximity to
trails. In recent years, the development of the Eldorado and Empire Polo Clubs has sparked
considerable interest among equestriennes in purchasing smaller ranches and properties on which
to live and keep their horses. This increase demand in horse -capable properties should be given
consideration in the growth and development of south-east La Quinta.
By creating the two new EOD's property owners will be given the option to keep a limited
number of horses on their one -acre or larger lots for their recreational pleasure. Planned
equestrian developments will be allowed within the EOD's. This type of development could
consist of community equestrian facilities built within residential development and maintained
by a property owner's association.
FURTHER PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION:
Due to the cancellation of the Planning Commission Study Session for Monday, January 11,
1993, Staff feels that this change of zone should be continued to the next scheduled study session
on Janyar 25, 1993, and then for consideration on the January 26, 1993, Planning Commission
meeting. There are important issues related to the expansion of the Equestrian Overlay Zone
that should have the benefit of study session discussion.
PCST.095 4
FINDINGS:
1. The proposed Equestrian Overlay expansion will not adversely affect the planned
development as called for by the General Plan Update for the City of La Quinta.
2. The proposed Equestrian Overlay districts will further the intent and are consistent with
the goals and policies of the General Plan.
3. There will be no significant environmental impacts resulting from the creation of the two
new equestrian overlay districts that cannot be mitigated by existing measures.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue this item until the January 25, 1993
Planning Commission Study Session and the January 26, 1993 Commission meeting.
Attachments:
1. Location map
2. Environmental Assessment 92-243
3. Letter dated October 15, 1992
PCST.095
r
t �
F'^-
V/
Z
O'^
VMMJ
1c
W
LL
51..j
u
C
1xisting Overlay District• �iiii
Proposed Overlay District
EQUESTRIAN OVERLAY DISTRICT STUDY
CASE No. Change of Zone 92-073
{
Environmental Assessment No. 92-243
Case No. C7 92-073
ZOA 92-029
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Background
Name of Proponent City of l a Ouinta
' . Address & Phone Number of Proponent 78-105 Calla Estado, La Qui nta CA 92253
619-564-2246
1. Date Checklist Prepared CPntPmhPr g, 1992
1. Agency Requiring Checklist Planning & Development
i . Name of Proposal, if applicable Equestrian Overlay District Expansion & Amendmen
Overlay Zone for Equestrian Uses on Smaller Lots
:I. Environmental Impacts
Explanation of "yes" & "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.)
YES MAYBE NO
Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes
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?
FORM.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?
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff?
c. Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters?
d. Change in the amount of surface water
in any water body?
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality
including but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of
flow of ground waters?
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or with -
drawls, or through interception of an
aquifers by cuts or excavations?
h. Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies?
i. Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding or
tidal waves?
FORM.009/CS -2-
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, & aquatic plants)?
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, -mot
rare or endangered species of animals?
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?
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
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?
FORM.009/CS -3-
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?
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing
housing, or create a demand for additional
housing?
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
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:
r
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
h
c. Schools? �---
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?_
e. Maintenance of public facilities & roads?`,
f . Other governmental services?
FORM.009/CS -4-
YES MAYBE NO
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amount of fuel
or energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand upon
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 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?
FORM.009/CS -5-
YES MAYBE NO
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.)
FORM.009/CS -6-
IV. Determination
(To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a
significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have
a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the
mitigation measures described on an attached sheet
have been added to the project.
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 idjnature of Preparer f
FORM.009/CS -7-
CITY OF LA QUINTA
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 92-073
CASE NO. CHANGE OF ZONE 92-073, ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 92-029
EQUESTRIAN OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The study area for the proposed Equestrian Overlay Zone District expansion consists
of 2,800 acres located from 52nd Avenue south to where 55th Avenue would be if it
went through, west of Madison Street, and as far east as Monroe Street. Figure 1
depicts the boundaries of -the area assessed by this initial study. The study area
is located in Sections 4,9, 10 and 15 of Township 5 South, Range 7 East as indicated
on the USGS La Quinta, California, and Indio, California, 7.5 series quadrangles.
The proposed expansion area consists of 720 acres within Sections 10 and 15. The
study area currently contains seven zoning designations, (five residential zones,
one commercial zone, and the Watercourse, Watershed and Conservation Areas zone) .
Existing General Plan designations within the area are Very Low Density Residential
(0-2 DU/Acre), Low Density Residential (2-4 DU/Acre), and Special Commercial.
Proposed designations in the Draft General Plan Update will be Neighborhood
Commercial and a Rural Residential Overlay District along with the Very Low and Low
Low Density Residential designations. A portion of the proposed overlay area
consists of 240 acres within Riverside County. This land has already been pre -
zoned for future annexation.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
EXPLANATION OF RESPONSES TO INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST AND
RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES
1. EARTH
Soil types found within the study area are Gilman Loam, Indio Sandy Loam, Myoma
Fine Sand, and Coachella Sand and Loam. These soils are generally used for
agricultural uses, wildlife habitat, recreational uses, and are found in watershed
areas.
Large portions of the proposed expansion area are either vacant or are used for
agricultural and pasture purposes. Residential units are scattered throughout the
area.
The elevation of the study area ranges from approximately 20 feet below sea level in
the northern end to 60 feet above sea level in the southern end. The
Seismic/Geologic Hazard rating for this area is Zone 3 as indicated in Figure VI.1 of
the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan (1989). Zone 3 is characterized
as an area that experiences moderate groundshaking during earthquakes. Damage
from earthquakes should not be a major problem in this area. There are two
inferred, unnamed fault traces within the study area. These fault traces are not
known to have had any movement over the last 11,000 years.
Another potential soil hazard in the area is that of liquefaction. Liquefaction and
dynamic settlement are produced in geologically seismic areas where poorly
consolidated soils mix with trapped groundwater causing dramatic deceases in the
elevation of the ground. A moderate to high hazard exists for potential liquefaction
events in the eastern region of the City.
The extension of the Equestrian Overlay zone to the proposed study area will not
result in any required changes to geologic substructures or create any unstable
earth conditions. Any equestrian facilities that might be built will consist of corrals,
arenas, barns, tack rooms, and other accessory structures that would not impact
subsurface geologic conditions.
It is possible that upon development of equestrian facilities that there will be earth -
moving activities involved that will disrupt, displace, compact, or cover over the
soil. Such activity is not anticipated to be of a significant level, and therefore,
should not pose a major negative impact to the local environment.
The proposed zone text amendment and change of zone do not propose any known
changes in topography, the destruction or modification of any geologic features, or
any increase in erosional conditions. There are no natural waterways to be impacted
by deposition or erosion as a result of extending the Equestrian Overlay Zone within
the proposed expansion area.
The possibility exists that structures, people, or even animals located within the
proposed zone expansion area could be exposed to the hazards of earthquakes.
However, the surrounding region is also subject to the risks of earthquake hazards.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
1) Any development sites within the expansion area shall meet the
provisions of the Uniform Building Code Section 2312 (d) 2 since the
area is located within a Seismic Zone.
2) All structures shall be designed according to current Uniform Building
Code requirements.
2. AIR
The expansion area is located within the Southeast Desert Air Basin (SEDAB) and
is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD). The climate of the study area is characterized by high temperatures,
low annual rainfall, and low humidity. Prevailing northwesterly winds funnel from
the Los Angeles area into the Coachella Valley often transporting oxidants, sulfates
and nitrates into the airshed of the project area. As a result, although the local
contribution to air quality is not substantial, the Coachella Valley area does violate
state and federal standards for ozone. In addition, particulate standards are often
exceeded because of wind -transported desert soils. The primary air quality
concerns in the air basin are particulate matter (dust) and ozone.
DOCLB . 001 2
The PM10 standards is exceeded as a result of activities in the Valley which
contribute to fugitive dust. The Valley has the potential for generating significant
fugitive dust as the area consists of alluvial materials, including sand dunes. The
air mass from the South Coast Air Basin contributes to the PM10 violations, but the
majority of the problem is caused locally by urban and agricultural activities of the
existing population.
Suspended particulates (PM10) are generated from either a pollution source or are
formed in the atmosphere as a result of chemical reactions driven by sunlight. In
1990, SCAQMD prepared a State Implementation Plan for PM10 to define control
measures to reduce the local contributions to the PM10 violations and to bring the
Valley into compliance with Federal and State ambient air quality standards. Control
measures will be directed toward five categories of emissions: (1) open area wind
erosion; (2) unpaved roads, including farm roads; (3) paved roads, including
storage and movement of fine particulate; (4) construction and demolition activities;
and (5) agricultural operations. Local governmental agencies are responsible for
implementation of most of the control measures.
With any future construction, there may be air pollutant sources which may
deteriorate ambient air quality. These sources are stationary and mobile sources.
Stationary source considerations include emission from on -site construction activities
and natural gas combustion. Mobile source consideration include exhaust emissions
resulting from short term construction activities and long term generation associated
with the project. Population increases contribute to long term air quality problems.
The proposed zone district expansion is not anticipated to negatively impact the local
or regional air quality. It is possible that objectionable odors could result from the
buildup of horse manure. Regular and frequent manure removal from properties with
horsekeeping facilities will mitigate any potential for culpable odors.
MITIGATION MEASURES
1) Adequate watering techniques shall be employed to partially mitigate
the impact of future construction generated dust.
2) Areas graded but not immediately constructed on shall be planted with
a temporary ground cover to reduce the amount of open space subject
to wind erosion.
3) Grading and construction shall comply with all applicable City
Ordinances, including the PM10 Ordinance, and the requirements of the
Air Quality Management Plan. All future development should also abide
by the future PM10 Ordinance which is being drafted by the Coachella
Valley Association of Governments if it is ultimately adopted by the La
Quinta City Council.
4) Equestrian facilities, such as arenas, training rings, and stabling areas
should be watered on a regular basis to prevent a nuisance and health
hazard problem from dust.
DOCLB . 001 3
3. WATER
The Coachella Valley Water District provides domestic water, irrigation and sewer
service to the study area. Irrigation water is provided to the City via the Coachella
Canal. The canal, which loops through the City on the west side of Lake Cahuilla
County Park and PGA West, receives its supply of water from the Imperial Reservoir
on the Colorado River north of Yuma, Arizona. Irrigation is used to irrigate golf
courses, agricultural areas, and to recharge the underground aquifer.
Sanitary sewer facilities are currently located along Jefferson Street, south to 54th
Avenue, east to Madison Street, south to 58th Avenue, and east to the Mid -Valley
Reclamation Plant. This plant, currently only treats wastewater to secondary levels.
Future development will require additional on and off -site improvements necessary
to service the study area. CVWD does not foresee any adverse impacts, provided
those additional facilities are funded by developers and constructed according to
CVWD requirements. There are also several private wells in the study area that
provide both domestic and irrigation water.
Natural drainage patterns in the study area have not been altered by improvements.
In the event of a major storm, flooding could occur. However, the nature of the soils
in the area allow for rapid permeability.
The proposed zone district expansion is not anticipated to have any effect upon the
surface or ground water quality in the study area. The rate of absorption and
drainage patterns in the area are not expected to significantly change because of the
keeping of horses.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
All future development within the proposed Equestrian Overlay District shall comply
with all applicable City and Coachella Valley Water District requirements regarding
storm water and nuisance water.
4. PLANT LIFE
The study area is located within a Sonoran Desert Scrub environment. This
environment is generally categorized as containing plants which have the ability to
economize water, go dormant during periods of drought, or both. Dominant plants
include: Creosote Bush, Bur -sage, Ocotillo, Barrel Cactus, Jumping Cholla,
Smoketree, Mesquite, Four -wing Saltbush, Agave and Desert Lavender.
Because much of the study area has been under agriculture for many years, the
natural vegetation has been altered. Relict plant communities can occasionally be
found along fence rows, between fields, and in remaining dune areas.
It is possible that there could be an impact upon native plant species resulting from
an expansion of the Equestrian Overlay District. New plant species could be
introduced into the area as a result of development and landscaping activities. It is
also possible that there will be a reduction in agricultural land as new developments,
including equestrian facilities, are constructed in the area.
DOCLB . 001 4
No mitigation measures are deemed necessary concerning this issue for the proposed
change of zone and ordinance amendment.
5. ANIMAL LIFE
Mammalian species common to this area are small, nocturnal animals. Generally, the
study area contains mice, kangaroo rats, desert cottontail, jack rabbits, and
coyotes; animals noted to be active in the Coachella Valley region.
The proposed zone district expansion will allow the keeping of two horses on lots
with a minimum size of 20,000 square feet. The exact number of horses currently
kept within the study area is unknown, however, if additional horse -capable
properties are created and developed then the potential for an increase in the horse
population exists unequivocally. Any significant impacts that could result from an
increase in horses is -mitigated by controlling the density (number of horses per
acre) of horses on equestrian properties through the proposed standards of the
Equestrian Overlay Zone District Ordinance.
It is possible that the number of other animals will increase as a result of expanding
this zone. The potential addition of horses and other animals to the area could
change the diversity of animal species found.
According to Figure 5-1 of the La Quinta General Plan Master Environmental
Assessment (1992) , there is existing habitat for the Coachella Valley Fringe Toad
Lizard within the study area. This habitat is found in the southwest quarter of
Section 4 and a large portion of Section 9, west of the proposed expansion area. The
habitat is not within the Coachella Valley Fringe Toed Lizard Habitat Conservation
Preserve Development Fee Area. There are no other identified significant animal
resources within the study area.
Any new permitted species of animals that would be introduced into the study area
as a result of extending the Equestrian Overlay Zone would probably consist of
domestic horses, and llamas, which are used as pack animals. Other unpermitted
animals could be brought into the area, however, the property owner could be cited
for violation of the ordinance and forced to remove any such animal.
The study area has historically had a rural agricultural character with horses having
been kept on some of the ranches. Therefore, extending the overlay zone will not
introduce a new element into the area, but rather expand and preserve an existing
characteristic.
No mitigation is deemed necessary on this issue.
6. NOISE
The significant noise sources in La Quinta are generated primarily from automobile
and truck traffic. The existing areas of the City which are subject to high noise
exposure levels are primarily along major street corridors such as 50th Avenue
(Washington Street to Madison Street) . Rural environments with low traffic volumes
typically experience noise levels ranging from 35 to 55 db(a), depending on the time
of day.
DOCLB . 001 5
As the study area is developed there will be an incremental increase in the level of
noise in the area. However, the low density planned for the area will prevent
significant increases in noise levels. Therefore, the proposed expansion of the
Equestrian Overlay Zone is not anticipated to have a significant impact upon the
environment from the standpoint of noise issues.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
Future developments may be required to prepare noise analyses to access the impacts
on surrounding land uses. The City's General Plan Guidelines for indoor and
outdoor noise shall be met. Mitigation measures can include, but are not limited to:
landscape barriers, setback requirements, walls, building wall upgrades, or other
measures deemed necessary to meet the City's guidelines.
7. LIGHT & GLARE
It is possible that extension of the Equestrian Overlay Zone District will result in
new light and glare. As the area develops, night lighting will be used for security.
It is not anticipated, however, that there will be any significant adverse impacts
from any additional lighting. It is possible that future equestrian facilities may have
arena or playing field lighting which could create a significant impact to the
surrounding area.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
2. All lighting will be required to comply with the City's "Dark Sky
Ordinance". Light sources shall be shielded to eliminate light glare and
off -site spillage onto abutting vacant or developed properties.
2. Any proposed arena or field lighting shall be subject to the review and
approval of the Planning & Development Department prior to
installation.
8. LAND USE
The proposed Equestrian Overlay expansion is not anticipated to have a significant
adverse impact on the present or planned land use in the study area. The study
area is predominantly rural residential or agricultural in character, and the
preservation of the rural character is planned for in the General Plan Update for the
City of La Quinta . Expanding the area of the Equestrian overlay will not change the
rural character, but rather enhance it by allowing horsekeeping on more properties
than currently allowed. The Overlay District will regulate horsekeeping on future
subdivisions and developments by requiring that particular development standards
be adhered to. Such standards include minimum lot size, setbacks, fencing types,
accessory structures, and number of horses allowed.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
2 , Minimum lot size allowed for horsekeeping shall be determined by the
Planning Commission and the City Council.
DOCLB . 001 6
2. Any changes to the existing property land use designations shall be
made by the Planning Commission and the City Council. The keeping
of horses shall not be allowed in the Equestrian Overlay zoned areas
unless the standards of the overlay zone are complied with. Violation
of these standards shall be subject to citation and enforcement actions
by the City.
9. NATURAL RESOURCES
No. Natural resources as they relate to the Equestrian overlay District expansion
may be grouped into two categories: 1) air, mineral, and water resources; and 2)
resources which are used in construction (e.g. aggregate for concrete, metals for
street) . The proposed expansion area does not contain any known mineral
resources. It is not anticipated that there will be a significant amount of
development of equestrian facilities in this area, therefore, the potential use of
natural resources will not be consequential.
10. RISK OF UPSET
No. The proposed Equestrian Overlay Zone District does not involve the keeping of
explosives on properties with such designation. Hazardous substances of any
significant quantity are not permitted in residential areas, either urban or rural in
character. It is possible that herbicides, pesticides, and other such chemicals may
be kept in relatively small quantities on horse -properties for weed and pest control
purposes. However, no potential for a significant adverse impact to the environment
is anticipated from the keeping of small quantities of legal chemicals.
11. POPULATION
The proposed overlay expansion could result in future subdivisions that will tend
to create "horse legal" lots of a size larger than what would have been created if the
overlay were not extended. Larger lots will result in a lower population density
within the district. No significant adverse impacts are anticipated.
12. HOUSING
Expansion of the Equestrian Overlay District will not affect existing housing or
create a demand for new housing beyond what has been planned for in the General
Plan.
13. TRANSPORTATION
If the overlay district is extended there will be no additional vehicular movement
generated, no demand for parking facilities, and no substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems than what will be generated in the area without the overlay.
The overlay may even reduce potential traffic in the area by maintaining a lower
density of development. The overlay designation will not result in any impacts to
waterborne, rail, or air traffic, as none exist in the study area. With the future
development of equestrian trails along Madison Street, existing and future right-of-
way will be utilized. This will create a new feature to the circulation system in the
immediate area.
DOCLB . 001 7
Any substantial hazards will be minimized by the design of the trails that will include
landscape buffers, and rail fencing to separate riders from pedestrians and
vehicular traffic. Intersection enhancement will be necessary to assist riders across
streets. The keeping of horses will not pose any adverse impacts to the local
circulation system. The burden of equestrian trail construction shall fall upon
project developers. Maintenance of such trails shall be provided by the developer
until such time that this responsibility is accepted by the City .
No mitigation measures are anticipated for this change of zone and ordinance
amendment.
14. PUBLIC SERVICES
Extending the overlay district will have minimal effect on fire or police protection,
or the local schools, beyond that development already planned for by the General
Plan. The proposed overlay extension will result in the need for an equestrian trail
system to be developed to serve the area and to connect to the regional trail
systems. Maintenance of local trails within the public right-of-way will be required
of the City .
There may be a need for additional animal control services from the City if there is
an increase in the number of horses in the area as a result of expanding the overlay
designation. Any increases in this area are anticipated to be incremental in nature,
and should only have negligible impacts on existing personnel or services. (Ron
Vreeken, Animal Control Officer, City of La Quinta:Personal Communication).
Solid waste generated from the area is transported by a private hauling service to
the Coachella Valley Sanitary Landfill operated by the County of Riverside.
Currently, each resident in the city generates approximately 14 pounds per person
per day of waste. It is estimated that horses will generate approximately 18 pounds
per horse per day of manure that will either need to be hauled away or spread and
mixed with soil to decompose.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any future development,
applicants will be required to pay the City's Infrastructure Fee.
Payment of this fee will help mitigate impacts as noted above.
2. All future projects within the overlay district shall comply with all
requirements of the County Fire and Sheriff's Departments. All
mitigation fees imposed by these agencies shall be paid by the developer
or property owner.
3. Developers will be required to pay school impact fees prior to obtaining
building permits, if applicable to equestrian facilities and structures.
4. Water, sewer, and electric service shall be arranged for and secured
prior to issuance of any building permits .
DOCLB . 001 8
5 . On -site green waste ( grass trimmings) and manure should be composted
on -site or hauled to off -site composting yards to reduce dumping at the
local landfill.
6. On -site recycling programs should be developed by future Homeowner's
Associations and large community or private equestrian facilities in
conjunction with the city or the solid waste hauler to reduce household
waste of aluminum, newspapers, glass and other materials.
15. ENERGY
The overlay expansion will not in its self require the expenditure of energy or fuel.
Any development on properties within the overlay will require incremental amounts
of fuel and energy during construction phases. Energy expended in the keeping of
horses is minimal. Therefore, no significant impact on the environment is foreseen
from the expansion of the Equestrian Overlay designation, and the keeping of
horses.
Natural gas service is provided by Southern California Gas Company. Electric
service is provided by the Imperial Irrigation District.
16. UTILITIES
No new utility or infrastructure systems will be needed if the Equestrian Overlay is
extended. The keeping of horses requires little in the way of utilities. No adverse
impact upon utility providers and systems is anticipated from the expansion of the
district overlay.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
All necessary infrastructure improvements, as required by the City or utility
purveyor, shall be met as part of future development projects .
17. HUMAN HEALTH
There are no known health hazards associated with the keeping of horses on
residential property, aside from injuries from accidents and unsanitary conditions
resulting from lack of or improper maintenance. Therefore, there should not be an
adverse impact on public health from the proposed expansion of the Equestrian
Overlay District.
18. AESTHETICS
The expansion of the Equestrian Overlay Zone District will not create aesthetically
offensive sites or result in the obstruction of scenic views. Expanding the district
will enhance and preserve the rural character of the area. Future equestrian trails
will incorporate uniform fencing and landscape buffers of a pleasing design.
Therefore, no adverse impacts to the aesthetic environment are anticipated to occur.
DOCLB . 001 9
19. RECREATION
Equestrian activity has a long history in the Coachella Valley, and appears to be on
the increase as exhibited by recent equestrian facility development (polo fields) in
nearby Indio. By expanding the Equestrian Overlay District, recreational
opportunities will increase in quantity and improve in quality. As projects are
developed in the district, designated equestrian trails will be required to be
constructed as a condition of approval. The General Plan Update calls for an
equestrian trail along the east side of Madison Street. Therefore, all future projects
along the east side of Madison Street will be required to construct their segment of
that trail, with dedication to the City to follow completion.
Additional trails could possibly be developed that will connect to the Madison Street
trail in order to create a network of local trails that connect to nearby regional
trails . Such a network of trails will provide a quality recreational opportunity for
the area. Therefore, a local and area -wide beneficial effect will result from
expanding the Equestrian Overlay District, as more horses will be able to be kept
and used in the nearby area.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
1. Future project developers will be required to contribute to the City's
park in -lieu fund which is used to develop city parks for both residents
and visitors to this area even though some projects might provide
private on -site recreational facilities for residents. Private recreational
facilities do not count toward the City's required park in -lieu fee.
The current park fee is based on a ration of the assumed population of
future housing tracts (1-5 acres of park land for each 1, 000 residents)
as it relates to the entire City, dwelling unit population, and finally
land costs of the property. The current fee is based on 3 acres of park
land per each 1,000 people generated by proposed developments.
2. Development along the east side of Madison Street will be conditioned to
build their segment of the equestrian trail.
20. CULTURAL RESOURCES
It is possible that prehistoric and historic cultural resources exist within both study
area and the proposed expansion area boundaries. The La Quints area has a high
potential for the existence of such resources based on recorded information about
site locations and research documents on the history of the area. Any future
equestrian developments could disturb or destroy such resources. Recreational
horseback riding could also disturb and destroy cultural resources.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
1. All future development projects should be required to have a Phase I
reconnaissance survey conducted early in the planning review process.
The recommendations of survey reports should be made part of project
conditions of approval.
DOCLB . 001 10
2. All project applications within this area should be forwarded for
comment to the Coachella Valley Archaeological Society, the La Quinta
Historic Preservation Commission, and to the Eastern Information
Center of the State Historic Preservation Office located on the U . C . R .
campus in Riverside, CA.
3. All horseback riding should be restricted to existing trails and
facilities.
21. MANDATORY FINDINGS
It is not anticipated that there will be any adverse impacts by the expansion of the
Equestrian Overlay Zone District onto the proposed area, on plant or animal life, on
long term environmental goals, cumulative impacts, or impacts on human beings.
Therefore, based on the above information, this overlay expansion will not have a
major or significant impact on the environment provided the recommended mitigation
measures are met.
References: Draft EIR - General Plan Update (July 1992)
General Plan Master Environmental Assessment (July 1992)
Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan (1989)
Ron Vreeken, Animal Control Officer, City of La Quinta
Prepared by: Leslie Blodgett
Associate Planner
Planning & Development Department, City of La Quinta
DOCLB . 001 11
1*4
October 15, 1992
Mr. Jerry Herman
City of La Quinta
P.O. Box 1504
La Quinta, CA 92253
Dear Mr. Herman:
We understand the city is currently studying the
feasibility of an "equestrian overlay" for an area
bounded by Monroe on the east, Madison on the west and
between Avenues 52 and 55. We, the undersigned property
owners, request inclusion of the below parcel numbers in
that study.
We would also appreciate notification, if possible, of
any hearings etc. relating to this matter.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
eith Reese AP# 769-270-020
�Tjz,
- - ,
4t
Melieas Forster AP# 769-270-004
- 3&tla f 6/� , �14
W yne a field AU 769-270-021
BI *1
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: JANUARY 12, 1993
PROJECT: TRACT 23269 - REVIEW OF HOUSE MIX CHANGE AND
ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS FOR PROPOSED NEW UNIT #5 TO B;
CONSTRUCTED ON 11 LOTS IN PHASE 5
APPLICANT: CENTURY HOMES
LOCATION: LA QUINTA DEL REY, LOTS 97-99, 127, 129, 133-135,
248, 250-251, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ADAMS STREET AND FREI
WARING DRIVE. THESE LOTS ARE LOCATED ON SANITA DRIVE,
LAS VISTAS DRIVE, AND LA PALMA DRIVE.
BACKGROUND:
1. Tract 23269 totaling 255 lots, has been developed by a numbe:
of developers including Triad, La Quinta Vistas, and William;
Company.
2. Century Homes purchased 76 lots in 1991 and received Plannini
Commission approval on October 8, 1991, for four unit types
be built within Phases 1,3 and 5 (Lots 79-94, 96-148, 245-25
3. On December 16, 1992, Century Homes applied for approval of
fifth unit for Phase 5.
PROPOSAL:
The proposed new fifth unit will be built on eleven of the remaini:
18 lots in Phase 5. The table below describes the proposed new un
as it compares to the four approved units:
PLAN 1
# Sq. Footage Unit
1006
# Sq. Footage Bonus
Rm 205
# Sq. Footage Garage
591
# Stories
1
# Different
3
Elevations
# Bedrooms
2
# Bathrooms
1
# Family Rooms
0
# Car Garages
2
NEW
PLAN 2
PLAN 3
PLAN 4
PLAN 5
1262
1400
1567
1678
0
206
165
273
410
608
556
372
1
3
3
3 3 3
2 2 3
1 1 1
2 2 2
1
3
3
3
1
2
STAFFRPT.104/CS -1-
The applicant also proposes to switch the approved 2B plan to 2A
on Lot 128. The 2A plan provides a bonus room adjacent to the
garage and should make for at least as nice of a unit, if not
better, for this lot.
The applicant proposes to use the original approved colors and
materials for this new unit. Seven different color schemes using
three different roof tile colors, five different colors for facia
and garage doors, seven alternate stucco colors, and seven
alternate accent colors were approved.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION:
The Design Review Board reviewed this request at their meeting of
January 6, 1993, and unanimously recommended approval of the new
fifth unit.
STAFF COMMENTS:
1. The front elevations are attractive and well proportioned.
2. The contemporary Spanish/Mediterranean architectural styles
of the fifth unit elevations are similar to that used in the
surrounding units.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the recommendation of the Design Review Board, by Minute
Motion, approve plan for new fifth unit and house mix change.
Attachments:
1. Locality plan
2. Tract Map
3. Architectural Plans and Elevations (full scale)
4. Exhibit A - Color Schedule
5. Exhibit B - Proposed House Mix
6. House Mix Map
7. Approved Elevations
A
ililllllltillltll!!11
�l'�i. �ntUtitltll
ATTACHMENT No,, 1
M o rr kato oawc
-- -
TR 23269
� g
0
s ro _ "Aril414f relo,
kh
'ithi...__"�l
p
LOCATION MAP
t
INDIO-
1 -�Ra(..LS
S JN 1 ��HS .335 l p +ON z3.a►,
Z,-,?o6P9z7(,zl6v9z). %> -BPATTACHMENT No.
r, 95 P,?Ci) _. 2F Pi.
1.
tt1 a .p P r r
N
tv H ti �' v a=�: +u� �o W
as
� o � a 7� kYNrar» � � � � � k � "• �01• �
0 O �rQ
(1r ` ` • a low'W O`
\`�-JJ v 37d-VYV/1- ' `%4 h �Q
vN
h tih •
N % W
o w r
0 N N n h 011 N N
s�
a u N N ^' t��► o of
Cl
W (,Z9 9960
Coll m�`'a Y'G `e6�s" 1N� I*fE99Ez
9 $ 4 � s NO �
_ cv w 6 O/V at 41 N h
vi. a , ♦ v Oz'Z7 y �.
9E YZE /
8 •ON
14.9*90%9z,7 (gt BP9z> z[ "?v.9z
Attachment 4
EXHIBIT "A"
COLOR SCHEDULE
LA QUINTA DEL REY
TRACT023111
REVISION: DECEMBER 15. 1992
..
.....................
.... ...................
........ .........
Agiiii
go
25
6
10171
P-14
101
xy-m
101
07
9XCR
2
16172
P-122
so -am
xy-sm
30-f
as
SA
7
16172
P-W
101
XY-396
101
go
ow
4
10171
P-7
SO-613
IS-190
so-!
100
3AX
3
is=
P-111
XY--=
404
xy-i
127
sm
8
is=
P-17
30-419
18-200
so-f
128
23
S
10171
P-14
101
xy-m
101
1=
8XAFI
t
Is=
P-21
12-18T
xy-on
3-10
130
ma
4
10171
P-7
30-613
15-190
30-4
131
2AR
2
16172
P-122
so -am
XY--03
SD --a
132
3
16220
P-111
xy-522
404
XY-6
133
9CC
7
15172
P-W
101
XY-308
lcyl
134
San
a
is=
P-17
so-619
16-20D
$0--a
136
S(A
5
10171
P-14
101
xy-m
101
248
mm
1
ism
P-21
12-I8T
XY-972
3-10
249
VA
4
10171
P-7
30-613
15-100
$0--a
250
SAP
2
16172
P-122
so-m
XY-973
so -a
21" !xc
ROOF- PIONEER ROOFING CO
161 72-490NOMA BLEND
1 SM - CORDOVA BLEND
10171 - KACMMA MEW
STAUWPAINT- OLD OUWrrR PAWT
rfuoco* MERIM 3TU=O
3 ism P-111 XY-92 404 XY-9
EX -TER 1 OR F I N I SH SCHEDVIrE NOTES
DATE: December 15, 1992 Page 2
of 2
Series/Location Tract No. Phase No. Revised:
La Quinta Del Rey 23269 5 5/12/92
STUCCO: All stucco to be Merlex Stucco.
STAIN/PAINTS: Old Quaker Paint.
ROOF: Pioneer Roofing Co: #15172, Sonoma Blend; #15290,
Cordova Blend; #10171, Hacienda Blend.
NOTES:
1. Entry door shall be semi -gloss, all six sides, color as
indicated.
2. All exposed sheet metal shall be primer, one coat, and
then painted.
3. All roof jacks and vents shall be primer, one coat, and
then painted to match roof color; flat finish.
4. Electrical meter box, telephone and TV/cable box shall
be painted to match adjacent wall/stucco color.
5. Manufacturers, materials and colors shall be as
specified, NO SUBSTITUTION.
6. Questions and/or conflicts shall be resolved prior to
Subcontractor proceeding, failure to do so shall not
relieve the Subcontractor from correcting any and all
misapplied colors at no cost to the Owner or to the
Architect.
EXHIBIT "B" Attachment
P R O P O S E D H 0 U S E tit I X
T R A C T 2 3 2 6 9 P H A S E 5
Lot
96
Plan
2B (no
change)
97
Plan
5CXR
9S
Plan
5A
99
Plan
5BRX
100
PLAN
3AX
(no
change)
127
Plan
5CR
128
Plan
2A
129
Plan
5ARX
130
Plan
3BX
(no
change)
131
Plan
2AR
(no
change)
132
Plan
3AX
(no
change)
133
Plan
5CX
134
Plan
5BR
135
Plan
5AX
248
Plan
5BX
- Proposed
Model
249
Plan
3AX
(no
change)
250
Plan
5AR
251
Plan
5CX
-Zzz-jj I
LAS VISTAS DRIVE
Attachment 6
i.,
o ,
r'v �
Attachment'
L
I
�!'r
��
�q
- �
{
� u
��i
F��;
��j�I
�' `��
it
�� �
Ali
E.. �
��l
i
r
.. � i� .
�;"• �
I
e
s •m
4 BE WAJa AGUILAP
O
O
m!
m
<
z
co
f CENTURY
HONES
m
�, a• t a :1
��• ra j ❑ = 3• i
i; n
i
I;
1\ �lV
-i fY
�S 1 T �•.
FR
a
is
l _ ,
Al
t--
A
O�
0
al
f)
Z (
Ic
I u
I
.... .-.... .. / /
till
Jill
tgl t � .l 7. t • f� � >,
(
4.1
-at
p
1
ei
t
i
- _ • Izz
LLI
3 �
a-
�; tt �! li ili;t:'::;�(11{�i i�i=tl►ir•�: � j�i::_�ii�i��i��l`
t: t� tl�li• t it(i�Ft {Ij�: {� 1t�it=i��� � � t({i 1
ail, ! �; •{ �t = _�� i 1 it
{ � � = iv � tf 1• t
Iittfill
t#t =j- E=•lti�t
HIM
l3
IN
.1
W-�
I�
E��
I
�I
I j
I
I
� 3
;�
!
i5
43
I
kIk
T � �t �'� �
m I
r- :
t
Zo
m
1:
Z5
h
I
Z
• `�nii I a
I ,
I
IFJ
ow
V Y \
�i
0 1 -
'l>: I
ti 1o11 9b ! �•�
. r.
rrr .. rr.rrr rr r rrrr r r rrr r.� r rr •r F r r....I
jQ: l,lii,� ', ��` �j�{t ��f �i ,Tf1},► P' �{_• ;�!�� 1�_��.,
.f l
fi
•
fon
44-
M
m
< 7
Hun
>
5 i 4
CENTURY . HOMS, 14M. III
LA C
ar Vt. i EMWANEW" .. ....
r�+
DATE:
CASE NO.:
APPLICANT:
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT:
LOCATION:
BACKGROUND:
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JANUARY 12, 1993
APPROVAL OF LANDSCAPE DESIGN FOR CENTER MEDIANS
CITY OF LA QUINTA
TKD ASSOCIATES (TOM DOZCI)
WASHINGTON STREET MEDIANS BETWEEN 48TH AVENUE AND
HIGHLAND PALMS DRIVE
At the request of the City, TKD Associates has prepared preliminary planting plans for the
above described medians which are presently existing. The plans proposed for use in the
medians are low water users and attractive desert type of planting. The design complies with
the draft City Landscape Guidelines which are presently being developed.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION:
The Design Review Board reviewed these plans at their meeting of January 6, 1993. At the
suggestion of the landscape architect, the Design Review Board took action to recommend
approval of the plans subject to the substitution of Date Palms in place of the Hybrid Mexican
]Fan Palms which were shown.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission should review the submitted plans. Any comments you have will be
taken into consideration prior to formal working drawings be prepared.
Attachments:
1. Vicinity map
2. Landscaping plans
PCST.098
kN
/ELLS `A
CANYON STOR,ypA
rca Go)(00k9
iris
STAFF REPORT B' #�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
DATE: JANUARY 12, 1993
CASE NO.: GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FOR INSTALLATION OF FORCE
MAIN AND SEWAGE LIFT STATION.
APPLICANT: COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (CVWD)
LOCATION: JEFFERSON STREET BETWEEN 50TH AVENUE AND
WHITEWATER STORM CHANNEL.
BACKGROUND:
Pursuant to Section 65401 of the State of California Government Code, governmental bodies and
special districts are required to submit a list of public works projects proposed to be undertaken,
to the appropriate government jurisdiction to determine General Plan consistency. CVWD has
submitted a project which they will be shortly undertaking. The project consists of the
construction of a sewage lift station at Jefferson Street and the Coachella Valley Storm Water
Channel (north of Highway 111), and installation of approximately 9,000 feet of 10-inch force
main in or parallel to Jefferson Street. The maps submitted by CVWD are attached and show
the general location of this proposed project.
ANALYSIS:
The proposed project would provide better sewer service for citizens of La Quinta.
FINDINGS:
1. That CVWD's project is consist with adopted goals and policies of the General Plan.
2.. That as noted in the adopted General Plan, this project would strive to provide adequate
sewer, sewage collection and treatment facilities for all residential and non-residential
development in the community.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the above findings, the Planning and Development Department recommends that the
Planning Commission determine that the project proposed by CVWD is consistent with the
General Plan.
Attachments:
1. Letter from CVWD dated November 24, 1992.
PCST.099
VI ATIE
ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY
�IBTRICt
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
POST OFFICE BOX 1G58 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (619) 398.2651
DIRECTORS OFFICERS
TELLIS CODEKAS, PRESIDENT THOMAS E. LEVY, GENERAL MANAGER -CHIEF ENGINEER
RAYMOND R. RUMMONDS, VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTON. SECRETARY
JOHN W. McFADDEN OWEN MLCOOK, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
DOROTHYM.DELAY November 24, 1992 REDWINE AND SHERRILL. ATTORNEYS
THEODORE J. FISH
Planning Commission
City of La Quinta
Post Office Box 1504
La Quinta, California 92253
Gentlemen:
File: 0710.1811.036
I` NOV 3 0 1992 `?
. r
x
In compliance with Section 65402 of the Government Code, this District
hereby notifies your agency that it proposes the Jefferson Street Lift Station
and Force Main.
The project consists of the construction of a sewage lift station at Jefferson
Street and the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel and installation of
approximately 9,000 feet of 10-inch force main in or parallel to Jefferson
Street.
Project and general location maps are enclosed.
No environmental impact report is enclosed, none having been prepared as
this District has determined that this project will have no substantial
impact on the environment.
BAS:gh/nov
Enclosures/as
Yo rs very truly,
Ir"', 6�e
Tom Levy
General Manager -Chief
r
TRUE CONSERVATION
USE WATER WISELY
JErIFERSON STREE"" LIFT STATION
AND FORCE MAIN
Ll
Park
20
VENUE
lU,E
400
pow
Hem
-AVENUE
Wei
-6
PROJECT MAP
NOT TO SCALE
SEC.29 & 32 T5S-R7E DRAWING
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
DATE: JANUARY 12, 1993
CASE NO.: LA QUINTA 66-ACRE MASTER PLAN
BACKGROUND:
The City of La Quinta hired a consultant to prepare a master plan for 66 acres the City owns
located northeast of the intersection of 48th Avenue and Jefferson Street. The property has
frontage on Dune Palms Road, 48th Avenue, and Jefferson Street and is divided by the La
Quinta Evacuation Channel. The consultant prepared three land use alternatives for
consideration. Some of the uses envisioned are: 1) fire station; 2) Coachella Valley Water
District well site; 3) the administration offices for Desert Sands Unified School District which
includes the audio visual center, kitchen facilities, bus barn and administration buildings; 4) the
La Quinta corporate yard; 5) the post office; 6) a commercial area; 7) senior housing; and 8)
recreational amenities such as a driving range in the Evacuation Channel. The consultant
contacted these various users and based upon their anticipated demands for development,
assembled the necessary acreage and configuration that they desire.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD:
The Design Review Board reviewed the three alternatives at their meeting of January 6, 1993.
The Board unanimously recommended a combination of Alternatives #1 and #2. Specifically
the design on Alternative #1 located north of the Channel and the design on Alternative #2 south
of the Channel with the elimination of the post office use on Alternative #2, and the well site
to be located on Alternative #2 between the fire station and the City yard. In addition, the
Board raised the following concerns:
1. Night lighting of the golfing range as it relates to the senior housing; and,
2. Truck deliveries to the post office as they relate to the senior housing.
RECOMMENDATION:
Consider the recommendation of the Design Review Board and make a recommendation to the
City Council.
Attachments:
1. Alternatives #1, #2, & #3.
2. Design Review Board alternatives
PCST.097 1
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
December 8, 1992 7:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. The meeting was called to order at 7:05 P.M. by Chairwoman Barrows;
Commissioner Ellson led the flag salute.
II. ROLL CALL
A. Chairwoman Barrows requested the roll call. Present: Commissioners Mosher,
Ellson, Marrs, Adolph, and Chairwoman Barrows.
B. Staff Present: Planning Director Jerry Herman and Principal Planner Stan Sawa,
and Department Secretary Betty Anthony.
M. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Tentative Tract 26718, continued public hearing; a request of Walter Hansch for
approval of a tentative tract map to create 125 single family lots on 39± acres
in the R-1 Zone.
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 Adolph asked Staff to explain how the access onto
Jefferson Street would be controlled. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer
stated the entrance would be designed for right turn -in and out and left
turn -in only would be designed to prohibit any left turns out.
3. Commissioner Adolph inquired if the perimeter wall would be designed
similar to the Citrus Course across the street. Staff stated that the Design
Review Board would probably condition the tract to do so.
4. Commissioner Adolph asked Staff what would happen to the street
improvements in front of the "not a part" section of Jefferson Street.
Staff stated a transition would be made down to a single lane.
Commissioner Ellson asked if the "not a part" improvements could be
made at the same time and the "not a part" conditioned to reimburse the
;PC12-8 1
Planning Commission Minutes
December 8, 1992
costs. Staff stated they could but the City could not guarantee the
reimbursement or whether or not the right-of-way could be obtained.
5. Chairwoman Barrows asked Staff if the developer could be conditioned to
maintain citrus trees. Staff stated they could be conditioned to be
compatible with the Citrus Course across the street.
6. Commissioner. Ellson inquired how many two story units would be
allowed and the height limits. Staff stated they would be the same as the
conditions on "The Grove" development (on 50th Avenue).
7. There being no further questions of Staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened
the public hearing. Mr. Walter Hansch, applicant, stated they had gone
ahead with the easements and he had no problems with the Staff
recommendations.
8. Mr. Sumbad Kanlian, applicant for Tentative Tract 26885 to the north,
asked for clarification on Condition #23.
9. Ms. Susan Williams, J. F. Davidson, representative for the project, stated
they had no problem with the conditions as submitted and amended.
10. Mrs. Wanda Reese, resident to the north of the project, read a letter of
objection to the project into the record. She stated the density was too
high and should be limited to one house per acre.
11. Mr. Wayne Mayfield, property owner to the north, stated his concern for
the traffic, noise, water consumption, and the density.
12. Mr. Keith Reese, resident to the north, stated his concern about losing his
lifestyle of a rural atmosphere.
13. Mr. Jeff Cole, property owner to the north, stated his concern about
residential houses complaining about horse property in the vicinity. He
felt the country lifestyle should be maintained.
14. Ms. Susan Williams stated the current zoning for the area was R-1 or
7,200 square feet and they had upgraded that to 10,000 square feet to
maintain the feeling of open space. Mr. Kanlian stated he had requested
the upgrade in order to address the concern of his neighbors.
15. Mr. Keith Reese asked if the project had been conditioned to have sewer
and water. Staff stated they had.
PC12-8 2
Planning Commission Minutes
December 8, 1992
16. There being no further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the
public hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion.
17. Commissioner Ellson asked Staff to clarify the location of the project in
relation to the neighbors who had addressed the Commission.
18. Commissioner Adolph asked Staff to clarify what would happen to the
road easement to the east of Mr. Mayfield. Staff stated it was to narrow
to develop and no specific determination had been made concerning it.
Staff felt the most effective use of the easement would be to sell it to one
of the property owners adjoining it.
19. Commissioner Ellson stated her concern that Mr. Cole's property on the
southeast comer of 50th Avenue and Jefferson would be landlocked
regarding any area to ride horses on.
20. Commissioner Marrs stated he felt the community should have been
present during the General Plan meetings to make their concerns known
regarding equestrian areas. He further stated that a condition should be
required of the developer to notify any prospective buyers that horses
were in the area.
21. Commissioner Mosher stated his agreement with Commissioner Marrs and
that the developer should only be conditioned within the perimeters of
what the General Plan called for.
22. There being no further discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Mosher
and seconded by Commissioner Marrs to adopt Planning Commissioner
Resolution 92-046 recommending approval of a Negative Declaration and
Tentative Tract 26718 to the City Council, with following amended
conditions:
a. Condition #23. That the number of two story units be the same as
"The Grove" development.
b. Condition #38. Add verbiage to require reimbursement to
Landmark Land Company for the street improvements.
C. A new condition be added requiring the developer to notify any
prospective buyers that horses are in the area.
d. A new condition be added requiring the developer to incorporate
citrus trees into the project.
PC12-8 3
Planning Commission Minutes
December 8, 1992
ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher,
Ellson, Marrs, & Adolph. NOES:
Chairwoman Barrows. ABSENT:
None. ABSTAINING: None.
B. Tentative Tract 26885, continued public hearing; a request of Sumbad and
Sharron Kanlian for approval of a tentative tract map to create 73 single family
lots on 23 + acres in the R-1 Zone.
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 Adolph stated he felt Lot "I" was to small for a dwelling.
Staff stated it would be a common area. Discussion followed regarding
street access at Lot "F" .
3. Commissioner Mosher asked if the two tracts would have one or two
homeowner's associations. Staff stated that would depend on the
developers.
4. Commissioner Ellson asked what would happen if one tract develops and
the other does not. Staff stated that the street access would be required
irregardless of which tracts are built first.
5. There being no further questions of Staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened
the public hearing. Ms. Susan Williams, J. F. Davidson, representative
for the project stated their agreement with the Staff recommendations as
stated and amended.
6. Mr. Sumbad Kanlian, owner of the tentative tract, stated that the two
owners of the tracts had approached the owners of the "not a part" but
could not come to any agreement. He further stated that whoever
developed the two tracts would probably purchase the ten acre "not a part"
parcel and incorporate it into the tract developments.
7. Mr. Jeff Cole, property owner to the north, stated his concern about the
number of access points onto Jefferson Street. He felt with the two tracts
and possibly the development of the "not a part" this would make three
access points onto Jefferson Street and this could be a traffic problem.
When his property was developed he was uncertain as to where his access
points would be. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer reviewed with Mr.
Cole how the General Plan had designated the area in regard to full turn
access points.
PC12-8 4
Planning Commission Minutes
December 8, 1992
8. Commissioner Adolph inquired if the "not a part" was tied into the two
tracts would the northerly entrance be required to be closed and the full
turn access at the "not a part" be the only access. Staff stated this would
be difficult to condition. Discussion followed regarding street access
points.
9. There being no further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the
public hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion.
10. Commissioner Adolph asked if it was possible to have a buffer for the
horse people to help defuse the change in density. Discussion followed
regarding the eventual development of the area. Commissioner Ellson
suggested that the northern part of the project be required to only have
one story units (Lots 53-73). Commissioner Mosher felt it was unfair to
condition the developer. It should be allowed to develop according to the
housing market demand.
11. There being no further discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Mosher
and seconded by Commissioner Marrs to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 92-047 recommending approval of a Negative Declaration and
Tentative Tract 26855 to the City Council subject to conditions as
recommended and amended as follows:
a. Condition # 10. That the developer be required to reimburse
Landmark Land Company for the street improvements.
b. Add a condition requiring an emergency access be provided for the
ten acre parcel "not a part".
C. A new condition be added requiring the developer to notify any
prospective buyers that horses are in the area.
d. A new condition be added requiring the developer to incorporate
citrus trees into the project.
ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher,
Ellson, Marrs, & Adolph. NOES:
Chairwoman Barrows. ABSENT:
None. ABSTAINING: None.
B. Tentative Tract 26148; a request of Robert A. Wright/AMCOR Realty Fund III
for approval of a one year extension of time for an approved tentative tract map
which divides 14 acres into 55 single family lots.
PC12-8 5
Planning Commission Minutes
December 8, 1992
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 Ellson asked if the perimeter fence would be open or
closed. Staff stated that would probably be determined after the noise
study was completed as the project would have to mitigate traffic noise.
Discussion followed relative to the location of the fence and the design.
3. There being no further questions of Staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened
the public hearing. Mr. Bob Mainiero, representing the applicant, stated
the final landscaping plans would come back before the Planning
Commission and could possibly design a fence to have open spaces. He
further stated his concern with Condition #27.b. regarding the storm drain
easement, that if the City does the work will they replace any landscaping,
etc., to make the area look the same as that which had been completed by
the developer. Staff stated this was the City's practice. Mr. Mainiero
stated he had no objections to the Staff recommendations.
4. There being no further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the
public hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion.
5. Commissioner Ellson asked Staff to clarify the location of the south
property line.
6. There being no further discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Adolph
and seconded by Commissioner Marrs to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 92-048 recommend approval to the City Council of a one year
extension of time for Tentative Tract 26148, subject to conditions.
ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher,
Ellson, Marrs, Adolph, &
Chairwoman Barrows. NOES:
None. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAINING: None.
IV. PUBLIC COMMENT: - None
V. BUSINESS SESSION:
A. Community Park North; a request of the City for review of conceptual plans for
an 18-acre park site located at the northeast corner of Adams Street and
Westward Ho Drive.
PC12-8 6
Planning Commission Minutes
December 8, 1992
1. Parks and Recreation Manager Clint Bohlen presented the information
contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning
and Development Department.
2. Commissioner Adolph asked how deep the pond would be and how the
City would hand the liability problem. Staff stated that the pond would
be approximately two feet deep and the liability factor would be handled
as suggested by the City Attorney.
3. Commissioner Ellson asked if the developer to the north (Topaz) could be
required to incorporate their retention basin into the park. Staff stated this
would probably be advantageous.
4. Commissioner Adolph asked how the lighting would be mitigated. Staff
stated the lighting would be state-of-the-art lighting and would mitigate the
problem as far as it was possible. The lighting proposed was designed to
be anti -glare and would not spill beyond the ballfields.
5. Commissioner Adolph inquired what the base of the pond would be. Staff
stated it would be concrete.
6. There being no further comment, it was moved by Commissioner Ellson
and seconded by Commissioner Mosher to adopt Minute Motion 92-040
approving the Community Park North concept as submitted. Unanimously
approved.
B. Fritz Burns Park; a request of the City for review of community park conceptual
plans for a 9.6 acre park site located on the east side of Avenida Bermudas
between the new 52nd Avenue and the old 52nd Avenue.
1. Parks and Recreation Manager Clint Bohlen presented the information
contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning
and Development Department.
2. Chairwoman Barrows asked if any boxing activities were being planned
for the facility and if not could they be incorporated into the plans. Staff
stated there would be no problem in doing so.
3. Commissioner Marrs inquired if the City could consider having the local
school bands perform concerts, dances, etc. in the facility.
4. Commissioner Ellson asked what the building height would be. Staff
stated it was a community facility and could be a two story facility.
PC12-8
Planning Commission Minutes
December 8, 1992
5. Discussion followed regarding the phasing of the two parks and possible
funding ideas.
6. Where being no further discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Mosher
and seconded by Commissioner Ellson to adopt Minute Motion 92-041
approving the conceptual drawings as submitted. Unanimously approved.
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. There being no corrections Commissioner Ellson moved that the Minutes of
November 24, 1992, be approve as submitted. Commissioner Marrs seconded
the motion and it carried unanimously.
VU. OTHER - None
VIH. ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made by Commissioner Adolph and seconded by Commissioner Mosher to
adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting on January 12,
1993, at 7:00 P.M. at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chambers. This meeting of
the La Quinta Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:27 P.M., December 8, 1992.
PC12-8 8
1993 SCHEDULE
PLANNING COMINUSSION ATTENDANCE AT CITY COUNCII, MEETINGS
JANUARY
5
/BARROWS
JULY
6
/ELLSON
19
/MOSHER
20
/MARRS
FEBRUARY
2
/ELLSON
AUGUST
3
/ADOLPH
16
/MARRS
17
/BARROWS
MARCH
2
/ADOLPH
SEPTEMBER
7
/MOSHER
16
/BARROWS
21
/ELLSON
APRIL
6
/MOSHER
OCTOBER
5
/MARRS
20
/ELLSON
19
/ADOLPH
MAY
4
/MARRS
NOVEMBER
2
/BARROWS
18
/ADOLPH
16
/MOSHER
JUNE
1
/BARROWS
DECEMBER
7
/ELLSON
15
JMOSHER
21
/MARRS
1993 SCHEDULE
PLANNING CONEWSSION ATTENDANCE AT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETINGS
JANUARY
6
/ADOLPH
JULY
7
/MARRS
FEBRUARY
3
/MARRS
AUGUST
4
/ELLSON
MARCH
3
/ELLSON
SEPTEMBER
1
/MOSHER
APRIL
7
/MOSHER
OCTOBER
6
/BARROWS
MAY
5
/BARROWS
NOVEMBER
3
/ADOLPH
JUNE
2
/ADOLPH
DECEMBER
1
/MARRS
FORM. 010