Loading...
1993 02 23 PCuinO Ten Carat Decade A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chambers 78-105 Calle Estado La Quinta, California February 23, 1993 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL AGENDA ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 F.M. MAY BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING Beginning Resolution 93-005 Beginning Minute Motion 93-012 CALL TO ORDER - Flag Salute ROLL CALL PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Item ............... CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON TENTATIVE TRACT 26444, EXTENSION #1 Applicant .......... La Quinta Estates Partnership Location ........... Northeast corner of Jefferson Street & 53rd Avenue Request ............ Approval of a one year extension of time for a subdivision of approximately 32 acres into 98 single family lots. Action ............. Resolution 93- 2. Item ............. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92-041, PREANNEXATION ZONING 92-073, SPHERE OF INFLUENCE #9, AND ANNEXATION #9 Applicant .......... Travertine Corporation Location ........... 2,560 acres located south of 60th Avenue and west of Madison Street. Request ............ A request to amend the La Quinta General Plan Land Use and Circulation Maps adding a new area for a Sphere of Influence and annexation and designating the new area as Low Density Residential and Open Space, and zone the area R-1 and HC (Hillside Conservation). Action ............. Resolution 93- PC/AGENDA 01 3. Item ............... ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 93-033 Applicant .......... City of La Quinta Location ........... City wide Request ............ A request to amend the Municipal Code (Title 9, Planning Zoning( to screemgn and/or of roof and pertaining prohibition mounted mechanical and similar equipment in commercial and residential zones. Action ............. Resolution 93- 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 ............... CONTINUED, GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING FOR COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Applicant .......... Coachella Valley Water District Location ........... Throughout the City Request ............ General Plan Consistency Finding for CVWD projects. Action ............. Minute Motion 93- 2. Item ............... STREET VACATION 93-023 Applicant .......... Keith Companies (Vista Santa Rosa) Location ........... South of 52nd Avenue and east of the Coachella Canal (All American Canal). Request ............ A request to vacate Wagon Road and a public easement in favor of the Southern Pacific Land Company south of 52nd Avenue, east of the Coachella Canal. Action ............. Minute Motion 93- CONSENT CALENDAR Approval of the Minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held February 9, 10. OTHER ADJOURNMENT STUDY SESSION MONDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1993 4:00 P.M. All Agenda items. PC/AGENDA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California February 9, 1993 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairwoman Barrows; Commissioner Adolph led the flag salute. H. 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, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planner Greg Trousdell, and Department Secretary Betty Anthony. M. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Tentative Tract 26444, Extension #1; a request of La Quinta Estates Partnership for approval of a one year extension of time for a subdivision of approximately 32 acres into 98 single family lots. 1. Chairwoman Barrows opened the public hearing and stated the applicant had requested the matter be continued to the next meeting. Commissioner Marrs moved to continue the matter to February 23, 1993. Commissioner Ellson seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. B. Tentative Tract 25389, Extension #2; a request of Keith Companies (formerly Brock Homes) for approval of a second one year extension of time. 1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Commissioners discussed with Staff the nuisances caused by the school lights and public address system. Commissioners asked Staff if there was any recourse to cause the school to shield the lights and tone down the PC2-9 1 Planning Commission Minutes February 9, 1993 public address system. the lights in the near address system. Staff stated that the City Council will be reviewing future, but they had no control over the public 3. Commissioner Ellson suggested the developers redesign the windows to help control the amount of light entering. 4. Chairwoman Barrows asked Staff if the lights needed to be on every night. Staff stated that in the beginning they were either all on or off. They have since been altered so you can control which lights are on. 5. There being no further questions of Staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened the public hearing. Mr. John Gamlin, Keith Companies, stated his concern regarding proposed Condition #28. He further stated that due to the property being in the possession of the RTC and undergoing the "Due Diligence" process, this condition would have a ripple effect and the project would again have to be reviewed by a number of people under the RTC. He therefore asked that the conditions not be altered. Further this extension was for Phases 3 and 4 which are not directly affected by the school lights due to their distance from the school. 6. Commissioner Marrs expressed his concern that prospective property owners needed to be alerted to the school lights, etc. 7. Commissioner Mosher expressed his concern about putting added conditions on the project which is already suffering because of the school problems. 8. Chairwoman Barrows asked Staff if there was any better time to add the condition. Staff stated the project would not come back to the Planning Commission again unless they were to apply for another time extension or modify the design of the units. 9. Commissioner Adolph asked how the sale of the houses would be handled. Mr. Gamlin stated they would become part of the pool of assets for Landmark Lanai. 10. There being no further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the public hearing. PC2-9 2 Planning Commission Minutes February 9, 1993 11. Commissioners discussed with Staff methods of protecting the property owners without putting undue conditions on the developer. It was suggested that the condition be deleted and trust the tract sales persons to disclose the problem. It was noted that the Department of Real Estate requires disclosure of school locations to buyers. 12. There being no further discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Mosher and seconded by Commissioner Ellson to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 92-004, recommending approval of Tentative Tract 25389, Extension #2, with the deletion of Condition #28, to the City Council. 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. Plot Plan 91-473; a request of Desert Hospital (Peter Bergmann) for approval of a one year extension for a plot plan which allows construction and operation of an out -patient medical facility. 1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. Staff noted a modification to Condition #50 from the Engineering Department. 2. Commissioner Mosher asked Staff if all the amended conditions from the Engineering Department had been incorporated into the conditions before the Commission. Staff stated they were. 3. Mr. Peter Bergmann, Desert Hospital, stated he had no objections to the conditions as amended and their plans were to pull building permits within the next 30 days. 4. Commissioner Adolph asked Mr. Bergmann if they anticipated any problems with construction continuing to completion as his concern was for blowing sand during any down time of construction. Mr. Bergmann stated they did not anticipate any problems once construction began. Staff stated they would be required to comply with any codes regarding blowing sand. PC2-9 3 Planning Commission Minutes February 9, 1993 5. There being no further questions, Commissioner Ellson moved and Commissioner Mosher seconded a motion to adopt Minute Motion 93-009 approving Plot Plan 91-473, extension of time. Unanimously approved. B. Plot Plan 92-484, Amendment #1; a request of Anchovie's Restaurant to modify the take out pizza restaurant to permit on -site dining. 1. Planning Director Jerry Herman presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. Staff noted a modification to the conditions regarding provision of a second restroom. 2. Commissioner Ellson asked if the applicant would be contributing to the Downtown Parking District fund. Staff stated they would be. 3. Ms. Lisa Hicks, applicant, concurred with the recommended conditions. .4. There being no further questions, it was moved by Commissioner Mosher and seconded by Commissioner Marrs to adopt Minute Motion 93-010 approving Plot Plan 92-484, Amendment #1 subject to conditions as amended. Unanimously approved. C. ,Sign Ap-plication 93-195; a request of Baskin Robbins for approval of a deviation from the sign program for the One Eleven La Quinta Center. I . Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information regarding additional requested show dates contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Commissioners discussed with Staff the sign on the west elevation. Staff explained the condition requiring the two signs be 20 feet apart. Commissioners were concerned that the west sign needed to be centered on the facia surface for appearances rather than meet the 20 foot distance requirement. I Ms. Chris Kimpel, Award Signage representing the applicant, stated she had no objections to centering the sign or not centering, as long as they obtained the two signs. 4. There being no further discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Mosher and seconded by Commissioner Marrs to adopt Minute Motion 93-011 recommending approval of Plot Plan 93-195, subject to conditions with the modification of condition requiring the 20 feet distance between the two signs being changed so that the sign on the west elevation facia is centered. Unanimously approved. PC2-9 4 Planning Commission Minutes February 9, 1993 D. Consistency Finding; a request of the Coachella Valley Water District for General Plan Consistency Finding for CVWD projects. 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 how the proposed water tank projects could be in compliance with the General Plan due to their location. Staff stated that utilities were exempt from complying. Staff further stated that if the Commission so desired, a letter could be written to CVWD making a recommendation that the water tanks be bermed, buried, or screened in some way. Discussion followed as to what had been done in other locations. 3. Chairwoman Barrows asked if there were any requirements on CVWD to return the ground to its existing conditions before the construction. Staff stated they could write a letter recommending this be done. 14. Following discussion relative to the above subjects, it was moved by Commissioner Adolph and seconded by Commissioner Mosher to move to continue this item to the next available meeting and ask CVWD to be present to explain the location and possibility of screening and/or berming the water tanks from view. Unanimously approved. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Chairwoman Barrows asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of January 26, 1993. Commissioner Mosher asked that his comments regarding the Change of Zone 92-073 (Page 4, Item #15) be elaborated to read: "Commissioner Mosher addressed the proposal that would have provided that if present owners subject to the Equestrian Overlay, should sell their property the equestrian use would cease and in any event after five years of equestrian use the property would revert to R-1 zoning. Commissioner Mosher expressed his opinion that imposing what amounted to life estate on property would go beyond the police power of the City and would undoubtedly prove to be illegal. " 'there being no further corrections Commissioner Mosher moved that the Minutes of January 26, 1993, be approved as amended. Commissioner Adolph seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. PC2-9 5 Planning Commission Minutes February 9, 1993 VH. OTHER A. Commissioner Adolph asked Staff if they required the AM/PM Market to extend the wall and also had ARCO installed the card dispensing machines at the gas pumps. Staff stated they had required the wall extension and the machines were installed. B. Commissioner Ellson expressed her concern that if cities were not allowed to modify the colors of national trade marks on signs that there would be a circus of colors being installed throughout the City. Discussion followed. C. Commissioner Mosher moved and Commissioner Ellson seconded a motion to cancel the regular meeting of the Planning Commission meeting for March 9, 1993, due to a lack of a quorum as the majority of the members would be attending the League of California Cities Planning Commissioners Conference in Monterey. Unanimously approved. VIH. ADJOURNMENT A motion was :made by Commissioner Marrs and seconded by Commissioner Adolph to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting on February 23, 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 8:24 P.M., February 9, 1993. PC2-9 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 23, 1993 (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 9, 1993) CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT 26444, TIME EXTENSION #1 REQUEST: ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR A SUBDIVISION OF 32+ ACRES INTO 98 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. APPLICANT: LA QUINTA ESTATES PARTNERSHIP LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF JEFFERSON STREET & 53RD AVENUE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH RURAL RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY (0-3 DU/AC). PROPOSED DENSITY: 3.1 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. ZONING: R-1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 90-170 WAS PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT IN 1990. BASED UPON THIS ASSESSMENT THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT WAS ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL ON DECEMBER 4, 1990. NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS DEEMED NECESSARY AT THIS TIME. PROTECT DESCRIPTION: This subdivision will be a gated community with private streets. The proposed lot sizes consist of the following: Minimum lot Maximum lot Average lot Retention lot - 8,613 sq. ft. - 18,750 sq. ft. - 10,787 sq. ft. - 138,000 sq. ft. PCST.109 1 Currently, the property is still vacant except for native vegetation. A "not a part" (200 feet wide by 545 feet deep) parcel is located in the middle of the site along Jefferson Street. The "not a part" parcel is the site of native plant and cactus nursery. DRAINAGE: A 100-year storm retention basin is proposed on the site near the southeast corner of the project. The basin will be used for informal recreational uses as well as for storm water retention. ACCESS/CIRCULATION: A main gated entry will be located off of Jefferson Street with a secondary access off of 53rd Avenue. All streets will be private and maintained by a Homeowner's Association. PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS: This time extension request was transmitted to all local public agencies which would have an interest in the review process. Comments were received from CVWD and the Coachella Valley School District. The Water District did not have any additional requirements, however, the school district will be imposing their new fee of $2.65 per square foot of floor area for the residential development. The City of U Quinta Public Works Department revised several conditions with deletions or new language as noted in the attached Conditions of Approval. FINDINGS: Findings for recommendation of approval of the time extension for Tentative Tract 26444 can be found in the attached Planning Commission Resolution. RECOMMENDATION: By adoption of attached Planning Commission Resolution 93- , recommend to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract 26444, Extension of Time #1, subject to the attached conditions. Attachments: 1. Location map 2. Tentative Tract 26444 3. Draft Planning Commission Resolution 93- PCST.109 2 CASE MAP CASE No. "� N O R T N �-i' 26444 SCALE: LOCATION MAP NTS PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 93- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A ONE YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 26444 TO ALLOW A 98 HOME LOT SUBDIVISION ON A_+32 ACRE SITE CASE NO. TT 26444 - LA QUINTA ESTATE PARTNERSHIP FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 9th and 23rd day of February, 1993, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of La Quinta Estates Partnership (Duke Leggett) to extend their original tentative tract map to subdivide 98 single family lots and other miscellaneous lots, located on the east side of Jefferson Street between the All -American Canal and 53rd Avenue: PORTION OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 9, T6S, R7E, SBBM WHEREAS, said tentative map has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (County of Riverside, Resolution No. 82-213, adopted by reference in City of La Quinta Ordinance No. 5), in that the Planning Director conducted an initial study, and has determined that the proposed tentative tract will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and, WHEREAS, mitigation of various physical impacts have been identified and will be incorporated into the approval conditions for Tentative Tract 26444 in conjunction with this tentative tract, thereby requiring that monitoring of those mitigation measures be undertaken to assure compliance with them; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts to justify the recommendation for approval of a one year extension of time for said tentative tract map time extension request; 1. That Tentative Tract 26444, as conditionally approved, is generally consistent with the goals, policies, and intent of the La Quinta General Plan for land use density, unit type, circulation requirements, R-1 zoning district development standards, and design requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. 2. That the subject site will have a flat topography. The proposed circulation design and single-family lot layouts as conditioned are, therefore, suitable for the proposed land division. CS/RESOPC.051 - 1 - 3. That the design of Tentative Tract Map No. 26444 will not cause substantial environmental damage or injury to the wildlife habitat of the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard. 4. That the design of the subdivision, as conditionally approved, will be developed with public sewers and water, and, therefore, is not likely to cause serious public health problems. 5. That the design of Tentative Tract Map 26444 will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through the project, since alternate easements for access and for use have been provided that are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public. 6. That the proposed Tentative Tract 26444, as conditioned, provides for adequate maintenance of the landscape buffer areas. 7. That the proposed Tentative Tract 26444, as conditioned, provides storm water retention, park in -lieu fees, and noise mitigation. 8. That general impacts from the proposed tract were considered within the MEA prepared and adopted in conjunction with the La Quinta General Plan Update. WHEREAS, in the review of this Tentative Tract Time Extension, the Planning Commission has considered the effect of the contemplated action of the housing needs of the region for purposes of balancing the needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City of La Quinta and its environs with available fiscal and environmental resources; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of Environmental Assessment 90-170 relative to the environmental concerns of this tentative tract; 3. That it does hereby recommend approval to the City Council of the subject time extension for Tentative Tract Map 26444 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 23rd day of February, 1993, by the following vote, to wit: CS/RESOPC.051 - 2 - AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: KATIE BARROWS, Chairperson City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California CS/RESOPC.051 - 3 - PLANNING C;OMMISSION RESOLUTION 93- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED TENTATIVE TRACT 26444, EXTENSION OF TIME #1 February 23, 1,993 * Amended by Planning Commission 11/27/90 ** Added by Planning Commission 11/27/90 *** Amended by City Council 12/4/90 **** Deleted by City Council 12/4/90 + Amended by Planning Commission 2/23/93 ++ Added by Planning Commission 2/23/93 GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Tentative. Tract Map 26444, marked Exhibit "A", shall comply with the requirements and standards of the State Subdivision Map Act and the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance, unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. 2. This Tentative Tract Map approval shall expire two years after the approval by the La Quinta City Council unless approved for extension pursuant to the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance. The Tract layout shall comply with R-1 zoning requirements, with minimum lot sizes of 7,200 square feet. 4. Minimum landscaped setback shall be provided on Jefferson Street (20 feet) and 53rd Avenue (10 feet). Design of the setback shall be approved by the Design Review Board and Planning and Development Department. Setback shall be measured from ultimate right-of-way line. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning and Development Department an interim landscape program for the entire tract, which shall be for the purpose of wind erosion and dust control. The land owner shall institute blowsand and dust control measures during the grading and site development. These shall include, but not be limited to: a. The use of irrigation during any construction activities. b. Planting of cover crop or vegetation upon previously graded but undeveloped portions of the site. C. Provision of wind breaks or wind rows, fencing, and/or landscaping to reduce the effects upon adjacent properties and property owners. The land owner shall comply with requirements of the Director of Public Works and Planning and Development. All construction and graded areas shall tie watered at least twice daily while being used to prevent the emission of dust and blowsand. 6. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a condition so as to prevent a dust and blowsand nuisance and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other wind and water erosion control measures as approved by the Planning and Development and Public Works Departments. +7. The subdivider shall make provisions for maintenance of all landscape buffer and storm water retention areas prior to final map approval as follows: CONAPRVL.072 Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 26444 February 23, 1993 a. The Applicant shall submit to the Planning and Development Department a Management and Maintenance Agreement, to be entered into with the unit/lot owners of this land division, in order to insure common areas and facilities will be maintained, with an unqualified right to assess the owners of the individual units for reasonable maintenance costs. The association shall have the right to lien the property of any owners who default in the payment of their assessments. The common facilities to be maintained are as follows: (1) Storm water retention system. (2) Twenty -foot perimeter parkway lot along Jefferson Street, and a 10 foot perimeter parkway along 53rd Avenue. (3) All common area landscaping. (4) All private streets, including all street medians. 8. A noise study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer, to be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for review and approval prior to final map approval. The study shall concentrate on noise impacts on the tract from perimeter arterial streets, and recommend alternative mitigation techniques. Recommendations of the study shall be incorporated into the tract design. The study shall consider use of building setbacks, engineering design, building orientation, noise barriers (berming, walls, and landscaping, etc.), and other techniques so as to avoid the isolated appearance given by walled developments. +9. If the tract is phased, tract phasing plans, including phasing of public improvements, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department and the Planning and Development Department prior to final map approval. The applicant shall develop tract phases in the order of the approved phasing plan so that improvements required of each final map are complete prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy within subsequent final maps. 10. Applicant shall submit proposed street names with alternatives to the Planning and Development Department for approval prior to final map approval. +11. Prior to final map approval, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning Division for review and approval a plan (or plans) showing the following: a. ]Landscaping, including plant types, sizes, spacing, locations, and irrigation system for all landscape buffer areas. Desert or native plant species and drought resistant planting materials shall be incorporated into the landscape plan. Along public parkways and medians lawn use shall be limited with no lawn adjacent to curb. No spray heads shall be used next to curbs. b. Location and design detail of any proposed and/or required walls. C. Exterior lighting plan, emphasizing minimization of light glare impacts to surrounding properties. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots, common retention basins and park facilities shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The plans and proposed landscaping improvements shall be in conformance with requirements of, and be signed by, the Planning Director, the City Engineer, the Coachella Valley Water District, and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner. CONAPRVL.072 2 Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 26444 February 23, 1993 Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. The applicant shall insure that landscaping plans and utility plans are coordinated to provide visual screening; of above -ground utility structures. 12. Prior to final map approval, the subdivider shall submit landscape plans to be used for landscaping of all individual lot front yards. At a minimum, the plans shall provide for two trees (five trees on a corner) shrubs, groundcover, and an irrigation system. + 13. The Applicant shall install a six -foot -high decorative block sound wall per the Noise Study requirements along the entire length of tract boundary that adjoins Jefferson Street and 53rd Avenue. Additional decorative block walls shall be installed adjacent to All -American Canal, adjacent to side and rear property lines of lots abutting retention basin and "not a part" site (cactus site). +14. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the Applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: o City Fire Marshal o City of La Quinta Public Works Department o Planning & Development Department, Planning Div. o Coachella Valley Water District o Coachella Valley Unified School District o Imperial Irrigation District o California Regional Water. Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit) Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above -mentioned agencies shall be presented to the Building Division at the time of the application for a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approvals and signatures on the plans. 15. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee Program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 16. All dwelling units within 150-feet of the ultimate right-of-way of Jefferson Street shall be limited to one story (maximum 22-feet high). This limitation shall be included in the CC & R's. 17. The appropriate Planning approval shall be secured prior to establishing any of the following uses: a. 'Temporary construction facilities. b. Sales facilities, including their appurtenant signage. C. On -site advertising/construction signs. + 18. The Developer shall construct landscaping (trees and lawn/groundcover) and irrigation systems for drainage retention basin(s) and perimeter areas. The applicant shall maintain the landscaped areas of the subdivision such as common lots, landscaped setbacks and retention basins until those areas have been approved by the City and accepted for maintenance by the Homeowners' Association. CONAPRVL.072 Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 26444 February 23, 1993 19. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with those conditions of approval and mitigation measures of Tentative Tract 26444 and Environmental Assessment 90-170, which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with those conditions of approval and mitigation measures of Environmental Assessment 90- 170 and Tentative Tract 26444, which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of a building permit. Prior to final building inspection approval, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with all remaining conditions of approval and mitigation measures of Environmental Assessment 90-170 and Tentative Tract 26444. The Planning and Development Director may require inspection or other monitoring to assure such compliance. 20. Design of entrance(s) and gate(s) shall be approved by Engineering Department & Planning and Development Department prior to approval of final map by City Council. 21. Prior to approval of building permit final for 30th dwelling unit, secondary tract access shall be provided to satisfaction of the City. 22. Prior to or concurrent with final map recordation, an easement allowing access to "A" Street from the "not a Part" cactus site shall be recorded to the satisfaction of the City Attorney. 23. Lot depth to width ratio shall not exceed 2 1/2 to 1 per code requirements. 24. The City shall retain a qualified archaeologist, with the Developer to pay costs, to prepare a mitigation and monitoring plan for artifact location and recovery. Prior archaeological studies for this site as well as other unrecorded information shall be analyzed prior to the preparation of the plan. The plan shall be submitted to the Coachella Valley Archaeological Society (CVAS) for a two -week review and comment period. At a minimum, the plan shall: (1) identify the means for digging test pits; (2) allow sharing the information with CVAS; and (3) provide for further testing if the preliminary results show significant material are present. The final plan shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for final review and approval. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall have retained a qualified cultural resources management firm and completed the testing and data recovery as noted in the plan. The management firm shall monitor the grading activity as required by the plan or testing results. A list of the qualified archaeological monitor(s), cultural resources management firm employees, and any assistant(s)/representative(s), shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department. The list shall provide the current address and phone number for each monitor. The designated monitors may be changed from time to time, but no such change shall be effective unless served by registered or certified mail on the Planning and Development Department. The designated monitors or their authorized representatives shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect, or halt grading activity to allow recovery of resources. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains, there shall be no further grading, excavation, or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until appropriate mitigation measures are completed. CONAPRVL . 0 7 2 4 Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 26444 February 23, 1993 Upon completion of the data recovery, the Developer shall cause three copies of the final report containing the data analyses to be prepared and published and submitted to the Planning and Development Department. 25. Prior to final map approval by the City Council, the Applicant shall meet the parkland dedication requirements as set forth in Section 13.24.030, La Quinta Municipal Code, by paying parkland fees in lieu, as may be determined in accordance with said Section. 26. Design and architectural plans for the residences shall be submitted to the Planning Commission and Design Review Board for review and approval prior to Building permit issuance. All approved standards shall be included in the CC&R's. A copy of the CC&R's shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review. Consideration shall be given to shading exterior glass areas. 27. Condition Deleted PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 28. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City Fire Marshal per their letter dated August 8, 1990. 29. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District. 30. All existing over head utility lines and poles adjacent to the site shall be undergrounded. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: +31. The Applicant shall vacate vehicle access rights to Jefferson Street and 53rd Avenue from all abutting individual lots. Access to these streets from this subdivision shall be restricted to street intersections only. 32. A common area lot shall be established for that area between the tract perimeter wall and street right-of- way along Jefferson Street (20 feet); 53rd Avenue (10 feet). The homeowner's association for this subdivision shall be responsible for landscape maintenance of the common lot and landscaped parkway. +33. The Applicant shall have street improvement plans (for public and private streets) prepared by a registered civil engineer. The street improvements, including traffic signs and markings, and raised median islands (if required by the City General Plan) shall conform to City standards as determined by the City Engineer and adopted by the LQMC. Street pavement sections shall be based on a Caltrans design procedure for a 20-year life and shall consider soil strength and anticipated traffic loading. The minimum pavement section shall be 3-inches AC/4-inches Class-2 base for local streets and 4. 1/2-inches by 6-inches for arterial and collector streets. 34. The Applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed grading, landscaping and irrigation plans to the Coachella Valley Water District for review and comment with respect to the District's Water Management Program. 35. All underground utilities shall be installed, with trenches compacted to City standards, prior to construction of any street improvements. A soils engineer retained by the Applicant shall provide certified report of soil compaction tests for review by the City Engineer. CONAPRVL.072 5 Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 26444 February 23, 1993 36. Drainage disposal facilities shall be provided as required by the City Engineer. 37. The developer of this subdivision of land shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any portion of this property between the date of approval by the City Council and the date of recording of the final map without the approval of the City Engineer. 38. The Applicant shall pay all fees charged by the City as required for processing, plan checking and construction inspection. The fee amount(s) shall be those which are in effect at the time the work is undertaken and accomplished by the City. 39. An encroachment permit for work in any abutting local jurisdiction shall be secured prior to constructing or joining improvements. 40. Applicant shall dedicate all necessary public street rights of way including corner cutbacks. Applicant shall dedicate rights of way and easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines and structures, park lands, drainage basins, common areas, and centralized mail delivery units. Applicant shall dedicate blanket easements for sidewalk/bikepath purposes over the landscape setback lots along Jefferson Street and Avenue 53. The right of way dedications for public streets shall be as follows: Jefferson Street: half -street (60 feet) right of way for 120-foot wide Major Arterial. This right of way shall be dedicated within 60 days after approval of the tentative map. .Avenue 53: half -street (36 feet) right of way for 72-foot wide Collector Street. Interior private streets: full -street (37 feet) right of way, plus 5-feet wide public utility easements, plus suitable right of way conforms for "knuckle" turns all as required by the City Engineer. *+41. The Applicant shall construct, or enter into agreement to construct, street improvements for the following streets to *** the requirements of the City Engineer and the La Quinta Municipal Code prior to approval of the final map. a. Interior private streets: 36-foot wide street improvements per Riverside County Standard Drawing No. 104 and 800 including all appurtenant conforms and amenities. b. Jefferson Street (from All American Canal to Avenue 53): half width street improvements plus a 14-foot wide south bound lane plus a full median per Riverside County Standard Drawing No. 100, plus suitable conforms to match existing improvements including a transition beyond the tract boundary along with other appurtenant amenities as required by the City Engineer. C. Avenue 53: half -width improvements per Riverside County Standard Drawing No. 102, plus a 14-foot wide eastbound lane plus suitable conforms to match existing improvements including a transition beyond the tract boundary along with other appurtenant amenities as required by the City Engineer. Improvements shall include all appurtenances such as traffic signs, channelization markings, raised medians if required, street name signs, sidewalks, and mailbox clusters approved in design and location by the U.S. Post Office and the City Engineer. Mid -block street lighting is not required. Enhancements to existing improvements may be required. Improvements may be required beyond the tract boundaries. CONAPRVL.072 6 Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 26444 February 23, 1993 *42. Traffic signals are required at the following intersections: Jefferson Street and 53rd Avenue - The Applicant is responsible for 12 1/2% of the cost to design and construct the signal. Jefferson Street and Avenue 52 - The Applicant is responsible for 6% of the cost to design and construct the signal or percentage of the cost as determined by the City Engineer. The signals will be installed by the City when traffic conditions warrant the installation. +43. Applicant shall construct, or enter into agreement to construct, the tract grading and all public improvements before the final map is recorded. The applicant shall pay cash or provide security in guarantee of cash payment for required improvements which are deferred for future construction by others. The applicant's responsibility for deferred improvements may be satisfied through participation in a City major thoroughfare improvement program if this development becomes subject to such a program. +44. Storm water run-off produced in 24 hours by a 100-year storm shall be retained on site in landscaped retention basin(s) designed for a maximum water depth not to exceed six feet. The basin slopes shall not exceed 3:1. Other requirements include, but are not limited to, a grassed ground surface with permanent irrigation improvements, and appurtenant structural drainage amenities all of which shall be designed and constructed in accordance with requirements deemed necessary by the City Engineer. 45. A thorough preliminary engineering, geological, and soils engineering investigation shall be conducted with a report submitted for review along with grading plan. The report recommendations shall be incorporated into the grading plan design prior to grading plan approval. The soils engineer and/or engineering geologist must certify to the adequacy of the grading plan. A statement shall appear on the final subdivision map that a soils report has been prepared for the tract pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health. and Safety Code. +46. The tract grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval. The tract shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention capacity to flow out of the tract through a designated overflow outlet and into the historic drainage relief route. The tract shall be graded to receive storm flow from adjoining property at locations that have historically received flow. The design of the tract shall not cause any change in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the tract. Storm water run-off produced in 24 hours during a 100-year storm shall be retained on site. The tributary drainage area for which the applicant is responsible shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets. A trickling sand filter and leachfield of a design approved by the City Engineer shall be installed to percolate nuisance water. The sand filter and leach field shall be sized to percolate 22 gallons per day per 1,000 square feet of drainage area. +47. Prior to issuance of any building permit the applicant shall provide a separate document bearing the seal and signature of a California registered civil engineer, geotechnieal engineer, or surveyor that lists actual building pad elevations. The document shall, for each lot in the tract, state the pad elevation approved on the grading plan, the as -built elevation, and shall clearly identify the difference, if any. The data shall be organized by tract phase and lot number and shall be cumulative if the data are submitted at different times. CONAPRVL.072 Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 26444 February 23, 1993 +48. The City is contemplating adoption of a quality -assurance program for privately funded construction. If the program is adopted prior to the issuance of permits for construction of the improvements required of this map, the applicant shall fully comply with the quality -assurance program. If the quality -assurance program has not been adopted, the applicant shall adopt a construction quality -assurance program which meets the approval of the City Engineer. The applicant shall employ or retain California registered civil engineers, geotechnical engineers, or surveyors, as appropriate, who will provide, or have his or her agents provide, sufficient supervision and verification of the construction to be able to furnish and sign as -built drawings and certify compliance of all work with approved plans, specifications and applicable codes. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible as -built drawings of all grading and improvements except water and sewer. Each sheet of the drawings shall have the words "As -Built" or "As - Constructed" clearly marked and be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the as -built condition. 49. Applicant may seek reimbursement from City for specific improvement right of way acquisition costs that exceed a nominal fair -share responsibility noted as follows: Jefferson Street improvements: West of centerline - 100% of cost is reimbursable; East of centerline - 53% of cost is reimbursable; Reimbursement from City shall be limited to funds specifically received by City for the improvements and right of way parcel for which reimbursement is sought. *50. Applicant shall relocate Jefferson Street access to tract to a point not less than 660-feet from intersection of Avenue 53. All access points on Jefferson Street shall be limited to right in/out movements only regardless of location. 51. Applicant shall make access provisions for access to the landscape nursery from an interior private street, which shall become available for use only after the nursery land is subdivided for single family residential use. The lots of the subdivided nursery land shall be incorporated into the homeowners association for TT 26444 and the future landowners of the lots shall enjoy the same rights, privileges, and obligations as enjoyed by the other members of the association. 52. If the private streets are planned to be gated "C" street shall be widened to provide a turnaround space. 53. The map shall be revised to include 53rd Avenue with a primary street access from the tract to 53rd Avenue to the satisfaction of the City. MISCELLANEOUS: **54. A biological assessment shall be prepared by a qualified biologist to determine existence of Flat -Tailed Horned Lizard on site. Mitigation measures as recommended by assessment shall be complied with. ++55. The city is contemplating adoption of a major thoroughfare improvements ordinance. If the ordinance is adopted at least 60 days prior to recordation of any final map in this development, this project shall be subject to the provisions of the ordinance. CONAPRVL.072 Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 26444 February 23, 1993 ++56. Grading, drainage, street, lighting, landscaping & irrigation, park, gate, and perimeter wall plans are not approved for construction until they have been signed by the City Engineer. ++57. Prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for buildings within the tract, Applicant shall install traffic control devices and street name signs along access roads to those buildings. CONAPRVL.072 9 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 23, 1993 CASE NO: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92-041, CHANGE OF ZONE 92-073, SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AMENDMENT #9, ANNEXATION #9. APPLICANT: TRAVERTINE CORPORATION LOCATION: SOUTH OF 60TH AVENUE AND WEST OF MADISON STREET. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 92-249 WAS PREPARED FOR THESE APPLICATIONS. BASED UPON THIS ASSESSMENT, THE PROPOSALS WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR ADOPTION. THIS DETERMINATION WAS MADE AFTER REVIEWING: THE GENERAL PLAN; THE AREA TO BE ANNEXED; THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES; THE ADJACENT LAND USES; THE PLANNED CAPACITIES OF THE ROAD; AND RELATED MATTERS; THE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN; AND THE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN FOR THIS AREA. BACKGROUND: The Travertine Corporation has requested a City Land Use Designation prezoning, Sphere of Influence, and Annexation of approximately 2,560 acres. The area encompasses Sections 4 and 5 of Township 7 South, Range 7 East, and Sections 32 and 33 of Township 6 South, Range 7 East. The property with the exception of an active vineyard with a caretakers residence, is vacant desert land. The property is contiguous to the City of La Quinta along 60th Avenue which is the southern City limits line. Section 32 This Section is owned by the Bureau of Land Management and vacant. Section 33 Approximately half of this Section is owned by Travertine Corporation with the remainder broken up into parcels ranging from five acres to 40 acres. The existing vineyard is located in the southwest quarter of this Section, the rest of the area is vacant. PCST.110 1 Section 4 This Section was owned by the BLM but was acquired by the Travertine Corporation with the exception of the mountain outcropping located in the southwestern portion. This area is also vacant. Section 5 This section is broken up into five to 20 acre parcels under various ownerships and currently vacant. COUNTY GENERAL PLAN: The County has the property designated as Planned Residential Reserve (0-5 du/ac) generally for the following areas: all of Section 33, the north 3/4 of Section 4, the south half and the east half of Section 32, the north and east quarter of Section 5. The remainder of the property is designated as "Mountainous Areas (1 du/10 acres). PROPOSED CITY GENERAL PLAN: The City proposes to designate the "Mountainous Areas" as Open Space and the remainder as Low Density Residential (2-4 du/ac). COUNTY ZONING: The County has the entire property zoned as W-2, Controlled Development Areas which permits residential and agricultural activities. PROPOSED CITY ZONING: The City proposes to zone the non -mountainous areas R-1, one family dwelling and the mountainous areas as Hillside Conservation. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: There are no proposed development applications in conjunction with these amendments. The applicant proposes to continue farming the grape vineyard. However, any future development or proposal will be subject to the regulations of the City and environmental assessments. There are archaeological sites within the area, however, these applications in and of themselves will not disturb those sites. Future archaeological studies will be required prior to any development that requires City approval. PCST.110 RECOMMENDATION: Move to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 93- recommending to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 92-041, Change of Zone 92-073, Sphere of Influence #9, Annexation #9, and adoption of a Negative Declaration for these applications. Attachments: 1. City General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map 2. City General Plan Circulation Map 3. County General Plan Zoning Map 4. US Geological Survey Maps 5. Areal of the area 6. Environmental Assessment 7. Draft Planning Commission Resolution 93-_ PCST.110 3 l:fM.tA AIK)N 5Y5TEM POMP MAG RAM • • MAJOR ARTERIAL PRIMARY ARTERIAL SECONDARY ARTERIAL Illtlllt COLLECTOR ®® VAJOR ARTERIAL WITH SPECIAL CALTRANS RKWT-OF-WAY REOUIREMENTS 4p-q2 -olfd QV i �®as.�awa®wwaa��awawe�a®aaa.I� st � i 4 i S I ; ; ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 92-249 FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92-041 PREANNEXATION ZONING 92-073 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE #9 ANNEXATION #9 The Travertine Corporation has requested City land use designation, zoning, sphere of influence, and annexation of 2560 acres located south of 60th Avenue, west of Madison Street and north of 64th Avenue. The area encompasses Section 4 and 5 of Township 7 South, Range 7 east, and Sections 32 and 33 of Township 6 south, Range 7 east. The County currently has a majority of the property designated "Planned Residential Reserve" permitting 0-5 dwelling units per acre and the mountains area as designated as "Mountainous Areas" permitting one dwelling unit per ten acres. The County zoning of the property is W-2, "Controlled Development Areas" permitting a range of single family and agricultural developments on as small as 20,000 square foot lots. The City proposes to designate the mountain property as "Open Space", one dwelling per ten acres and the remainder as Low Density Residential, 2-4 dwelling units per acre. The City zoning will be Hillside Conservation for the mountain area and R-1 (one family dwelling) for the remainder. Currently a grape vineyard exists on the property with a majority of the property having been subdivided into as small as five acre parcels. The City proposes to ultimately annex the property. ENVASS-007 1 RESPONSES TO ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 1. EARTH: Because no new development is presently proposed, and because the proposed zoning and land use designation for the "to be" annexed property is less intense than or equal to the existing County zoning, approval of the General Plan Amendment Preannexation Zoning, Sphere of Influence, and Annexation does not have the potential to result in any of the impacts identified in this category. 2. AIR: Because no new development is presently proposed, and because the proposed zoning and land use designation for the "to be" annexed property is less intense than or equal to the existing County zoning, approval of the General Plan Amendment Preannexation Zoning, Sphere of Influence, and Annexation does not have the potential to result in any of the impacts identified in this category. 3. -WATER: Because no new development is presently proposed, and because the proposed zoning and land use designation for the "to be" annexed property is less intense than or equal to the existing County zoning, approval of the General Plan Amendment Preannexation Zoning, Sphere of Influence, and Annexation does not have the potential to result in any of the impacts identified in this category. 4. PLANT LIFE: Because no new development is presently proposed, and because the proposed zoning and land use designation for the "to be" annexed property is less intense than or equal to the existing County zoning, approval of the General Plan Amendment Preannexation Zoning, Sphere of Influence, and Annexation does not have the potential to result in any of the impacts identified in this category. 5. ANIMAL LIFE: Because no new development is presently proposed, and because the proposed zoning and land use designation for the "to be" annexed property is less intense than or equal to the existing County zoning, approval of the General Plan Amendment Preannexation Zoning, Sphere of Influence, and Annexation does not have the potential to result in any of the impacts identified in this category. 6. NOI E: Because no new development is presently proposed, and because the proposed zoning and land use designation for the "to be" annexed property is less intense than or equal to the existing County zoning, approval of the General Plan Amendment Preannexation Zoning, Sphere of Influence, and Annexation does not have the potential to result in any of the impacts identified in this category. 7. - LIGHT AND GLARE: Because no new development is presently proposed, and because the proposed zoning and land use designation for the "to be" annexed property is less intense than or equal to the existing County zoning, approval of the General Plan Amendment Preannexation Zoning, Sphere of Influence, and Annexation does not have the potential to result in any of the impacts identified in this category. ENVASS.007 2 8. LAND USE: The proposed land use is generally less intense than or equal to *the existing County land use designations. The environmental impacts attendant to such land use designations were addressed when the County approved the existing land use designations after certifying its Final Environmental Impact Report 189 (the "EIR"). The EIR is available for public review at City Hall and is incorporated herein by this reference. There have been no substantial changes to those land use designations or to the environmental setting of the areas since the EIR was certified. Likewise, no new information has become available on this topic since the EIR was certified. Approval of the General Plan Amendment, Preannexation Zoning, Sphere of Influence, and Annexation does not have the potential to result in any of the impacts identified in this category. 9. NATURAL RESOURCES: Because no new development is presently proposed, and because the proposed zoning and land use designation for the "to be" annexed property is less intense than or equal to the existing County zoning, approval of the General Plan Amendment Preannexation Zoning, Sphere of Influence, and Annexation does not have the potential to result in any of the impacts identified in this category. 10. RISK OF UPSET: Because no new development is presently proposed, and because the proposed zoning and land use designation for the "to be" annexed property is less intense than or equal to the existing County zoning, approval of the General Plan Amendment Preannexation Zoning, Sphere of Influence, and Annexation does not have the potential to result in any of the impacts identified in this category. 11. POPULATION: Because no new development is presently proposed, and because the proposed zoning and land use designation for the "to be" annexed property is less intense than or equal to the existing County zoning, approval of the General Plan Amendment Preannexation Zoning, Sphere of Influence, and Annexation does not have the potential to result in any of the impacts identified in this category. 12. HOUSING: Because no new development is presently proposed, and because the proposed zoning and land use designation for the "to be" annexed property is less intense than or equal to the existing County zoning, approval of the General Plan Amendment Preannexation Zoning, Sphere of Influence, and Annexation does not have the potential to result in any of the impacts identified in this category. 13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION: The proposed land use and zoning are generally less intense than or equal to the existing County General Plan and zoning. The transportation/circulation impacts attendant to such land uses and zoning were addressed when the County approved the existing land use designations after certifying the EIR. There have been no substantial changes to those land use designations or to the environmental setting of the area since the EIR was certified. Likewise, no new information has become available on this topic since the EIR was certified. Approval of the General Plan Land Uses, Preannexation Zoning, Sphere of Influence, and Annexation does not, therefore, have the potential to result in any of the impacts identified in this category. ENVASS.007 14. PUBLIC SERVICES: The City of La Quinta currently contracts for fire and police services from Riverside County. City police services will be responsible for the "to be" annexed area. To accommodate. this additional need, the City may have to increase its current contract for man power. However, this impact is not significant, parks and recreational facilities will be provided by the Coachella Valley Parks and Recreation Board, and as appropriate, by the City of La Quinta however, approval of the project will not have an affect on, or result in the need for new park and recreational facilities. 15. ENERGY: Because no new development is presently proposed, and because the proposed zoning and land use designation for the "to be" annexed property is less intense than or equal to the existing County zoning, approval of the General Plan Amendment Preannexation Zoning, Sphere of Influence, and Annexation does not have the potential to result in any of the impacts identified in this category. 16. UTILITIES: Because no new development is presently proposed, and because the proposed zoning and land use designation for the "to be" annexed property is less intense than or equal to the existing County zoning, approval of the General Plan Amendment Preannexation Zoning, Sphere of Influence, and Annexation does not have the potential to result in any of the impacts identified in this category. Any development when proposed will have to address utilities and their extension at that time. 17. HUMAN HEALTH Because no new development is presently proposed, and because the proposed zoning and land use designation for the "to be" annexed property is less intense than or equal to the existing County zoning, approval of the General Plan Amendment Preannexation Zoning, Sphere of Influence, and Annexation does not have the potential to result in any of the impacts identified in this category. 18. AESTHETICS: Because no new development is presently proposed, and because the proposed zoning and land use designation for the "to be" annexed property is less intense than or equal to the existing County zoning, approval of the General Plan Amendment Preannexation Zoning, Sphere of Influence, and Annexation does not have the potential to result in any of the impacts identified in this category. 19. RECREATION: Because no new development is presently proposed, and because the proposed zoning and land use designation for the "to be" annexed property is less intense than or equal to the existing County zoning, approval of the General Plan Amendment Preannexation Zoning, Sphere of Influence, and Annexation does not have the potential to result in any of the impacts identified in this category. 20. ARCHAEOLOGICALMISTORICAL: The "to be" designated, zoned, and annexed property contains some recorded sites and has a high potential for additional significant archaeological sites. However, pursuant to standard City procedures, archaeological studies will be required, as necessary, when particular sites are proposed for development. ENVASS.007 4 Environmental Assessment No. Case No. P q� s �z a� z 4.;-73 aUmcK 9 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM [. L . t. Background Cpr du Name of Proponent- Address & Phone Number of Proponent BGK G /q --7:2 (0 - 5-/V67) 3. Date Checklist Prepared 4. Agency Requiring Checklist 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable II. Environmental Impacts (Explanation of "yes" & "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) YES MAYBE NO 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes 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 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with - drawls, or through interception of an aquifers by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? MAYBE NO 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, 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? S. 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: d 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? / Y 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: a. Fire protection?---- b. Police protection? 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 C/ or energy? b. Substantial increase .ii 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. I /'v / Daye FORM.009/CS -7- MARTINEZ MTN. QUADRANGLE CALIFORNIA-RIVERSIDE CO. 7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC) SE/4 PALM DESERT IS' QUADRANGLE .68 LA OWNTA 9 AN 169 116*1�3`37'30" 17'30" 166 1 990 000 FEE1 ' , O �I ", i I I FEET wl County Pa t' n it �j n 29 �. 4 •-2 i --- 1,28 n n " 20 30 I •9/r r �4a n � it 40 ' 1 a h i •flp I I x "19 r � 9 A Q I \•�( • 1I�0 l0ry . _ . 32 33 _ I ' "l8 ' 8 T &S i 8 —� 4WD ------------ I I I 1000 3117 xn x 1197 1 t 35' 1000 11 400 W ATE" ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY ��STRIG� COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058 - COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 - TELEPHONE (619) 398-2651 DIRECTORS OFFICERS TELLIS CODEKAS, PRESIDENT THOMAS E LEVY, GENERAL MANAGER -CHIEF ENGINEER RAYMOND R RUMMONDS, VICE PRESIDENT ARY JOHN W McFAODEN BERNSISTNE GENERAL LMANSECRMANAGER DOROTHY M. DE LAY OWEN McC00K ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER eREDWINE AND SHERRILL, ATTORNEYS February THEODORE J. FISH Y 2, 1993 File: 0163.1 Planning Commission F� City of La Quinta e O Post Office Box 1504 8 La Quinta, California 92253 �_V%T Gentlemen: Subject: General Plan 92-041, Change of Zone 92-073, Annexation No. 9, Portion of Sections 4 and 5, Township 7 South, Range 7 East, and Sections 32 and 33, Township 6 South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Meridian This area is subject to stormwater flows from the canyons to the west. These canyons are not owned, operated, or maintained by this district. The developer shall abide by Riverside County Ordinance No. 458, as amended in the preparation of on -site flood control facilities for this project. The developer shall execute a release agreement with this district regarding approval of the flood control plans by this district. Plans for stormwater protective works shall be submitted to Coachella Valley Water District for review. A portion of this area is adjacent to the right-of-way of the West Side Dike. We request that the developer be required to install suitable facilities to prohibit access to this right-of-way. The developer shall obtain an encroachment permit from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation prior to any construction within the right-of-way of the West Side Dike. This includes, but is not limited to, surface improvements, drainage inlets, landscaping, and roadways. The district will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with the current regulations of this district. These regulations provide for the payment of certain fees and charges by the subdivider and said fees and charges are subject to change. TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY Planning Commission City of La Quinta -2- February 2, 1993 The district will need additional facilities to provide for the orderly expansion of its domestic water system. These facilities may include wells, reservoirs and booster pumping stations. The developer will be required to provide land on which some of these facilities will be located. These sites shall be shown on the tract map as lots to be deeded to the district for such purpose. This area shall be annexed to Improvement District No. 55 of Coachella Valley Water District for sanitation service. There are existing district facilities not shown on the development plans. There may be conflicts with these facilities. We request the appropriate public agency to withhold the issuance of a building permit until arrangements have been made with the district for the relocation of these facilities. Plans for grading, landscaping, and irrigation systems shall be submitted to Coachella Valley Water District for review. This review is for ensuring efficient water management. If you have any questions please call Bob Meleg, stormwater engineer, extension 264. Yours very truly, _11 om Levy General Manager -Chief Engineer RCM:cb/e3/gp92-041 cc: Don Park Riverside County Department of Public Health 79-733 Country Club Drive, Suite D Bermuda Dunes, California 92201 COACNELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT -AL RIVERSIDE COUNTY OF — .. FIRE DEPARTMENT RIVERSi' MAY"t.eeti _ 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE • PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370 (714) 657-3183 GLEN J. NEWMAN FIRE CHIEF February 2, 1993 To: City of La Quinta F Planning Division Attn: Jerry Herman • ;t Re: General Plan Amendment 92-041 Change of Zone 92-073 With respect of the review of the above referenced cases, the proposed project will have a cumulative adverse impact on the Department's ability to provide an acceptable level of service. These impacts are due to the increased number of emergency or public service calls generated by additional buildings and human population. This project will contribute to the need for additional fire equipment, personnel, and/or a fire station. A funding source should be identified for the portion of the impacts associated with capitol improvements or one-time costs such as land, buildings, and equipment. If the annual costs necessary for an increased level of service are not off -set by the additional county structural tax, an increase in the Fire Department's annual operating budget will be required. All questions regarding the above requirements should be referred to the Fire Department Planning & Engineering staff at (619) 863-8886. Sincerely, RAY REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner By Kok-, f¢w�.�.,d,,,,. Tom Hutchison Fire Safety Specialist jp/TH cc: B-7 PLANNING DIVISION 0 INDIO OFFICE ❑ TB4ECULA OFFICE 79.733 Country Club Drive, Suite F, Indio, CA 92201 41002 Canty Centex Drive, Suite 225, Temecula, CA 92390 (619) 342MM • FAX (619) 775.2072 RIVERSIDE OFFICE (714) 694-5070 • FAX (714) 694-5076 ❑ 3760 12th Stred, Riverside, CA 92501 (714) 275.4777 0 FAX (714) 369.7451 printed on recycled paper ks i Society ARCHAEOLOGICAL REVIEW FEB 02 1993 P f DATE: January 30, 1993 REF: 6P-92-041, C2-92-073 TO: CITY OF LA Q'UINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT - P.O. BOX 1504 LA QIJINTA, CA 92253 ATTENTION: Jerry Herman PROJECT: Travertine Corporation Development DESCRIPTION: Review L REMARKS: The applicant has indicated that an archaeological assessment has been conducted on only a portion (section 4) of the project area. There is no indicatiod that sections 5, 32, 33 have been surveyed and assessed. If they have, evidence of this should be submitted. If the sections have not been surveyed and evaluated they should be. This is an archaeologically sensitive area with some'25 sites having been recorded within the general vicinity of the project. Several rock art sites are located just north and west of the project while the section 4 archaeological study found prehistoric rock shelters, trails, camp sites and other' important sites associated with the shoreline of ancient Lake Cahuilla. DATE RECEIVED: 1/25/93 DATE REYIEWED: 1/29/93 BY: Jim Toenjes CVAS, Fieldchair Post Office'Box-2344 • Palm Springs, CA 92263 . 619/329-6242. .,f ay PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 93- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92-041, AND PREANNEXATION ZONING CASE 92-073; SPHERE OF INFLUENCE #9, AND ANNEXATION #9. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE 92-041 PREANNEXATION ZONING CASE 92-073 SPHERE OF INFLUANCE #9, ANNEXATION #9 TRAVERTINE CORPORATION WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 23rd day of February, 1993, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of property owners to amend the La Quinta General Plan Land Use Map and Circulation Element, Zoning Map, Sphere of Influence #9, Annexation #9 for an area consisting of approximately 2,560 acres, located south of 60th Avenue, and west of Madison Street. The area is proposed to be designated Low Density Residential (2-4 du/ac), Open Space, and zoned R-1, and Hillside Conservation; and, WHEREAS, said Preannexation Zoning, the General Plan Amendments, Sphere of Influence and Annexation complies with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (as amended) by Resolution 83-68, in that the Planning Director has determined that after reviewing the General Plan, the area to be annexed, the proposed residential densities, the adjacent land uses, the planned capacities of the roads and related matters, the County General Plan, and County Environmental Impact Report, no significant environmental adverse impact will result from the proposed Amendments; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the approval of said Preannexation Zoning, General Plan Amendment, Sphere of Influence and Annexation: 1. The properties to be designated Low Density Residential are suitable for development under that designation and R-1 Zoning. 2. The portions of the properties to be designated Open Space should be limited to certain developments under that designation and Hillside Conservation Zoning. 3. The Riverside County General Plan designates the Low Density Residential areas as Planned Residential Reserve, and designates the Open Space areas as mountainous areas. -1- 4. The proposed City zoning classifications are compatible/consistent with the existing County General Plan Land Use classifications. 5. The environmental review foresees no significant adverse environmental impact from the proposed Preannexation Zoning, General Plan Amendment, Sphere of Influence and Annexation applications. 6. The properties are not within the La Quinta Sphere of Influence, but are however contiguous to La Quinta's present corporate limits, and, are a part of a logical extension of La Quinta and its General Plan. 7. The designation of 60th Avenue, 62nd Avenue, Monroe Street and. Madison Street are consistent with the current City designations of Primary Arterial, four lane divided road requiring 100-110 feet of right of way. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. The the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of Environmental Assessment 92-249, in that the Preannexation Zoning, General Plan Land Use Map, Circulation Element Amendments, Sphere of Influence, and Annexation will not result in a significant adverse impact on the environment, and that a Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption; 3. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the Sphere of Influence, annexation, Zoning Case 92-073, subject to the condition that it be. annexed to the City of La Quinta, and General Plan Amendment 92-041, consisting of a Zoning Map, Land Use Map & Circulation Element Amendments as illustrated in Exhibits "A" and "B", attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 23rd day of February, 1993, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CS/RESOPC.052 -2- KATIE BARROWS, Chairwoman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California CS/RESOPC.052 -3- STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 23, 1993 CASE NO.: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 93-033 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA LOCATION: CITY WIDE REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE (TITLE 9, PLANNING AND ZONING) PERTAINING TO SCREENING AND/OR PROHIBITION OF ROOF MOUNTED MECHANICAL AND SIMILAR EQUIPMENT IN THE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL ZONES. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 93-253 WAS PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS AMENDMENT. THE INITIAL STUDY INDICATED THAT NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WILL OCCUR DUE TO THE PROPOSAL. THEREFORE, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED AND IS RECOMMENDED. BACKGROUND: At the request of the City Council, the Planning and Development Department has looked at our roof mounted equipment screening requirements. Presently the City has various screening requirements in six different zone districts. Those zones and the requirement are as follows: 1. SR (Special Residential) - 9.42.060(F) Mechanical and related equipment: heating and cooling mechanical equipment, including satellite receiving and similar communication devices shall be ground mounted, or completely screened from all sides by the roof structure. 2. C-1 and C-P (General Commercial) - 9.80.050(E) All roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from ground elevation view to a minimum sight distance of 1,320 feet. PCST.111 3. C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) - 9.88.050(E) All roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from the ground elevation view to a minimum sight distance of 1,320 feet. 4. C-V (Commercial Village) - 9.90.060(E) Roof -mounted mechanical equipment, including restaurant exhaust fans, shall be permitted only on flat roofs, or where it is screened by bona fide architectural elements. Such roof -mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from the ground elevation view to a minimum sight distance of one thousand three hundred twenty feet. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from the view of ground elevations, and from the view of second story windows where possible. 5. OMS (Office, Medical, and related Services) - 9.92.050 F(3) All mechanical structures and appurtenances shall be screened as approved by the Design Review Board. STAFF PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Staff has prepared an amendment similar to the current C-V requirement which could be applied to all properties within the City. The proposed amendment is as follows: "Roof mounted utility and mechanical equipment, including but not limited to, air conditioning, heating, restaurant exhaust fans, electrical, elevator structures, skylights, roof accesses, etc. shall be permitted if screened on flat roofs only or on other types of roof only where it can be screened by an integrated architectural feature of the structure. Such screening shall be provided so that the highest point of said equipment is below the surrounding architectural feature and is screened from view to a minimum horizontal sight distance of one thousand three hundred twenty (1,320) feet as viewed from a point five feet above finish grade, whichever provides the most screening. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened from view of surrounding two story (or more) residential development, and where feasible as determined by the City, from two story commercial and other types of development." ANALYSIS: Screening of roof equipment should properly occur in all zones. Therefore it should be added to each individual zone or placed in the General Use Regulations (Chapter 9.156) of the Municipal Code. Staff feels that the new amendment should be placed within the General Use Regulations and the existing provisions within the various zone districts deleted. PCST.111 ANALYSIS: Screening of roof equipment should properly occur in all zones. Therefore it should be added to each individual zone or placed in the General Use Regulations (Chapter 9.156) of the Municipal Code. Staff feels that the new amendment should be placed within the General Use Regulations and the existing provisions within the various zone districts deleted. RECOMMENDA_ TION: Move to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 93- , recommending to the City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 93-033. Attachments: 1. Draft Planning Commission Resolution 93- PCST.111 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 93- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING SCREENING AND/OR PROHIBITION OF ROOF MOUNTED AND GROUND INSTALLED MECHANICAL AND SIMILAR EQUIPMENT AND CONFIRMATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DE;TERMINATION. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 93-033 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the 23rd day of February, 1993, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing pertaining to screening of roof mounted mechanical and similar equipment; and, WHEREAS, this Text Amendment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (County of Riverside, Resolution 82-213, adopted by reference in City of La Quinta Ordinance No. 5), in that the Planning Director has conducted an updated initial study and has determined that the proposed Text Amendment will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and that a Negative Declaration is hereby recommended; and, WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts to justify recommendation for approval of said Ordinance Amendment: 1. The Ordinance Amendments to the Municipal Code are consistent with the La Quinta General Plan. 2. Approval of the Amendments will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts„ 3. The Amendment will provide for screening of roof mounted and ground installed equipment which will in turn provide more attractive structures and will in turn improve the aesthetics of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; RESOPC.096 1 2. That :it does hereby confirm the conclusion of Environmental Assessment 93-253, indicating that the proposed Ordinance Amendment will not result in any significant environmental impacts and that a Negative Declaration should be adopted; 3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the above described Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment request for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, and as illustrated in Exhibit "A", attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 23rd day of February, 1993, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California RESOPC.096 2 KATIE BARROWS, Chairwoman City of La Quinta, California Planning Commission Resolution 93- EXHIBIT "A" ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 93-033 The following sections of the Municipal Code are hereby deleted: 1. SR - 9.42.060(F) 2. C-1 and C-P - 9.080.050(E) 3. C-P-S - 9.88.050(E) 4. C-V - 9.90.060(F) 5. OMS - 9.92.050(F)3 The following section is hereby added to the Municipal Code under General Use Regulations Section 9.156.195, Screening of Roof Mounted and Ground Installed Equipment in All Zones: Section 9.156.195: "Roof mounted utility and mechanical equipment, including but not limited to air conditioning, heating, restaurant exhaust fans, electrical, elevator structures, roof accesses, etc. shall be permitted if screened on flat roofs only or on other types of roof only where it can be screened by an integrated architectural feature of the structure. Such screening shall be provided so that the highest point of said equipment is below the surrounding architectural feature and is screened from view to a minimum horizontal sight distance of one thousand three hundred twenty (1,320) feet as viewed from a point five feet above finish grade, whichever provides the most screening. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened from view of surrounding two story (or more) residential development, and where feasible as determined by the City, from two story commercial and other types of development. Solar heating equipment shall be installed so that the underside of said equipment is not readily visible to surrounding properties. Ground installed utility and mechanical equipment shall be screened from ground view of surrounding properties. Said screening may consist of perimeter walls or fencing (if permitted), screen walls, or landscape planting. Wall mounted exterior roof access ladders shall not be permitted where said ladders face the surrounding area. RESOPC.096 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 23, 1993 (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 9, 1993) CASE: GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING FOR CVWD PROJECTS APPLICANT: COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (CVWD) LOCATION: CITY WIDE BACKGROUND: This item was before you at the meeting of February 9, 1993. At that time, you indicated some concern regarding several of the projects contained in the CVWD letter. As requested we have asked that a representative of CVWD be present at this meeting. ANALYSIS: With regards to the request for a General Plan Consistency Finding as we indicated on February 9, 1993, the list of proposed projects are ones which will provide better water, irrigation, and sewer services to the citizens of La Quinta. CONSISTENCY FINDINGS: 1. That CVWD project list is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the General Plan. 2. That as noted in the adopted General Plan, these projects would strive to provide better water, sewer, sewage collection, and treatment facilities for all residential and nonresidential development in the city. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above findings, the Planning and Development Department recommends that by Minute Motion 93- , that the Planning Commission determine that the projects as proposed by CVWD in their letter dated October 22, 1992, is consistent with the General Plan. Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 9, 1993 STAFFRPT.108/CS a A STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 9, 1993 CASE NO.: GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING FOR COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT PROJECTS APPLICANT: COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (CVWD) LOCATION: THROUGHOUT THE CITY 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 governmental jurisdiction to determine General Plan consistency. CVWD has submitted a list of 15 projects which they anticipate constructing. CVWD indicates that these projects are included in the budget and Capital Improvement Program and reflect their proposed activities over the next three to five years. One project pertains to irrigation, with ten domestic water projects and four sanitation projects. The Applicant has submitted maps showing where these projects are proposed. ANALYSIS: The list of proposed projects are projects which will provide better water irrigation, and sewer services to the citizens of La Quinta. Some projects will extend into adjacent jurisdictions as well. CONSISTENCY FINDINGS: 1. That CVWD's project list is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the General Plan. 2. That as noted in the adopted General Plan, these projects would strive to provide better water, sewer, sewage collection and treatment facilities for all residential and non- residential development in the community. PCST.108 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above findings, the Planning and Development Department recommends that by Minute Motion 93- the Planning Commission determine that the projects as proposed by CVWD in their letter dated October 22, 1992, is consistent with the General Plan. Attachments: 1. Letter from CVWD dated October 22, 1992. PCST.108 2 Z ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PURL C AGENCY COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX io58 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (619) 398.2651 DIRECTORS OFFICERS DIRECTORSTELLISCOD PRESIDENT THOMASE LEVY. GENERAL RAYMOND R RUMMONDS VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTOh SECRETARY JOHN W McFADDEN OWEN McCOOK ASSISTANT GENERA_ MANAGER DOROTHYM DELAY October 22, 1992 REDWINE AND SHERRILL A^ORNEYS THEODOREJ FISH File: 1150. City of La Quinta Planning Commission 78105 Calle Estado La Quinta, California 92253 Gentlemen: JAN 0 8 1993 p j► ,y!M6 DEPARTMENT 1150.07 In accordance with the provisions of Section 65401 of the Government Code, this district hereby advises your agency that it proposes the following projects in your jurisdiction: Irrigation 1. La Quinta pulr.pback system, Drawing No. 1. Domestic Water 1. La Quinta main replacements, phase 5A, Drawing No. 2. 2. La Quinta main replacements, phase 5D, Drawing No. 3. 3. Tampico transmission main in conjunction with city street improvement work, Drawing No., 4. 4. La Quinta main replacement, phase 6, Drawing No. 5. 5. La Quinta Golf Estates main replacements, phase 2, Drawing No. 6. 6. Upper La Quinta zone reservoir, Drawing No. 7. 7. Well and booster station soundproof structures at various locations, Drawing No. 8. 8. La Quinta zone, well and pump plant, Drawing No. 9. 9. Middle La Quinta zone reservoir, Drawing No. 10. 10. Lower La Quinta zone reservoir, Drawing No. 11. TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY City of La Quinta -2- October 22, 1992 Cnnitat inn 1. Jefferson Street lift station and force main, Drawing No. 12. 2. Calle Tampico trunk sewer, Washington Street to Avenida Bermudas, Drawing No. 13. 3. Mid -Valley force main, phase 2, Drawing No. 14. 4. Westward Ho Country Club, 1,300 feet east of Jeffersor Street to Dune Palms Road, Drawing No. 15. The projects are included in the budget and the capital improvement program. The capital improvement program reflects our proposed activities over the next three to five years. Enclosed are maps indicating the locations of the proposed projects. After the completion of your review, please forward this information to your public works department so our work can be planned and coordinated with your proposed projects. If you have any questions please call Dale Bohnenberger, director of engineering, extension 262. PC:sv/e10 Enclosures/as Yours very trul-- V I Tom Levy General Manager• er COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT FA o g O v rq bra q m �a six ! lttt=�f I i I 7 -------------- e — ---- t � - y5 ti06eial3� s i F sitVic., --- �+_�''° vn '•'----—'--1— ` n �J—__ __— I•:f'---------- �------ •/ - ;.._....�= ✓ e � z------- - -- c r. ® vma I 1 .ww• rR e s r � � � � i � � i►ia+. I .> ww�IID'- T '� fsouMM 71M rA f. vm h am* s . � . os V : .., Its I ul p� l_��li!'+L—t— 1 1 I • -� ---tee.. —— 1. I I I � I � -4�✓1.. 1f�iS 1 NOIDNIHSVM 1 I .n-�' NIHSV i 1/ fAiS�` I V I • i i � l� 1 t �1A 1 � I SVOnw 9 Ong .• Os A . e I NA VONIAT :—p-a•—r-- z � ll3MO/1N3S ."" i t I . I tl0 OMOHN3Sl3 V a v.ryV�..r 14 ' � oonn.T M i 1 �y1t g I I 1 V♦ 1 1 1 '•a 1 I 1 1 l i LjJ I I CD tv 1, C { I I I 1 I I ` ---Tr---r-�`• r .�_ --gee,:_ "+--tlPi�'. (� I --- + �-"Zit_"_°,,.... ..r— _• I `.�€. �i • % ^ '•- to �9 q 1 co 71 —--T1 NOStl3"3f iI i 1 olpt 53 60 As cl 1 I im OlONtM51/M C6 * I jL eta —. ., :1 '•."r4'0� -•:� `� . � • L% �.+uw.aA " t I I T a .. � „';=—.--•-- Or- �„ mallr�r • * �t Y • L'� 1 .«. M ��ew • ;,� aY .. t�• 1," ;�,�,; 1 \ t----- Tom-- .-_—i.---...--... "VT 1 1 1 Vomw 1 �{ ► 1 1 J I ! i ti j i u I W I Y 1 I e It r �. rn ►• .•-.r. - 'mac � • i - _ -- • i iJ— - pr) IF 171 10 • 5 a� ram.- ,• • ���. -� • - • r r; rat'- - /•. i J't' S � _ r = .�% �.-r✓• -. - Y60! //// ••'+' ....x` t. .fir.._ _ • r ®•/ `� ,r . ` \ • _ ,- ..•� >< � • �� f � ' . I . ij ® .••F � i r e i h- I a� i � s- �- i I + ..... ...... V f Z o I g a TTiijj 1 c Vk �.. _ s3r1>r� N 1 I .r _ � • R zi 3� .—'..,�ti. Y}jt�'_.- ,�'��� ,� v.orr.na• plow T Sw �" sd I o••• q q•• 4 i�a ? •ioo•w. a. — � is + — — — - — -- tl0 Il3MOHN3513!— — :,«r'Oil,.•...: fir-- i 3 Y � : •..�f Y ®�� - : var.rna w. GAI I ...r. ti.. I ••u..�+ ? r r c.n. •r o•. I .._�,• � • • dl P�—_s. J A P � no • a. 1 1le "7 1 ' :�i ' •`� ' i 'ram€ ' J W 1 1 1 I i I I i 1 I 1 I vhc 1 � i I ! ---��-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - T• ------ I I I � I I I Q I � I 1 = 1 1 NOIDNIHSVM I I /y 1 V I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I ---- i 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 I 1 A r ti.�•. w r. 17 I W Al 1 �I- 1 � I •• u i i 3AA 4T - g yj I I. - 1i=• :NnIHSli i Iw• ,• yw•ww 01—w� .ltlYA Tprlx• l Ln Lf en I ;1 � �° �• ' I = ►TN�ri�•. .,..o a z)�11,�I.w .alwe+r %�' -�----+1'- ------ -- —'--- — - 0«, dlMOHS3S13" f oase.�wiwT� St .f - 1 9���1'; 'pn6',.,r` Ir. I S >: $ e "� ri:l• .o.....a Aw! oww i ¢ 3 3 am :W � pyl 1 I I j 1 .a A E I 1 I I i I t —a. _ -------------------.--_.-_ ..------_—. • M'sf 1 f� i� i 1 1 1 I 1 In I —A E ��,-- v 4t �� ;.A --- ' ----- air 1 1 i• j 1� w ------------4--- _•^--_ _ � 1 t s - !LA C Ir CA I 1 1 1 1 I a sin 1 s 49 T. 3 S • --mac'•- S� ��, U � do- • r .r c:s:••:.� ti u r• ` r "ij w w w \1/�7 r•GZ.. • .. ...... .. ' • ./��+ � •r.,, - _ . I •� � . �--�---'mot f ti, l� r N•M• w•r \v w • PRO' » T w LO TION.� 1> � a• 1 R. S E. ,► i m c 0 N •�•®" ®'b J asraa •rorsn-� amsrs+_ :�,wr.�+: maw egem' I », ) 940 S9 a P. a ao Co L; (r) I I I I I I I I —t- 1 1 i I I I �1 I I jr 1 t I 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 I Q1 I I 1 t1 G i ( ^ 1 I ' I a �' f '. j m OD AJL 1 •ram_:. R � � _ � •,.'�'' , i may, �'. 1 ; •1 � C : F-S"'.^ . Lis I 1 1 11 ' a "•� : ':ll M a �;'� ' i ".� i � -• / � CIE • 1 i 1 •(1 1 t 11}. • 1 I I , ,!� r i l' ••� ' _" I of I -._._ram.- -- - - - -4 I I I I I I I 1 � 1 3 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 I j 1 � ii •{ . .... I I NOIDNINSW 1 1 —__ _—• —•• I 1 1 1 I I I I -+ -�` ' B 1 • 11' 'i� I svon t 9OAV :.I w Ali I 2t>r I 1 I I tl l NS33 i 1 I I caw i I i 1 I I �amlIw 1 I I 1 i I I I I — 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 qv � •\ ' i 1 1 ' j: T 1 � • Q I - t ! �, .-----, 1 1 (a C Q ! W W � v '------- i INDIO h --- -'--- ; � � �� i� ..► i _a'�----- ,•,4 to 0U1TA I QUI TA 1 i.6 tin I 1 1 IN 10 ' 1 I --^-•-- j-- -----•--------Y-- -+- -- a 1 • -FUTURE ---.- ---- - ' ; -- - _�-;=--„----.-- __ - - -_ -- fn LIFT STATION UIIXA 1i. � - 1 i �•�� L��r - 1 ' 14 ___r i I C ;/.......t•------------ r --- •--- --• ��:- -f --- s 0 • -•--------a-�O -------- t --•-•-----_•----•-- ---- 1�� `' '.�aroeL� 1 1 • ' ' 1 t ... ' - r1 I'� �71 • • ^�-__' ---` u.-• --- ------------- ,--------- � r -------- '--------------• _•--• I----•---------------------►_ ----- '---------------------------- •--------- LA. QUINTA �! r ------------------ =------- :--y - -- ---= a---------- -- -------;----------- ---- ----- .� ,. ► ., g -+---t'---•-r--r144-----=----------`11-;-!_..--rr�r!'------ ----------------- �L O O V m 04 8� i 1' ± DOWN •� �1� #l:�ttt�:�rrlt�'�t�LrLftt�'tt► mm �!.t__iwr�-A�llrttt MUM.. �. ` MMaM i ttt/1ONNINIONdwomm Mir 1r::11�'�ttW1!! tom- ittt:lMIND DO ��I�r1/ttttt�ii , G�.7tttt�ttt�� •..�.� ttltt��.iittla�i tea+ tttrtt�Wrrtttvttt�tt��tuiMMMINOW �tttt - mff- u■ UNIONS�. r^tttt�a:attttt�ut���tt� - rt�.yt�t+�a:�► trL.rr,lla�tf.i�ttttf rr::' f ri�iii i I• 0. Die 47� �-------;+---------- ir Lp Lill awl Cr IL 2. I �.93��''w�• a•- �••-- .. .{jLrcuao • + f ) � � .I � t - + w •• WWI s kt --a -------=-r 1— ------ -----_=-- -- 1 r — — — 1 -- AFFERSON —ue.m�..c. )* - f,• � : 1 I 1 r"{ JjEFFER 1 , ,� sr I YT � • I I � C 1 Wu • Q f1 T`" f 1 1 1 1 1 0 '• 1 I > � SoMm— I I �Inor 1 1 1 t f a I 1 so`' , w 1 1 w 1 • 9 8 tale 1 h n Im l y L: v :j et rt t a I TT tT O "°Q ROES- — g�; MEMORANDUM CITY OF LA QUINTA To: From: �� dst� A. , p l4 v% n l v%o De� Date: -.JI✓I 15, 144 3 Subject: e..VwD Mtn a.,r..4A, t� Q. �t GV lA)t> ro -'bo be, 6Ko, I o�, G1 rcq L,( i rcct IPC� fit, lit to... I c-0 -4 c:qo,t'-6 c zL.A� - ai-ba.c..d) -+o Soh d 44A IS I Ierb -6 4-6 hAV.& -# 0akll%IV\5 Gohn"PSshh, &Zb-�I Mol "hvk -tom p roxw6 q ct6j aame-ea)" OA, . STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 23, 1993 CASE NO.: STREET VACATION 93-023 REQUEST: CONSISTENCY FINDING FOR STREET VACATION 93-023; A REQUEST TO VACATE WAGON ROAD AND A PUBLIC EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC LAND COMPANY SOUTH OF AVENUE 52, EAST OF THE COACHELLA CANAL OWNER: DWIGHT STUART, STUART ENTERPRISES LIMITED APPLICANT: THE KEITH COMPANIES (MR. MIKE SCHUMAN FOR VISTA SANTA ROSA) LOCATION: SOUTH OF AVENUE 52 AND EAST OF THE COACHELLA CANAL (ALL AMERICAN) GENERAL PLAN: LDR - LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DU/AC) WITH RURAL RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY SURROUNDING ZONING & LAND USE: SITE - R-1 (ONE FAMILY DWELLING); VACANT NORTH - R-1-20,000, R-1-20,000 WITH EQUESTRIAN OVERLAY, & W-1 (WATERCOURSE); VACANT, EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH WHOLESALE NURSERY (LATIN LADY RANCH), EXISTING HOME WITH CITRUS ORCHARD, GREEN VALLEY RANCHES & THE COACHELLA CANAL SOUTH - R-1 (ONE FAMILY DWELLING); VARIOUS AGRICULTURAL USES EAST - R-1-20,000; VACANT WEST - R-1 (ONE FAMILY DWELLINGS) & CPS COMMERCIAL; VACANT, ARID FARM NURSERY, TWO EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS & THE COACHELLA CANAL BACKGROUND: On January 29, 1993, Staff received a request by The Keith Companies to vacate or abandon two existing easements on the subject property. The easements are located approximately 1300 feet east of Jefferson Street, and they generally run south of Avenue 52 approximately 1300 feet. Both of the easements are public. One public easement is named Wagon Road and the other is in favor of the Southern Pacific Land Company (see the attached map). STAFFRPT.003/CS -1- In 1992, the City Council approve Specific Plan 90-020 which established the development plan for 271 gross acres. The plan included the ultimate development of seven villages and approximately 850 units. The plan included property on the east side of Madison Street and the subject parcels west of Madison Street. Both easements are within the boundaries of the adopted plan. SITE INFORMATION: The property is vacant and no improvements have been made to either easement. The Vista Santa Rosa project is surrounded by two existing (two lane) streets which in the future will be primarily arterial thoroughfares. Madison Street is not improved but proposed to be a primary arterial similar to Avenue 52 and Avenue 53. PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS: Staff mailed on January 27, 1993, a request to all public agencies to vacate the two easements. Their responses are attached. No major negative comments were received. STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS: The Planning Commission is required to examine the consistency of this request with the existing City General Plan and any adopted specific plans which are pertinent to the subject area (Government Code Section 65402). The current General Plan does not identify either easement as a major component of the existing General Plan Circulation Plan and both easements are not being used at this time for pedestrian or vehicular travel. No impacts are anticipated. ADOPTED VISTA SANTA ROSA SPECIFIC PLAN: The Vista Santa Rosa Specific Plan was adopted by the City Council in 1992. The adopted plan guides development in each of the seven. villages. The specific plan establishes land use, circulation, public parking, and public improvements for the Vista Santa Rosa Development. In the approved Plan, the City established a new circulation plan for the six villages which are west of Madison Street. The retention of the easements would impede the development of the new on -site circulation system for Specific Plan 90-020. STAFFRPT.003/CS -2- 3. The senior site would require a residential plot plan (if not subdivided) which takes approximately 3 to 4 months. 4. The commercial site takes a General Plan amendment and change of zone. This process takes approximately 6 months and must fall within one of our three review cycles. 5. Also the commercial site requires a change of zone. This would be processed continually with the General Plan amendment. 6. The division of the site into 5 parcels would require a parcel map (4 lots and a remainder). This takes approximately 3 months. 7. All the applications (except the parcel map) requires environmental review. This would be processed continually. 8. All of the applications require public hearings. In summary, including the General Plan amendments with the others used lengthen the review to six months otherwise it could be completed within 4 months. MEMOJH.033/CS -2- NN�a —^-� �LL ai elp cs w a�i•C� cmi �;, `019 nq COQ'�'CTa: a E'�o~mc�` Z�v�•A aUw ; md•CO2ddy O L Q > :1 plc 6 E� L ir 0Q £g>.•`atv W C 4• l• :1 V �c Q ID a"Td=l� M . 0C:.'CQ+3r j Q a ry � � M n 7 v J 1S JA a+ V773N: 3�4 - jno i E • m cr fF— H U 3 70 133HIS NOsiavw O 4- 0 —S.- 0 4-3 > r fo U 4- ¢.J •r C OJ N � t0 E W N N -p rd (6 W O �U >_ fd 0 > r S- u U •r •r r r- -0 -0 O O a a. UOSLPew I If mm 1 1 N LO 0 0 1 � 77,-T-- f i 1 ly /Trr rS /_1-I -1 . I.1 _ I i 1 . 1 _\. _ _ _ L MAUEWJN _ n e^ 0 Z _ M � N , I C� LLJ 1 N 1 I F¢-- Ix < I z a 4 N LLJ QZ W Ln 1' I� �I W. M LO N c N Q N f 0 M Q N a N RS U rL3 r d U 4- a Q N > OL n. rtS 0 a� Ln rts ro aJ U 0 CU CL 0 0 L 4) U-. The Gas Com "n � R Y k City of La Quinta 78-106 Calle Estadc La Quinta, CA 922-3 FEB 0 3 1993 February 1, 1993 Attention: Greg Trousdell Re: Street Vacation 93-023/Vista Santa Rosa In response to your request for a Letter of Non - Interference, the Southern California Gas Company maintains no facilities or easements in the area of the above described project. Therefore, we have no interest or comments relative to the project in question. Sincerely, K: G. Soverns — Technical Supervisor KGS/JEO:lrp f Southern Califon Gas Company 1981 Lugonia.t Redlands, CA Mm6ng Address. Box 3003 Redlands, CA 92373-0306 78.106 CALLE ESTADO — LA OOINTA, CAUFORNIA 92263 . (819) 564.224 FAX (619) 684.681 FROM: PLANNING 6 DEVELOPMENT -DIVISION DATE: yCit er Waste Management �rincipal W nginee -Planners) Fire Marshal almer Cable Vision _Jz:::Ks'sociate ,,k::::�Huilding 6 Safety unline Transit Planner(s) Chamber of Commerce Caltrans (District II) Assistant 1:::CVWD =Agricultural Commission Planner ,•Imperial Irrigation City of Indian wells LPlanning southern California Gas City -of Indio Director �Zsesert Sands School Dist. 7tS Postal Service Coachella Valley School Dist. Riverside County: CV Archaeological Society Planning Department Property Environmental Health Owner's Association Sheriff's Department FE9i fiIhffi3CASE NO(S): 5-j_r--eef- PROJECT DE3CRIPTION1: LAC�4T� -,c t, ,,IE7 Q•q. W PROJECT LOCATION: _ �a w�1. o� AVEa v e '5A 6E'T' o F The City City of La Quint& Development Review Committee is conducting an initi, environmental study pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the above referenced project(s). Attached is the information submitted by the project proponent. Your comments are requested with respect to: 1. Physical impacts the project presents on public resources, facilities, and/or services; 2. Recommended conditions: a) that you or your agency believe would miti- gate any potential adverse effects; b) or should apply to the project design; c) or improvements to satisfy other regulations and concerns which your agency is responsible; and 3. If you find that the identified impacts will have significant adverse effects on the environment which cannot be avoided through conditions, please recommend the scope and focus of additional study(ies) which may be helpful. Please send your response by ___fc6 9, i993 and return thi maps/plans if not needed for your f les. You are invited to attend th DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE meeting at La Quinta City Hall scheduled for Date: --&- Time: -'Oa— Contact Person: �3- Rous�EC�t- Title: S 6- Z_A ILW, .. Plan -Approval By Wastc Management of the Desert Comments made by: Title: Date: Phone a atnAnct!Int sal Q 4 ^ �-e� 4 4 Qwo 78-106 CALLE ESTADO — LA OUINTA, CAUFORNIA 92263 - 1818) 564.2244 FAX (619) 684.6811 FROM: PLANNING 6 DEVELOPMENT DIVISION DATE: /iCit r waste Management �rincipal - gineering General Telephone Planner(s) %Fire !Marsha i er Cable vision �ociate ety unline Transit Planner(s) Chamber of Commerce Caltrans (District II) Assistant jc:_ V vw&# =Agricultural Commission Planner ��,.► 4ria Irrigation City of Indian wells I,-P'fanning OR her California Gas C of Indio Director ands School Dist. 7 S Postal Service AQglCoac 1 a Valley School Dist, Riverside County: fEB CV A. h ological Society Planning Department Property Environmental Health d'ERSIDEC^ e 's Association ,-Sberiff's Department IIAE DEPAa i •. ""'"-"-LA OUIytTA CASE NO(S): � reef- ACA7-rop-4 -023 tt 5garA'R PROJECT DESCRIPTION: G 47-e- (a ��c r'Sl ii.•!E� ,EIS, jy ! �-5 PROJECT LOCATION: The City of La Quinta Development Review Committee is conducting an initia environmental study pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the above referenced project(s). Attached is the information submitted by the project proponent. Your comments are requested with respect to: 1. Physical impacts the project presents on public resources, facilities, and/or services; 2. Recommended conditions: a) that you or your agency believe would miti- gate any potential adverse effects; b) or should apply to the project design; c) or improvements to satisfy other regulations and concerns which your agency is responsible; and 3. If you find that the identified impacts will have significant adverse effects on the environment which cannot be avoided through conditions, please recommend the scope and focus of additional study(ies) which may be helpful. Please send your response by4 k? a /?,73 and return the maps/plans if not needed for yourfies.You are invited to attend the DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE meeting at La Quinta City Hall scheduled for: Date: -"d91- Time: -'Oa— Contact Person: !3 ®LISrEf t Titles Sow• �c�i�y �. NO CMIll FA FNT Comments made by: _Y_ Title: FEB. 0 3 199; Date: Phone: Agency/Division Frees 14ht 4 4Va94(rw 78.106 CALLE ESTADO -- LA GUINTA. CAUFORNIA 92263 . (819) 664-224 FAX (619) 684-681 FROM: PLANNING i DEVELOPMENT DIVISION DATE:�- liCit liana er Waste Management �rincipal W ngineerinq _L.-General Telephone Planner(s) i--F— ire Marshaer Cable Vision �ociate building s Safety unlEine Transit Planner(s) Chamber of Commerce Caltrans (District II) Assistant 1:::::CVWD Agricultural Commission Planner Imperial Irrigation City of Indian Wells 1,-' anninq _southern California Gas City -of Indio Director -,kL-t%sert Sands School Dist. S Postal Service Coachella Valley School Dist. Riverside County: CV Archaeological Society Planning Department Property Owner°s Association Sheriff's Department nil LA QUINTA CASE NO(S): - 023 �q�cA ' FE8 %o inn y; P E ESCRIPTION: idGAT� �� �Ii.,lE7 ,E�3-ncw�l-s PROJECT LOCATION: rZV E-+ v c 'S a '� W e6r e F 1R D►� o r..1 ��r The City of La Quinta Development Review Committee is conducting an initi environmental study pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the above referenced project(s). Attached is the information submitted by the project proponent. Your comments are requested with respect to: I. Physical impacts the project presents on public resources, facilities, and/or services; 2. Recommended conditions: a) that you or your agency believe would miti- gate any potential adverse effects; b) or should apply to the project design; c) or improvements to satisfy other regulations and concerns which your agency is responsible; and 3. If you find that the identified impacts will have significant adverse effects on the environment which cannot be avoided through conditions, please recommend the scope and focus of additional study(ies) which may be helpful. Please send your response by red 2, / 993 and return 0 maps/plans if not needed for your fHles. You are invited to attend tl DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE meeting at La Quinta City Ball scheduled fox Date: -"fir Time: -�9_ Contact Person: G� 1iQ6v,.-r_)rl c- Titles Soe•_ cAAJA The mentioned project will not have any affect on the Sheriff's Department's servi Comments made ` `� Titles Captain nat. . 2-2-93 zu,.s. 619-863-899Q,.,,,_tri,,4.,4_4,... Riverside Co.Sherifi