The URL can be used to link to this page

1993 04 13 PCi Ii ��?`f �� a �uin�a PL�l�NNING COMMISSION C I T Y 0 A GENDA U11110 Ten Carat Decade A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chambers 78-105 Calle Estado La Quinta, California April 13, 1993 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL AGENDA ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. MAY BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING Beginning Resolution 93-009 Beginning Minute Motion 93-015 CALL TO ORDER - Flag Salute ROLL CALL PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Item ............... ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 93-032, R-1 ZONE Applicant .......... City of La Quinta Location ........... City wide Request ............ Amendment to the R-1 Zone. Action ............. Resolution 93- 2. Item ............... PLOT PLAN 93-495 Applicant .......... Simon Plaza Location ........... Southeast corner of Highway I I I and Washington Street west of the existing Simon Motors Automobile Dealership. Request ............ To develop a mixed use commercial project consisting of a four story office building, 44-lane bowling alley, fitness center, restaurant or bank, eye institute or office, parking structure, and related parking. Action ............. Request to continue PC/AGENDA 1 3. Item ............... PUBLIC USE PERMIT 93-014 Applicant .......... PacTel Cellular Location ........... Approximately 380 feet north of 52nd Avenue and approximately 1200 feet east of Jefferson Street within the Imperial Irrigation District substation site. Request ............ A request to approve and operate a 116 feet high monopole for cellular telephone use and 12' X 30' support building. 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 ............... SPECIFIC PLAN 89-014 (Sign Program) Applicant .......... Transpacific Development Company (Colm Macken) Location ........... Northeast corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street (One Eleven La Quinta Center). Request ............ Approval of an amendment to the approved sign program. Action ............. Minute Motion 93- 2. Item ............. Applicant .......... Location ........... Request ............ Action ............. Sign Application 93-207 Clothestime 78-900 Highway 111 (111 La Quinta Center). Deviation from sign program in 111 La Quinta Center to allow corporate signage Minute Motion 93- 3. Item ............... SPECIFIC PLAN 84-003 - The Orchard Applicant .......... Cusack Radaker Development Company, Inc. Location ........... South side of 50th Avenue west of Jefferson Street. Request ............ One year extension of time Action ............. Minute Motion 93- 4. Item ............... GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING Applicant .......... Coachella Valley Water District Location ........... Fred Waring Drive east of Dune Palms Road. Request............. Review for General Plan Consistency. Action ............. Minute Motion 93- 5. Item ............... STREET VACATION 93-024 Applicant .......... Cityy of La Quinta Location ........... Calle Tampico between Eisenhower Drive and Avenida Carranza. Request............. A request to vacate the south half of Calle Tampico from Eisenhower Drive to its westerly terminus (Avenida Carranza). Action ............. Minute Motion 93- PC/AGENDA 6. Item ............... RESOLUTION TO MERGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA 1&2 Applicant .......... City of La Quints Location ........... City wide Request ............ Resolution approving the preliminary plans for the merged La Quinta Redevelopment Project. Action ............. Resolution 93- CONSENT CALENDAR Approval of the Minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held March 23, 199. OTHER ADJOURNMENT STUDY SESSION MONDAY, APRIL 12, 1993 4:00 P.M. 1. All Agenda items. PC/AGENDA 3 PH # 1 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: APRIL 13, 1993 CASE NO.: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 93-032, R-1 ZONE (ONE FAMILY DWELLINGS) APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA LOCATION: CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 93-246 WAS PREPARED FOR THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT. BASED UPON THIS ASSESSMENT, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT UPON THE ENVIRONMENT. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR ADOPTION. BACKGROUND: Stemming from discussions during Planning Commission review of the Equestrian Overlay cases (ZOA 92-029 and CZ 92-073), Staff has prepared proposed amendments to the R-1 Zone. These amendments pertain to the keeping of horses, chickens, rabbits, and several deletions of development standards that are obsolete. In Section 9.32.010, Staff is proposing to increase the minimum lot size for keeping horses from 20,000 square feet to one acre. A maximum of two horses will be allowed on a lot of one acre or more. Also proposed is the number of chickens and rabbits that may be kept as 12 in an enclosed area. No roosters will be permitted in the R-1 Zone. In Subsection B, Item 1 permitting beauty shops to be operated in homes has been deleted. The remaining two items have been renumbered. In Section 9.32.020, Development Standards, the last sentence in Subsection B has been deleted. This sentence referred to "flag" lots, which are not permitted in the City. PCST.114 In Subsection E, Item 1, the words "or General Plan" have been added. Item 2 has been changed to require a fixed five foot sideyard. Other changes to Item 2 consist of adding "or General Plan", and deleting a portion of the last sentence beginning with "except that where....... Staff supports these proposed changes and considers them needed in order to update the R-1 Zone requirements. RECOMMENDATION: Move to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 93- approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 93-032. Attachments: 1. Initial Study EA 93-246 2. Planning Commission Resolution 93- 3. Exhibit "A" - R-1 Zone PCST.114 , recommending to the City Council ® Attachment 1 Environmental Assessment No. 93-246 Case No. 7M797-03 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I. Background 1. Name of Proponent City of La Quinta $. Address i Phone Number of proponent 78-105 Calle Estado, PO Box 1504 La Quinta CA 92253 619-564-2246 3. Date Checklist Submitted _ March 1993 4. Agency Requiring Checklist Planning & Development Department S. Name of Proposal, if applicable Amendment to R-1 Zone II. Environmental Impacts (Explanation of "yes" i "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets YES MAYBE 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes — in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions$ 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 say modify the channel of a river or strean 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? NO X x X YES MATBE No Z. 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®ed isitturbidity? to temperatures dissolved oxygen 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. ateraotherri�uavailable for public ion In the amount cf orate water supplies? I. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? X X X X X X X - X X X X X rnflM AM01rc -2- 0 0 YES 4. plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, 6 aquaticplants)? b. yteducto=onenaangereduspeciesfOaf nplants?e# rare c. Introduction of new species of plants into an l relenishmentreor in aofaexisting species? rrier to the norms p d. Reduction in acreage of agricultural crops? g. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land aishals benthicdorganismsloroinsects)? fish & shellf, , b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, - rare or endangered species of animals? C. Introduction of new species of animals into igarea, tion or movementnof ana barrier � imals? the ■ migration 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? 9. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produces new light or glare? S. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a _ substantial alteration ofian area?e present or planned g. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. increase in the rate of use of any -- natural resources? MAYBE NO X X X X X X X X X X X X X .., nnn fr.e H 0 YES 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, densitys Or of an area? growth rate of the human population 12. Housing. will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? XAYBZ NO X 13. Transportation/circulation. will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional — vehicular movement? X X X b. Effects on existing parking facilities or demand for new parking? C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? _ erns d. Alterations to present circulation or movement Otf Of people circu and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic! hazards pedestrians? vehicles, bicyclistsor 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for now or altered governmental services in any of he following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? C. Schools? d. parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities a roads? f. other governmental services? X X X X X YES 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amount of fuel — or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need alterations theefosubstantial alter 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 public view? siteopen pe 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 - al site? historic or historic archaeologic b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effect8 to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? MAYBE NO X X X X X X _X X X X X X X y YES MAYBE NO c. Does the proposal have the potential to ., X- cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? X d. will the proposal restrict existing — --- religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential X -- ---- to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to below self sustaining levels, threaten drop to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of or a rare or endangered plant or animal eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to _ _ —X--- achieve short-term, to the disadvantage goals? (A of long-term, environmental short-term impact on the environment In brief one in which occurs in a relatively 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 ccumulatctely X --- considerable? (A p j may mtwo the impact or more separate resources where each resource is relatively small, but on where the effect of the total of those environment is significant). impacts on the d. Does the project have environmental X effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Discussion of Environmental Evaluation (Narrative description of environmental impacts.) IV. Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a X 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 ENVIRONMENTALIMPACT REPORT is required. ' March 3, 1993 Date Signature of Preparer 0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 93-246 FOR ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 93-032 AMENDMENT TO R-1 ZONE CITY OF LA QUINTA GENERAL DESCRIPTION: The City of La Quinta Planning and Development Department is considering the amendment of the R-1 Zone text. The proposed amendment will consist of changes to Section 9.32.010.3 to increase the minimum lot size required to keep horses and limit the number of horses that can be kept to a maximum of two. Also proposed is the addition of a statement limiting the number of chickens and rabbits per acre. The purpose for these proposed changes is to make the permitted uses consistent with the newly revised standards of the Equestrian Overlay Districts found in Chapter 9.117-Overlay Zone for Equestrian Uses on Smaller Lots, of the Municipal Code. Horses are allowed on residential parcels that are at least one acre in size in the Equestrian Overlay Districts. To make this horsekeeping policy consistent throughout the City, it has been deemed necessary to amend the R-1 Zone text concerning minimum lot size and horse density. Additional standards concerning the keeping of chickens and rabbits are also considered in this project. Other amendments proposed at this time include deletion of references to County Ordinances, deletion of home operated beauty shops, and deletion of development standards not currently followed. If the proposed amendments are adopted by the City Council, they would apply to all parcels zoned R-1 or subject to the development standards and permitted uses of the R-1 Zone. The amendments would be in effect 30-days after adoption. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Explanation of Responses to the Initial Study Checklist and Recommended Mitigation Measures, if Necessary: Responses to all items on the Initial Study are "NO". The proposed zoning ordinance does not involve any specific development project but instead a legislative change in the permitted uses and development standards of a zoning designation. The proposed amendments will be more restrictive and will thus, have a lesser impact on the environment than will the existing standards. ENVASS.009 1 Attachment 2 PLANNING COMiMISSION 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 CHANGES TO THE R-1 ZONE (ONE FAMILY DWELLING) CONCERNING HORSEKEEPING AND CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 93-032 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the 13th day of April, 1993, hold a duly noticed public hearing pertaining to various amendments to the R-1 Zone; 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 the updating of several sections of the R-1 Zone. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of Environmental Assessment 93-246, indicating that the proposed Ordinance Amendment will not result in any significant environmental impacts and that a Negative Declaration should be adopted; RESOPC.097 1 3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the above described Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment request for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, and as illustrated in Exhibit "A", attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 13rd day of April, 1993, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: KATIE BARROWS, Chairwoman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California RESOPC.097 2 Attachment 3 EXHIBIT "A" CHAPTER 9.32 R-1 ZONE (ONE FAMILY DWELLING Sections: 9.32.010 Permitted Uses. 9.32.020 Development Standards. 9.32.010. Permitted Uses. A. The following uses shall be permitted in the R-1 Zone: 1. One family dwellings. 2. Field crops, flower and vegetable gardening, tree crops, and greenhouses used only for purposes of propagation and culture, including the sale thereof from the premises and one unlighted sign that does not exceed two square feet in size pertaining to sale of the products. 3. The noncommercial keeping of horses on lots not less than one acre in area and one hundred feet in width, provided they are kept not less than one hundred feet from any street and fifty feet from any property line. A maximum of two horses per lot shall be allowed. The minimum lot size is one (1) acre. A primary residence must exist on the lot. If a lot is one acre or more in area, poultry and rabbits may be kept for the use of the occupants of the premises only. Up to twelve chickens (no roosters) or rabbits per acre may be kept. The poultry and rabbits shall be kept in an enclosed area located not less than fifty feet from any residence and shall be maintained on the rear portion of the lot in conjunction with a residential use. If a lot is two acres or more in area, two sheep or goats or a combination thereof may be kept in addition thereto, provided they are kept not less than one hundred feet from any street, twenty feet from any property line and fifty feet from any residence. 4. Public parks and public playgrounds, golf courses with standard length fairways, and country clubs. 5. Home occupations. 6. Planned residential developments, provided land division is approved pursuant to the provisions and development standards in Section 9.148.010 of this title. B. 'The following uses are permitted provided a plot plan has been approved pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 9.180: DOCLC.006 1 1. Temporary real estate tract offices located within a subdivision, to be used only for and during the original sale of the subdivision, but not to exceed a period of two years in any event. 2. Nurseries, horticultural. (Ordinance 5 § 1(part), 1982: County Ordinance 348 §6.1). 9.32.020 Development Standards. The following standards of development shall apply in the R-1 Zone, except that planned residential developments shall comply with the development standards contained in Section 9.148.010 of this title: A. Building height shall not exceed two and one-half stories, with a maximum height of thirty-five feet. B. Lot area shall be not less than seven thousand two hundred (7,200) square feet. C. The minimum average width of that portion of a lot to be used as a building site shall be sixty feet with a minimum average depth of one hundred feet. That portion of a lot used for access on "flag" lots shall have a minimum width of twenty feet. D. The minimum frontage of a lot shall be sixty feet, except that lots fronting on knuckles or cul-de-sacs may have a minimum frontage of thirty-five feet. E. Minimum yard requirements are as follows: :l. The front yard shall be not less than twenty feet, measured from the existing street line or from any future street line as shown on any specific plan of highways, or General Plan whichever is nearer the proposed structure. >. Side yards on interior and through lots shall be not less than five feet. Side yards on corner and reversed corner lots shall be not less than ten feet from the existing street line or from any future street line as shown on any specific plan of highways or General Plan, whichever is nearer the proposed structure, upon which the main building sides. 3. The rear yard shall not be less than ten feet. P. Automobile storage space shall be provided as required by Chapter 9.160 of this title. (Ordinance 5 § 1(part), 1982: County Ordinance 348 §6.2). DOCLC.006 PH *3 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: APRIL 13, 1993 CASE NO: PUBLIC USE PERMIT 93-014 REQUEST: APPROVAL OF A PUBLIC USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION AND OPERATION OF A 116-FOOT HIGH MONOPOLE FOR CELLULAR PHONE TRANSMISSION AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 12' x 30' SUPPORT BUILDING. APPLICANT: PACTEL CELLULAR LOCATION: APPROXIMATELY 380-FEET NORTH OF 52ND AVENUE AND APPROXIMATELY 1200-FEET EAST OF JEFFERSON STREET WITHIN THE IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT SUBSTATION SITE (80-420 52ND AVENUE). ZONING: R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DU/AC) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 93-252 HAS BEEN PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS APPLICATION. THE INITIAL STUDY INDICATES THAT NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WILL OCCUR THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED. THEREFORE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT. SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USES: NORTH: R-2/PRESENTLY VACANT EXCEPT FOR SCATTERED CITRUS TREES BUT APPROVED FOR SP 90-016 (1208 DWELLING UNITS AND GOLF COURSE). SOUTH: R-I/VACANT. EAST: R-2/PRESENTLY VACANT EXCEPT FOR SCATTERED CITRUS TREES BUT APPROVED FOR SP 90-016 (1208 DWELLING UNITS AND GOLF COURSE). WEST: R-2/CITRUS GROVE, BUT APPROVED FOR SP 90-016 (1208 DWELLING UNITS AND GOLF COURSE). PCST.120 1 TO THE NORTH AND WEST OF THE SITE IS PRESENTLY PROPOSED IS A STREET WITH RESIDENTIAL USES AND A PORTION OF THE GOLF COURSE ACROSS THE STREET. TO THE EAST IS THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED MAINTENANCE FACILITY FOR THE COUNTRY CLUB. DESCRIPTION OF SITE: THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF THE FACILITY IS WITHIN THE IMPERIAL IRRIGATION SUBSTATION SITE. ACCESS IS PROVIDED TO 52ND AVENUE AT THE EASTERLY END OF THE PROPERTY. THE SITE WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 3.1 ACRES IN AREA IS OCCUPIED BY ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION EQUIPMENT ON APPROXIMATELY 1/8 OF THE SITE. THE BALANCE OF THE SITE IS VACANT. ACROSS THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY ALONG 52ND AVENUE, ARE THREE ROWS OF CITRUS TREES WHICH OBSCURE THE VIEW OF THE SUBSTATION SITE. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant wishes to install this facility in order to provide and increase cellular telephone service in the immediately surrounding areas. PacTel Cellular is licensed with the FCC (Federal Communication Commission) and will be issued an authorization for construction by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) upon approval of this Public Use Permit and receipt of building permit. The applicants intends to utilize a 40' X 31' fenced in area within the substation site at the extreme northeast corner of the property. Access to the site would be through a gate on the south side of the lease area. Facilities proposed would include a 116-foot high monopole and 12' X 30' square tilt up concrete (with pebble finish) support building. This structure will be ten feet in height. The monopole would have at the very top several cellular array supports with antennas and microwave dishes. These antennas and microwave dishes would be adjusted to meet system capacity requirements. The applicant intends to paint the monopole a light sky blue which he feels will minimize visual affects. ANALYSIS: Presently there are no cellular transmission facilities in the City of La Quinta. The applicant has indicated that prior to choosing this location, several other locations within this area were considered. Those locations include private property and school sites on 50th Avenue near Washington Street. The major impact that this project will have is visual since the height of the pole is higher than other pole type installations in the area. For comparison, the sports complex lighting on 50th Avenue is approximately 72-feet in height while the parking lot lighting at the One Eleven La Quinta Center is approximately 42-feet high. PCST.120 2r') With regards to the building, Staff feels that although it is a small structure, its height dictates that some architectural treatment be provided. Should the applicant wish to maintain a flat roof type structure, Staff would recommend that a Pueblo style of architecture be incorporated where the parapet walls are stepped. However, other architectural treatment of the building would be acceptable provided it is compatible with the desert environment. RECOMMENDATION: By Minute Motion 93 approve Public Use Permit 93-014, subject to the attached conditions. Attachments: 1. Location map 2. Plan exhibits 3. Environmental documentation 4. Comments from City Departments and other agencies 5. Cellular Mobile Communications information submitted by applicant 6. Draft Conditions of Approval PCST.120 3 #+ a Alk o D2 - C; 0 UR hP rod Mi LU te —Z ad 0H9 C LU 9— Z U Egg', ItINP: pir I. Background Environmental Assessment No A 3- 'y ;- Case No. f U 3-0 iq ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Name of Proponent � 64r t ak- 2. Address & Phone Number of Proponent 3. Date Checklist Prepared A 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 x over covering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface X relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification X 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 X sands or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure or similar hazards? FORM.009/CS -1- YES MAYBE NO 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration K of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or X 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? X b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? X c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water X 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 X flow of ground waters? X g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with - drawls, or through interception of an aquifers by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of X water otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water X related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? FORM.009/CS -2- YES MAYBE NO 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or X 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 k habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? _X1 b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? _.._ 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any X natural resources? FORM.009/CS -3- YES MAYBE 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? MAI 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the k location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing it - 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 x transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of iC 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? �C 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 X or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon %, existing sources or energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas?_ b. Communications systems? X c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? X e. Storm water drainage? k f. Solid waste and disposal? k 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 �C 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 k impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources a. Will the proposal result in the alter- k ation of or the destruction of a pre- historic or historic archaeological site? b. Will the proposal result in adverse X 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 fC cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing be religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential K to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to X achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one in which occurs in a relatively brief definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well in the future). c. Does the project have impacts which are IV( 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.) 9 L 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. - -a-3 Date gk� P---L) Aza� Si nature of Preparer FORM.009/CS N ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 93-252 PUBLIC USE PERMIT 93-014 (PACTEL CELLULAR) H. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - EXPLANATION OF YES AND MAYBE ANSWERS Due to the nature of the project there are no significant environmental impacts expected from the project in the areas of earth, air, water, plant life, animal life, noise, light and glare, land use, natural resources, risk of upset, population, housing, transportation/circulation, public services, energy, utilities, recreation, and cultural resources. With regards to human health, there is some chance that the project may create a health hazard or potential health hazard. Presently, there is a controversy regarding cellular telephone use due to possible hazards from radiation created from cellular phone use. Presently a report is pending regarding low frequency radiation emitted by overhead high voltage power lines. There are some who would like to see the investigation expanded to include the affects of microwave radiation emitted by cellular signal transmission stations which are utilized in conjunction with cellular telephones. At the present time there is no documentation to show that these stations do create any health hazards. The applicant indicates that cellular radio transmissions are made at very low power levels which do not create any harmful effects upon the health or safety of persons standing or living near by. Therefore, no mitigation measures are deemed necessary. With regards to aesthetics, there is a possibility that the 116-foot monopole may be deemed offensive due to the height. In addition to the pole there will be a small 360 square foot unmanned building which contains electronic receivers, computers, and other equipment. According to the applicant, the pole height can vary from 50 feet to 175 feet. Proposed at this location is a pole which is 100 feet high with a 16-foot high whip antenna on top for a maximum height of 116-feet. The diameter of the pole varies from 3-feet near the bottom, to 2-feet near the top. The pole per se does not block much of the view from surrounding properties due to its narrow width. However, the pole does create an obstruction in the overall panoramic view. The applicant has indicated that as a mitigation measure, the pole can be painted to blend with the blue sky. ENVASS.011 � r� MEMORANDUM TO: Stan Sawa Principal Planner FROM: Fred R. Bouma 7 Associate Engin er DATE: April 8, 1993 SUBJECT: PacTel Cellular application We request that the following condition be placed on approval of the subject project: 1. This application shall not be approved unless the owner of the parcel to be occupied dedicates additional right of way along Avenue 52 to attain the 55' half -width right of way designated in the city's general plan. fb APR 8 E1993 Q �rar as PIAN�N!NG DEPARTMENT a� 79-106 CALLE ESTADO — LA OUINTA. CAUFORNIA 92263 • 0191 564•224 FAX (619) 664.661 FROM: PLANNING i DEVELOPMENT DIVISION DATE: -. .kV) City Manager, g u public works/Engineering waste Management ,_General Telephone Principal Planner(s) 1. Fire Marshal Palmer Cable Vision X Associate 'T�Buildinq i Safety _._Sunline Transit Planner(s) A Chamber of Commerce Caltrans (District II) _ Agricultural Commission Assistant Planner L•� X Imperial Irrigation `=City of Indian wells X Planning �,.---� rn California Gas City of Indio Director 'N �� ser Sands School Dist. US Postal Service ach lla valley School Dist. Riverside County: r aeological Society Planning Environmental Department Health lAkNI 2�" _Property is Association Sheriff's Department C" The Cif► of La Quint& Development Review Committee is conducting an init enviroteental study pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)_for the above referenced project(s)• Attached is the information submitted by the project proponent. y9ur..comment94re 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 mit; gate any potential adverse effects; b) or should apply to the projec, 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 advers, effects on the environment which cannot be avoided through condition please recommend the scope and focus of additional study(ies) which may be helpful. Please send your response by it �AGI 6.y _and return a s lann if ng',t needed for our file. You a e inv ted to a ten nkavF -Lm R�VIEw CO E$ meet ng a La Quinta City Hall scheduled i Person:Contact r� /..,, i 1,... NOCOMMENT Comments made by: Title: FIRE SAFETY SPECIAL Date: ti 13 Phone: Agency/Division C.rW,F A CHAMBER of COMMERCE GEM OF THE DESERT February 3, 1993 TO: City of La Quints, Planning & Development Division FROM: La Quints Chamber of Commerce, Planning & Reviev Committee RE: Public Use Permit (PUP) 93-014 PacTel Cellular Installation and Operation of 100 foot high monopole for cellular telephone reception The La Quints Chamber of Commerce Planning & Reviev Committee convened to review this proposal. The consensus is no objection to this project at this time. FEB 0 5 03 Lc"- ...-.r..::x.-r. ---.mac r IV �o,ilA POST OFFICE BOX 255•51-351 AVENIDA BERMUDAS • LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 s (619) 564-3199 ,w! ATEq ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY ��BT ReC� COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (619) 398-2651 DIRECTORS OFFICERS TELLISCODEKAS, PRESIDENT THOMAS E. LEVY, GENERAL MANAGER -CHIEF ENGINEER RAYMOND R. RUMMONDS, VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTON. SECRETARY JOHN W McFADDEN OWEN Mc February 5 , 1993 000K ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER DOROTHY M. DE LAY REDWINE AND SHERRILL. ATTORNEYS THEODORE J. FISH Planning Commission City of La Quinta Post Office Box 1504 La Quinta, California 92253 Gentlemen: File: 0163.1 C , k FEB 1 0 1993 C17Y PLAJJNiNG U_;i'+ RTfJE;4T Subject: Public Use Permit No. 93-014, Portion of the Southwest Quarter of Section 4, Township 6 South, Range 7 East, San Bernardino Meridian This area is protected from stormwater flows by a system of channels and dikes, and may be considered safe from stormwater flows except in rare instances. This area is designated Zone X on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which are in effect at this time. If you have any questions please call Bob Meleg, stormwater engineer, extension 264. Yours very truly, -�J-oc Tom Levy General Manager -Chief Engineer RF:sv/e2/flood cc: Don Park Riverside County Department of Public Health 79-733 Country Club Drive, Suite D Bermuda Dunes, California 92201 4 r •a TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY ALUC Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission EDA/Aviation Division Telephone: (909) 677-2307 FAX: (909) 677-1478 French Valley Airport Aviation Center, 37552 Winchester Rd, Box 1,2,&3, Murrieta, CA 92563 FEB Q 9 February 4, 1993 Stan Sawa, Principal Planner City of La Quinta 78-106 Calle Estado La Quinta, California 92253 RE: PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. 93-014 - PACTEL CELLULAR Dear Mr. Sawa: Thank you for the opportunity to review the above - mentioned project. Upon review, I found the project is not located within any Airport Influenced Area under the jurisdiction of the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). Therefore, the project need not go before the ALUC for their review and determination. Should you have any questions, please contact me at (909) 677-2307. Sincerely, Judy--N moss Assistant Director EDA/Aviation Division JMR:sa pup93-014.aoi CELLULAR MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS THE ELL LAR Y TE LJ�AIN t 3 1993 ,:aaw.erys.rc CITY OF LA QUIVA PLANNING OEPARTI-KNT The following data has been compiled by PacTel Cellular of Irvine, California, to assist municipal and county planners, appointed and elected officials in understanding the technology of cellular mobile communications. The data gives a general description of cellular communications, specifically addresses concerns voiced by the planning community, and provides input to be used in the environmental review and entitlement granting processes at various levels of government. The Los Angeles cellular mobile telephone system, the first system developed on the West Coast, began commercial service in mid -June, 1984. serving metropolitan Los Angeles, Orange, and Ventura Counties, and continues easterly uninterrupted through the counties of Riverside and San Bernardino respectively. The Los Angeles system initially consisted of a Mobile Telephone Switching Office (MTSO) located in East Los Angeles, and seventeen cell sites, with an additional eight cell sites completed and placed into service during the following four months. The system continues to expand to provide cellular communications to those areas outside the metropolitan area and also within the existing system as internal user demand increases. Adjacent to this first California cellular system, development and design efforts are continuing in Northern California and to the south in San Diego County for mobile cellular systems. In any cellular system, the service area is divided into a grid of theoretical hexagon shaped geographic areas called cells. At the center of each cell is a low power FM radio repeater or transceiver station which handles the calls to and from mobile users within the cell. As a mobile user moves from one cell to another with a call in progress, the call is automatically "handed off' or transferred to the next cell, without interruption. Cellular Mobile Communications provides man with one of the most efficient uses of the available and limited radio frequency spectrum. Radio transmissions from a cell site closer to the user than other more distant cell sites electronically overrides and blocks the weaker signals, thus one frequency channel that carries a voice communications in one cell can be used again several cells away to carry another conversation from a separate user. This technology results in a highly efficient use of the limited radio waves with the same frequencies being used simultaneously at a number of cell locations within the same system or geographical area. It is this frequency reuse technology, made possible by modern electronics and computers, which makes cellular radio a highly desirable form of business and personal communications. Cellular communications also makes use of the existing telecommunication landlines within the system. Telephone line connections between cell site and the MTSO, and from the MTSO to the telephone company central office, permit mobile customers within the serving area to utilize their vehicle and portable phone just as they would a home or office telephone, with direct dialing, no operator, and outstanding audio quality. Because of this link -up between cellular radio and the traditional telephone system, a mobile user can just as easily call his office across town or a business associate in Chicago or London. The phone call itself travels only a short diitance on . �2 the radio waves, from the user to the nearest cell site, the rest of the transmission being handled by the traditional telephone lines. U-11-IR VA All cell sites and mobile transmit and receive equipment is manufactured to meet strict Federal Communication Commission requirements. Prior to use in a cellular system, the equipment must have received FCC approval as to design, use and technical parameters. Major suppliers include AT&T Technologies (Western Electric), Motorola, Panasonic, OKI and other manufacturers of high- tech communications equipment. Each transceiver is electronically tuned via a computer data link (between mobile unit and cell site) to transmit on one of 333 currently available frequencies between 880 and 890 MHz (megahertz) and likewise to receive on a similar number of channels in the 835 to 845 MHz range. A cell sites' transmit power is adjusted to provide adequate cell coverage and is limited by the FCC to a maximum of 100 watts ERP 9 effective radiated power). Wavelength at 880 MHz is 13.39 inches (34 cm) and at 890 MHz is 13.24 inches (33.6cm). Voice transmission is by conventional FM (F3) emission while control is in a supervisory audio tone, also known as SAT. 1. Cellular radio transmissions are made at very low power levels producing no harmful effects upon the health or safety of persons standing or living nearby. 2. Cell cites do not interfere in any way with television, radio, pacemakers or other electronic devices. 3. Cell sites have no effect on ground water supply, water or sewer systems as sanitary facilities are unnecessary to their operation. Erosion control measures including providing proper storm water retention and prompt .— 3 reseeding of cleared areas are taken to prevent any degradation of the land during and after construction. 4. Cell sites create no adverse effect on road congestion and once in normal operation the only traffic visiting the site is for routine maintenance or emergency repair which occurs typically once per month. S. Cellular towers pose no threat to navigation as each is registered and approved by the Federal Aviation Administration with few towers being of sufficient height to require painting or lighting. Neither do they pose a hazard to migratory birds which traditionally fly at considerably higher elevations. 6. There are no offensive noises or odors emitted by cell sites. The antennas emit no noise even in high winds, and any sound emitted by the transmission equipment is confined to the building interior. 7. The towers are structurally designed based on ANSI/TIA/EIA-22E and Uniform Building Code standards to withstand the highest wind speeds with adequate safety margins of each local area. They are also equipped with removable climbing hardware and the perimeter of the site fenced to prevent unauthorized climbing or access. 8. The sites are constructed and landscaped to be as inconspicuous as possible. Once the theoretical grid point is established, site acquisition personnel begin evaluating properties within the search area to locate the optimum cell site. The cell site property search follows a set order of location preferences based upon a desire to maximize the cell site's compatibility with surrounding land uses and zoning codes. These location preferences are listed below by priority. ._.._ 4 The physical structures at a typical cell site consist of a one-story, unmanned Soo square foot building which contains the electronic transceivers, computers and allied high-tech equipment. Adjacent to the equipment building is a free-standing utility pole antenna which varies in height from 50 to 175 feet. 1. Existing office, commercial and industrial buildings where antennas can be mounted on the rooftop and electronic equipment within. 2. Bare/open land zoned for industrial, commercial or public utility use which could be leased or purchased. 3. Existing communication/utility tower structures. 4. Property with the least residential population density and/or property that will provide natural screening to the public at large. Each site must be determined to be technically feasible for covering the cell based upon engineering elevation requirements and signal strength measurements made from a test cellular radio transmitter and antenna placed at the site. The site physical characteristics are also evaluated and approved by surveyors, soils testing, title search and field investigation by architects and civil engineers who will prepare final site and building plans. All cell site equipment is of the most modern, solid state design, including rectifiers (to keep back-up power batteries charged), radios and computer -type control and diagnostic equipment. Experience to date shows the average monthly power consumption of an active cell site to be about 3500 kW hours, or an average load of about 5 kW. The rectifiers, the largest electrical load, are shown as being 94% efficient in the manufacturer's specifications. The second largest load is the air conditioning system which insures proper working conditions for the electronic equipment. The electronic equipment operates at 24 and 48 volts. Energy conservation is an important consideration in building design and material selection, and the air conditioner motors are located outside the building so that they do not add to the air conditioner load within the building. ANAI.Y�QEIU B -1 AGNET - RAD AIWNJI THE E� The cellular mobile communications system has been authorized to operate in the 800 megahertz (MHz) frequency band (800 to 890 MHz) in what is considered the ultra -high -frequency (UHF) radio -frequency range. This corresponds to the UHF frequencies that were previously assigned to television channels 70 through 83 until the FCC reallocated these frequencies for the development of a variety of public radio services including mobile radio systems. Radio communication channels shared by public service groups include taxicabs, local government, police, fire, highway maintenance, forest conservation, special emergency, and state guard operate at 950 MHz. The UHF broadcast band is now between 470 and 800 MHz. In the last 15 to 20 years, the proliferation of radio -frequency (RF) emitters in the environment has spurred extensive and ongoing research efforts to investigate the biological and public health effects of low-level nonionizing radiation. Median population exposures to RF radiation in the 50-900 MHz range in 15 cities in the United States was 0.000005 mW/cm2 according to a 1980 study. Principal sources of this background level of RF radiation are TV, AM, and FM broadcasts as well as radar at airports and military installations. There is concurrence among the various investigators that RF exposures at power densities above 10 mW/cm2 (10 milliwatts per square Z centimeter) can potentially cause adverse biological effects. Transitory biological effects at the molecular and cellular level are reported at longer exposures at power densities as low as 0.03 mW/cm2 although these effects have not been associated with any adverse health impacts. The documented effects of RF radiation are summarized in Table 1. The minimum level at which unequivocally deleterious effects occur is approximately 10 mW/cm2 at the lowest intensity of thermal effects. At this time, there are no general Federal guidelines for public RF exposure levels. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is in the process of developing standards, and the maximum permitted public exposure levels will probably be between 0.1 and mW/cm21.0 (R.C. Petersen, ,Zadio-Frequency Exposure, Cellular Mobile Radio Cell Site Antennas, 1982). The Soviet standard for RF exposure is the most stringent in the world and varies with length of exposure. Figure 1 presents electromagnetic radiation exposure standards in the Soviet Union and the proposed U.S. standards. -- 7 Exposure (mW/cm2) Effects 100 Threshold of cataract formation 28 Teratogenic effects 10 Molecular, genetic effects (thermal) 4 Threshold for neuro endocrine effects 0.05 Decreased sperm counts 0.03 Increased brain amine levels 0.01 Altered brain permeability Source: W. R. Adey, "Tissue Interactions with Nonionizing Electromagnetic Fields," 1982. What human health effects may occur as a result of electro-magnetic radiation broadcast by the system? A majority of the antennas installed in a cellular system will be pole mounted at heights between 100 and 167 feet. Measurements of power densities at normalized full operational power conditions around antennas in this configuration produce ground -level energy significantly less than 0.001 mW/cm2 (Petersen 1982). ?); 8 I jw04 ®w o l � 1 I 1 o I u 10 �$ a VA . 1 0 cI iI� JI<I 9wIq ny o "°w 1 46 •. <� i 1 .. -' 1 .. 0 $IA I l o uij" Pb ao pa w 10 too 8 i8 CL �Iv o" I I° �= I �� 1 < = 10 1 q i u, o � Iv ® � Q �/ T.® too ®J w 1a 1« o 0 tIsm m.. i j 1 L o 1 1 1 I 1 IS o 1 1 1 1 1 i $ i I Ct Ct ® O 8 r � 3 E ew N 0 P 0 N 0 O Z P N zP O O P m w c f P rb O CL > P U) a P 0 F w O P z 0 ® P O F— z w P WN �o P P A- z w Q W cc UL 13-IOIAVHi-in 03UbU:JNi 0w Cc U_ Q �3.0 O cc cr- FF tC � W J tt� ®� w ui G V CL CL zg a. G z co ac-'.� O '- W_ z<wp U ><<i-- W CL ® x O V LL :) a O =~t jJ Q=> W UF- 0) cc LL M: > a E O O U W cc w u0 M ................... NOuvindOd (A O c o cc E Z:: :C� :cc ::......:.::.....: (IVNOIIVdna00) .. _ ussn Z861. ay:N:co ................. . 0 CD ® C� ...J .... .Z.: .... ................... .: ('ldN011vdn=) . o 0 :: •_ • Z861-3ad 11 .... : Assn N 'co .... ................... V Q :.:..:::...... LI............. . ....... ............................... •- ® o 0 0 •- o 00 0 0 V- o T T (z WO/M7i)13A31 NOI.LVIOVU L cc c x tr W c cf) � z Q Q O N N c� CL T -� I I I I ::: VINHOdI*IVO NI S311S U HOd (Aiv in01d0 00 S'H HOH nd Xd OO ® ch S`1MINV NI ........... w 2 Sl03dd3 ussn .............. Ln F- w CC Q ....... .. . 031 Od3H S3M0 .............. a- Z w�C 6. ::::::::::::::: r U- z 9` �H ®311�'1n00i1V H O Q :::::::::::::: Sla)3Jd3 V4ni01d0.. v c z NV)i0� V A30d .............. . 7 1 �� wa ........... J w ......... SH3>IHOM da.. ° Assn S103333 `„' O 14HR JNGI ON . w aC.......... ................ 31VId AONVN )IIVV4 w 0 H3HJIH '030NVHO AUSIVUH0 N Z g NIVHB 0Nd HOIAVH313 lda v03: Oa ,- NOIldnusiaHS: ... w OOA HQ� ONI�HOM.l� O ............. ... U .-__......... O O ® r- O O O 'r r wo/sIlumoaolw) AiISN30 H3MOd Z ui c 0 .N .E n� a 3 N t S t~J a� 0 0 c D E U t w uj Q O U Z Q 0 0 a cc o_ FE cc a w Z W cc 0 CL w 0 M n a CA r. .. FV(D) ....sOlpea cr. .. PIGH-Pu'eH: ®(M c :'vs SUOIIEIS . • ........ ... co ®� ........:.cn ....:::::::: ...... ............. SUGAO N :::O ; aAEMO1Olw; ; ................................. s®lpPa 1epeu yl!M r 80.11 ON ::: : SjB013 HEWS 1BaN: O O r ( a wo/silemoJ31 u) AIISN3® H3MOd The potential power density exposure levels are well below the most stringent guidelines (Soviet standard for the general public of 0.005 mW/cm2) and well below the threshold at which any biological effects have been reported (0.03 mW/cm2). No significant impact on public health and safety is therefore anticipated. What is the potential for adverse health effects resulting from the cumulative effects of electromagnetic radiation from a system and other sources throughout a metropolitan area? There is no evidence that electromagnetic radiation at different frequencies interact in a synergistic manner and no theoretical basis for predicting any such "cumulative" effect (Adey 1982). (Electromagnetic radiation at different frequencies is not additive. Therefore, the addition of radio frequency transmitters that produce energy densities below the level that produces biological effects will not be summed, unless they are broadcasting at the same frequency. Because of the dramatic decrease in energy density with distance from the source (energy density is inversely proportional to the distance squared), energy density falls below background levels within about 1,000 feet from a transmitter. The transmitters in a cellular grid system will be separated by a considerably greater distance (normally seven to seventeen miles), therefore no cumulative impacts will occur. Cumulative impacts from the synergism of different RF sources have not been documented and are not expected to occur based on physical considerations and would therefore not be expected to result from operation of a cellular grid system. The cumulative power level exposure from a system would be well below background levels for almost the entire country and would be below the most stringent standards everywhere. No significant cumulative impact on public health and safety is therefore anticipated. r� 9 What communications interference effects may occur as a result of electro magnetic radiation broadcast by the system or by the interaction of signals with pole structures (e.g.,- television and radio reception, emergency vehicle communications)? Potential impacts regarding signal interference are of two kinds: direct interference due to the RF transmissions in the system and indirect effects due to the interaction of the structure of the pole and antennas with broadcast or other signals. Regarding the potential for direct signal interference, the FCC regulation of cellular frequency and power levels is designed to avoid interference between any electromagnetic communications. The proposed cellular grid phone system will operate in its allotted frequencies, and each transmitter will operate with an effective radiated power of no more than 100 watts. Typical radio (AM or FM), television, and paging transmitters operate at much higher power levels of 1,000 to 50,000 watts. High power standard broadcast signals can interfere with the cellular grid communications if cell sites are located too close to T.V. or radio transmitting antennas (including military communication facilities). Among other design parameters, the location of broadcast stations is considered when choosing locations for the cell sites within the cellular grid system. As a result of the frequency separation between the cellular grid system and the broadcast bands and the relatively low power levels in the cellular grid system, the potential for signal interference from cellular grid transmission upon broadcast signals or reception is very low. No significant impacts are anticipated. With respect to potential interference resulting from the structure of a cellular grid antenna pole, it is theoretically possible that any tall structure can interfere with broadcast signals to some very small extent. Mountains, hills, tall buildings, power -line towers, flag poles, tall trees, freeway underpasses, and a host of other structures can 1^ r� _.._ 10 theoretically cause interference either by absorbing broadcast signals, reflecting them, or re -radiating signals. The interference is manifest as increased levels of static in reception due to loss of signal strength or as "shadows" which appear on television screens from distantly reflected signals. Due to the wide variety and large number of structures which can theoretically cause interference in a metropolitan area, and due to the large number of electromagnetic signals from broadcasting and other uses which may be involved, it is impossible to attempt to model or predict such interference. The situation is further complicated by the fact that such signal interference by structures is usually spurious in nature and affected by atmospheric conditions. Despite the theoretical complexities of the matter, some general observations regarding structural interference with signals can be made. First, the aerial structures which will support the system antennas are self supporting single poles which are relatively narrow, being three feet in width at ground level and diminishing to fourteen inches at the top. Alternate tower designs could involve open lattice structures or towers supported by guy wires. In any case, it is not likely that a more narrow -profile design could be constructed than the poles generally used. As a result of the pole design and the relatively small number of poles in a cellular system, it is reasonable to predict that there will be no more interference than currently caused by the variety of high -voltage power -line poles (many of which use a single -pole design, 150 feet in height) or other existing tall structures throughout a metropolitan area. Finally, in the only widely used cellular system in long term operation (in the Chicago area), no interference with broadcast signals has been reported. Thus, based on available information, it is not likely that a cellular system will cause any noticeable interference. As long as a cellular system operates within the frequencies and power levels allowed by the FCC, no significant impacts regarding signal interference are expected. The level of impact on view of a cellular antenna can be described as minimal, due in part to topography, meteorology and the physical limitations of the human eye. Also, the self- supporting monopole design is without guy -wires, and because of its tall, slender pole -like appearance, it is not unlike a flag pole, a power pole or a football field or parking lot light. Man- made and natural obstructions such as buildings, trees, hills and power lines often block the direct viewing of the antenna structure. This view analysis discusses visual considerations associated with a typical cellular radio cell site. The project usually consists of a 560 square foot communications equipment building and a 100 to 150 foot monopole antenna. The equipment building is one story and designed site specific to compliment nearby structures. The monopole antenna is a self supporting structure of hollow structural metal tubing. The monopole is painted to blend with the environmental or as safety regulations require. Typically, many areas surrounding a cell site do not have a view of the building or the monopole due to intervening structures and natural vegetation. The visibility of the antenna itself, even at 100 to 150 feet in height, is severely limited by these local features thus limiting visibility of the antenna to locations at or near the cell site itself. See the attached graphic illustrations of this study for fields of view. The topography of the study area from which the antenna may be viewed is not a featureless, flat plane. Instead it is a rural, somewhat developed area or a fully developed urban area. There are many features such as buildings, walls and trees which limit the view. Although these "obstacles" 12 may have limited height, to the horizontal distance important. The attached relationship. it is their height relative to the viewer which is studies illustrate this The limits of view in this study area are clearly dependent upon a complex combination of topographic obstructions and other parameters existing at every point in the view area of the typical cell site. The view of almost any cell site is generally shielded by the existence of these parameters. While a clear, direct view of the cell site will exist at some points in the study area, the probability of a mitigating feature parameter existing in the view line is substantial. Requests for additional cellular mobile telecommunications data should be directed to PacTel Cellular, Attn: Real Estate, P. O. Box 19707, Irvine, California 92713-9707, or by phoning (714) 2 2 2 - 7 616 'kdditional copies of this fact sheet may be received from this same source. 13 A cellular telephone system is a series of cell sites linked to a "Mobile Telephone Switching Office." A cell site is a telephone transmission facility that uses FM radio signals to transmit conversations and data to the mobile or portable phone user. (Attached is a drawing that shows how a cellular system works.) Cell sites are required to transfer (handoff) the voice conversation from one cell site (Base Transmission Station) to the other, allowing the user to maintain the conversation as they are moving through the cellular system. Cell sites are connected by digital microwave and landline services. The telephone lines allow the cellular user to talk through the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN). :Microwave is used to increase the cellular system's reliability factor and provide a redundant network. Microwave cannot be cut by contractors or destroyed by weather factors. This allows for the continual use of the system should the conventional phone system disrupt service for any reason (i.e. earthquake, tornado, flood). All cell sites are connected to the Mobile Telephone Switching office (MTSO) and its software processor using the conventional telephone system and microwave. The cell sites communicate with the MTSO and each other by transmitting information on the user, conversations and data. The MTSO is the heart of the system that controls all of the intelligent network switching. The current development of cellular systems for personal communications requires a variety of structures to be utilized in the design and construction of a cell site. HOW CELLULAR TELEPHONES WORK COAV lalephams pal ow r"M 6®m to neuwk of tttv"Is etearoM 6w" to tirdt �*je mobtte trsta to enre-0eul sOWM. kataal of ecru. eetVV tearrot 9 on a natww%of Itare-www -awl at"- erhd+ brunt and roeatve tamps tMM v®hWas in to dmr aced colt arse. T1wse hit netts are W*ed to tang -basal ptww M". Fist c els also dined s+pnats and transmuOM raft and tnrww resims"M Wong other cols. Transtarnnp ruponsftkly for a Knal loom ona host eau to ano0»r Is MW ?aatrJittp or K&-4rtp OR sAovvs both panels on r» Mne to eww-&* v&M an Ira awth®tR percep W raerrt"ws. �. . Cflig 3WW tt* host Cell ataro oowMa0r. net+nroAt erne intrtral to mcbft trot to muh m the $Vonpest sipw aradabla. — 14 Cellular communications has a bright ushalllbetsaexpected cellular elephonehuser. year 2000, one of every five Americanslaced to or from a person A nationwide system will allow calls to be p anywhere. Cellular devices shall continue to shrink in size and will be capable of many more things. 1n the not too distant future, ,the N elate hone ar rwill have a portable shall be full featured and device fit that will go anywhere. The new P and operate their into a breast he home, cartand office. rs can eXpect to Voice dialing (oral commands to the telephone to the telephone) exists today and is anticipated as a standard feature within the next few years. Mobile telephones currently a°1cY hone to folve a low computerand nfuture. machine linkage capacity, with portp One of the first major changes in cellular as we know it shall be the shift to digital technology. The currently existing analog telephone system sends , voice data by electronic impulse. A digital system is much like a computer, data is coded into a series of numbers and is decoded and turned into voice at the receiving end. Digital technology shall increase the calling capacity of currently existing cell sites by three fold. The new technology offers clearer reception and greater security. Digital also increases the capability of transmitting data by cellular telephone including faxing capabilities. With the increase in cellular users comes an increase in the number of cell sites. Cellular telephone technology works on a principle of radio frequency reuse. The same frequency can be used by multiple cell sites so long as their service areas do notov sites rs requires lower shall be located onl sites telephone covering a smaller area. Ultimately, cell poles with a small amount of radio equipment enclosed in a large box about the size of an electrical transformer. Putting such a system in place will require new approaches to cell siting taws so as to insure that the needed facilities assistance nbe quickly in providing to sselrvice to Blanket exemptions would be of grey the greater community. It is expected that cellular communications shall play a larger role in emergency management. Certain fire departments use fax machines attached t cellular telephones. When afire cit breaks office coles of the site building nthe plans can be transmitted from the appropriate.Y fire. Emergency vehicle employees can important be commonplace f In � has through cellular fax machines. All of this should next few years. — 15 EXPOSED DIRECTIONAL ANTENNAS .)4 3, 4 L tu^ a Ilot- NC N� k 0 a O FW— W d H h � 0 O O o to 0 W J cp Hy O� m W CC J W = z0 rA Q Flll"' V� ru u+ow Loa A, sm wsaomvn 2mewstu ACIOSIA6^9 I f-I CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED PUBLIC USE PERMIT 93-014 - PACTEL CELLULAR APRIL 13, 1993 1. If this public use permit is not used within one year of the original date of approval, said approval shall expire and be null and void unless approved by extension by the Planning Commission. Request for extension shall be received prior to expiration which is April 13, 1994. 2. Developer and operator shall comply with all requirements of the landlord. 3. Monopole shall be painted light sky blue to match normal sky. Painting of pole and color shall be approved by the Planning and Development Department prior to painting. 4. Support building shall be architecturally designed to provide compatible architectural style with desert environment. Revised building plans shall be reviewed and approved by Staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 5. Prior to issuance of building permit final working drawings shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Development Department. 6. Street right-of-way dedication adequate to provide 55-foot half street width as designated in the City's General Plan shall be dedicated adjacent to Imperial Irrigation District site frontage, prior to issuance of a building permit. CONAPRVL.076 i April 6, 1993 Honorable Members of The City of La Quinta Planning Commission 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California APR 8 1993 . CTV r� :.-A (i% IOA �LNlti:dl�t� �C�'��SIfP�iY .:emu.._,- . ... _. • . ... _-�.,.T� Re: Pac Tel Cellular Structures per Public Use Permit 93-014 Honorable Planning Commissioners: I would like to place into the public record comments which should be considered prior to the approval of the request by Pac Tel Cellular to install a 100 foot high tower within the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) substation site at 80-420 Avenue 50 in the City of La Quinta. Please consider the following: The negative visual impacts of a 100 foot tall tower (Plus the height of the building?) and its associated cones dishes and related equipment within the context of existing approvals in the immediate viewshed of the proposed facility. These Property entitlements include the Approved Grove Specific Plan 90-016 and other adjacent approved residential subdivisions as well as numerous individual homeowners in the immediate area of the IID substation site. The conveyance of an easement for use of the site to IID included several T c;:adltioas that thelendc;i on Jr-o properiy, 'Dirk; Sovings and Lvaii, i�Liuir:;J in order to insure values of nearby and immediately adjacent properties also within it's loan portfolio. On 2/5/85 IID accepted the property subject to several conditions. The first condition of this easement for use specifically states the "Grantee shall use the property conveyed hereunder in such manner that will not in any way endanger or interfere with the use of adjacent Property ". With this ccndition of use considered, it is difficult to avoid the recognition of a conflict or diminishment of property valv.�: or market desirability for proporty immediately adiacent to a 1 W foot Nigh utility tower. The considerable attention and concern voiced by the elected officials and community at large (not to mention the usual requirement of a full blown Environmental Impact Analysis) for viewshed impacts created by hillside development, multi -story development adjacent to the arterial streets in La Quinta, and the placement of public and private serving facilities such as maintenance buildings within viewshed of the La Quinta Public, possibly there should be a similar degree of scrutiny of the potential impacts from this utility structure. To that end, I would like to receive, at your convenience, any data which would allow me to make an informed decision on the potential impacts and appropriate mitigations for the Public Use Permit Application 93-014 that will be before your decision making body on April 13 Sincerely K. Haag CC: The Director of Planning for the City of La Quinta. Mr. Jerry Herman G. Abadie. M. Bradley Esq.. S. Chevis Hosea. K. Christensen P.E. Forrest K. Haag Design and Land Planning LANDMARK LAND COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, INC. P. O. Box 1000, La Quinta, California 92320 (619) 564-4500 PH #2 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: APRIL 13, 1993 CASE NO: PLOT PLAN 93-495 APPLICANT: SIMON PLAZA, INC. (PHILIP PEAD) PREVIOUS CASE: PLOT PLAN 91-466 (REVISED) (EXPIRED) OWNERS: 3S PARTNERSHIP AND POMONA FIRST FEDERAL BANK SUBJECT: REQUEST TO DEVELOP A MIXED USE COMMERCIAL PROJECT ON APPROXIMATELY 5.6 ACRES ZONED C-P-S COMMERCIAL. THE PROJECT WILL INCLUDE A FOUR STORY OFFICE BUILDING, A 44 LANE BOWLING ALLEY, A FITNESS CENTER, A RESTAURANT OR BANK, AN EYE INSTITUTE OR OFFICE, A FOUR LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE, AND RELATED AT -GRADE PARKING. LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND WASHINGTON STREET, BOTH MAJOR ARTERIALS. THE DEVELOPMENT, ON ±5.6 ACRES OF LAND, IS LOCATED TO THE WEST OF THE EXISTING SIMON MOTORS AUTOMOTIVE DEALERSHIP ON HIGHWAY 111. ARCHITECT: MERLIN J. BARTH EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: MIXED/REGIONAL COMMERCIAL WITH NON-RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY. SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS: NORTH: 111 LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER SOUTH: WASHINGTON SQUARE SPECIFIC PLAN PROPERTY (VACANT) EAST: EXISTING SIMON MOTORS AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP WEST: EXISTING PLAZA LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER PCST.119 1 BACKGROUND: This project was reviewed by the City in 1992, as part of the review and approval of Plot Plan 91-466 (Revised). The project received approval by the Design Review Board on October 2, 1991, the Planning Commission on February 25, 1992, and the City Council on March 3, 1992. However, the final design approved changed from ± 165,000 square feet to ± 125,000 square feet and various buildings were shifted on the property to increase visibility into the project. The initial plan is attached for reference. The original Conditions of Approval required the applicant to begin construction of the project within one year or apply for a one year extension of time which required review by the Planning Commission. The original case expired on February 25, 1.993. On March 11, 1993, the applicant refiled the original plans with Staff and paid the necessary fees to return the project through the necessary stages to have the project reviewed by the Design Review Board, Planning Commission, and City Council as a new application. DESCRIIPTION OF SITE: The proposed ±5.6 acre site is comprised of six parcels. The flat and undeveloped parcels were created by the division of land under Parcel Map 18418 in 1982. The property has frontage on three streets with 650 feet along Washington Street, 700 feet along Highway 111, and 180 feet along Simon Drive. The site elevation along Washington Street is approximately 60 feet above sea level. The site is improved with street improvements. However, additional widening is necessary on Washington Street to conform with the City's adopted Specific Plan Alignment Program and General Plan. A future raised median island is proposed for both Washington Street and Highway 111. The property was subdivided in the early 1980's for the development of Simon Motors Automobile Dealership as well as to establish commercial lots which could be sold or developed with commercial land uses. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: The development proposal will 'include a four story office building on Highway 111 which is attached to the three level parking structure abutting the Simon Motors property. On the southwest portion of the site (also attached to the parking structure) is the second story fitness center and one story 44 lane bowling alley. The other two buildings on the site are a restaurant/bank building at the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street and a one story eye institute. The project is broken down in the following fashion: PCST.119 Offices (4 story) Restaurant Office/Eye Institute Fitness Center Bowling Alley DESIGN REVIEW BOARD REVIEW: = 60,880 sq. ft. = 8,000 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft. 12,000 sq. ft. = 40,531 sq. ft. 126,411 sq. ft. (550 parking spaces) The Design Review Board continued action on this case on April 7, 1993, at the request of the applicant. The case was continued to their next meeting which is May 5, 1993. CONCLUSION: Since no action was taken by the Design Review Board on this case, the Planning Commission should continue this case to May 11, 1993, in order to allow the applicant sufficient time to review the case with the Design Review Board prior to any formal action on this development request. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission by Minute Motion 93-, May 11, 1993. Attachments: 1. Location map 2. Reduced site plan 3. Letter from Simon Plaza PCST.119 3 continue the development request to S+abom/Wcbb Lc. • ?1S buvdwlim V- w LL Z 0 H Q �z Q J f- 0 w 0 cr a. :offI. � I III Alt L N �lIE i Y = i J04J01( I'v. APR 7 1993 7th, April 1"3 Mr Greg Tr-OUSCIOU Associate Flamer City of La Quinta P.G.Bas 1504 76-105 CaUe Estado La QWnta Cry 92253 Dear Greg, Due to "Oniinuing unr lved issues on Which we are currently in discussisn wkh the City Attorney, I fete3 that it would be appropriate to continue the Design Review Board meeting to a later date. Thank u For your attention in this rnketter. Yours c Philip M. Pead Present BI # 1 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: APRIL 13, 1993 CASE NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 89-014 (SIGN PROGRAM) REQUEST: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE APPROVED SIGN PROGRAM FOR THE ONE ELEVEN LA QUINTA CENTER. APPLICANT: TRANSPACIFIC DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (COLM MACKEN) LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND HIGHWAY ill. BACKGROUND: In October, 1990, the sign program for the One Eleven La Quinta Center was approved by the Design Review Board. The Planning Commission reviewed and approved the sign program in November, 1990. That sign program includes provisions for center identification signs, monument signs for the pad buildings, and individual building signs. The applicant has submitted an amendment request which pertains to the center identification signs and monument signs. AMENDMENT REQUEST: Presently a shopping center identification sign (11.5 feet high) is approved for Adams Street just north of the first driveway adjacent to the Shell station. This center identification sign is adjacent to the recently approved "Lube Shop". The applicant is requesting approval to delete this sign and in place of it add an additional monument sign adjacent to pad M-3 which is located approximately 450 feet west of Adams Street on Highway 111. This monument sign which is being proposed in -lieu of the center identification sign is requested to have the "Lube Shop" and a second tenant on it. That second tenant would probably be the pad M-2 which is adjacent to the sign location. The proposed monument sign would be identical to that previously approved for use in other parts of the shopping center (see attached). The applicant indicates that he is requesting approval to put the "Lube Shop" on this sign because the sale of that pad is contingent upon obtaining this approval. As part of a sign adjustment, a relocation of the sign locations may be granted. This will require specific approval by the Planning Commission as part of this action. Additionally, the applicant wishes to relocate the approved monument sign in front of pad G-2, which is proposed to be a fast food restaurant, approximately 200 feet to PCST.116 the west towards Washington Street. This monument sign is proposed to contain the names of Taco Bell and the third fast food restaurant to the east. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION: The Design Review Board reviewed this request at their meeting of April 7, 1993. After a short discussion and clarification by the applicant of the reason for the request, the Design Review Board moved to recommend approval of the revised sign program. It was noted by Staff that the placement of the "Lube Shop" on the Highway 111 sign would be reviewed by the Planning Commission as a sign adjustment. ANALYSIS: Staff feels that the requested modification to the center and monument signs is acceptable. Although one additional monument sign would be added to Highway 111, the frontage along that area is approximately 3/4 of a mile which would minimize the impact of one additional sign. Furthermore, the center identification sign which is being deleted is quite a bit larger than the proposed monument sign. With regards to the proposed sign adjustment to allow the "Lube Shop" on Highway 111, Staff would prefer not to see a precedent set which could be undesirable. However, the applicant has indicated that this will be the only situation of this type. RECOMMENDATION: Staff would recommend approval of this request, including a sign adjustment to allow the "Lube Shop" to be placed on the new monument sign, subject to the "Lube Shop" signage facing Adams Street being minimal and smaller than would normally be approved. Attachments: 1. Letter of request 2. Site plan revision request 3. Approved center identification monument sign exhibits PCST.116 Tr anspa_:fIC DeveIor:::nt C o m p a n y MAR t 1 19393 March 9. 1993 Mr. Jeu} Herman CITY OF LA QQINTA 78-105 Calle Estado La Quints, CA 92253 Subject One Eleven La Quinta Center Monument Signage Dear Jam► Corporate Headquarters 2377 Crensha% Boulevard Suite 300 To ramx. C> ,�I(Ilhlh.z�w, Please :.d attached a reduced copy of our 100' scale plan for One Eleven La Quinta Center. This le=cr is to request a relocation of the monument signs shown in our planned sign program. Specif,::1y, we are asking for the following: We are requesting that we delete the center I.D. sip on Adams Street as shown on the attached plan, in lieu of an additional monument sign on Highway I I I in front of Wal-Mart. We currently have one monument sign approved for that location. As shown on the attached sketch, we propose io switch this to two monument signs. This is necessary based on the deals that are pending. One monument sign would have the names "Tatra Bel:" and "McDonalds" on it. The second monument sign would have the name "The Lube Shop" on it with one %-acant space. We hr-ve attached, for your records, the proposed mor-:�ent sign and center I.D. sign to be deleted. Your earliest attention to this request would be appreciated. Sincenly, WASHI GTONIADAMS PARTNERSHIP By: Transpacific Development Company Colm 'blacken Vice President, Development CM:bnp Attachments > yzHv tIjtIzH yC00 t'70to > zror�r ryrf►-3H3 HtrJy2 v>v�: vrri Fes-+ trii H Zcnv 41 4.1 ion iA 1 �' 1 � sE • t" t� n 1 N _so I i e i • f �� " 00 o =► - `- a / z L t y y C t7 in I ton ►arsan Avenue Sulte 250 \ w H 5 lr•.se. CA 92715-1025 1714) 553-1117 U vv 0� 3e"s 't/ t�7 • ^d H 0-j 0 t-+ v r i N9 no I< 0 B-3 4- X 4-A: Lti-7. III ErMF CR CLUE\-- ::CD BASE PAS. :.' EXPOSED ACZL."T NEON PRECAST CVNCRETECArSPA .'= ■� , TO MATOi 3,%C CROUND n I(�IT� EYTEMR CEML%T MCCO B::<�.C� :D L.7E=R ClXMI 1ATED L`.DI'..:LAL C*:"%''NEL is, aR5 551 LEI L��rN �\ 15�-Or ELEVATION CENTER I.D. SIGN r .. DOUBLE FACED SIGN WITH 12" HT. INDIVIDUAL INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED PLEXIGLASS LETTERS EXTERIOR CEMENT STUCCO. THREE MAJOR TENANT NAMES MAXIMUM ARE ALLOWED. TENANT LETTER COLORS & STYLE TO MATCH THEIR BUILDING SIGNS. PURPOSE: PROJECT IDENTIFICATION QUANTITY: 4 SIGN AREA:150 S.F. PER SIGN LOGO COLOR: GREEN & PINK NEON BACKGROUND COLOR: BEIGE & CREAM WITH TAN BASE MATERUIL: EXTERIOR CEMENT STUCCO 3 ONE ELEVEN -LA QUINTA PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM PRECAST CONC. CAP -PAINT TO MATCH BACKGROUND 4"X4" ACCENT TILE EXTERIOR CEMENT PLASTER (PAINTED) MONUMENT SIGN SCALE: 3 8"=l'-O" DOUBLE FACED SIGN WITH 8" HT. INDIVIDUAL INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED PLEXIGLASS LETTERS EXTERIOR CEMENT STUCCO. SCHEME 3 OPTIONAL STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: APRIL 13, 1993 CASE NO: SIGN APPLICATION 93-207 REQUEST: DEVIATION FROM SIGN PROGRAM FOR ONE ELEVEN LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER TO ALLOW CORPORATE SIGNAGE APPLICANT: CLOTHESTIME SIGN COMPANY: APOLLO II SIGN CORPORATION (C/O PARAGON SIGN COMPANY) LOCATION: ONE ELEVEN LA QUINTA CENTER ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 111 BETWEEN WASHINGTON STREET AND ADAMS STREET (78-900 HIGHWAY 111). BACKGROUND: Clothestime is leasing shop space in the Center adjacent to the west side of Wal-Mart. Because Clothestime is a large national chain, they are requesting approval to utilize their standard sign which does not comply with the sign program which was adopted for this center. In approving the sign program, a provision was included to allow national tenants with more than five outlets to use their standard sign with approval from the Design Review Board and Planning Commission. Clothestime is presently operating in the Center and has installed two signs due to their corner location, which comply with the adopted sign program. The Applicant now desires to change the existing signs to their standard signs. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The Applicant proposes individual letters which would be internally illuminated. All letters would be capital letters with the sign facing south towards the parking lot being 24-inches high and 17-foot 10.5-inch long (36 sq. ft.) based on 50-foot frontage of the store. This sign is within the allowable maximum area. Along the west facing wall of the shop the Applicant proposes a 16--inch high by 11-foot long (15 sq. ft.) sign which would match the front facing sign. Based on the 40 feet of frontage, the sign would be in compliance with the allowable size. These signs are the same size as the existing signs. The sign face color would be the same red that is presently existing. The trim cap and returns would be black. PCST.118 ANALYSIS: As previously noted, national or regional tenants are allowed to utilize their standard sign if it is approved by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission. As you will recall, Payless Shoes and Baskin Robbins were granted approval of standard signs for their locations. In reviewing the signs, Staff feels that provided that the concept of the signs is acceptable, the main requirement is that the two signs be separated by 20-feet. Staff would note that we see no real reason for replacing the signs since they are readily visible. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION: The Design Review Board reviewed this request at their meeting of April 7, 1993. After a short discussion, the Board took action to recommend approval to allow Clothestime to utilize their standard signs. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the recommendation of the Design Review Board, Staff would recommend that the Planning Commission approve the request by Minute Motion 93- subject to the signs being placed 20-feet apart. Attachments: 1. Sign exhibit 2. Applicable sign program provisions PCST.118 000 \ 6 i #a, 6 � 5 OtA \ �0 sJ PRp 6 &.00 \� MPS Z R \ N a f GR "c* 0 MPR SF G !L Ile) i5 �S�ORPG pES agco �v a `+' % �- O�jSN I�P�F c- � 7 tJ •�1 ocr. P. 85 •+ �R Q 1 Jp Q • 4 11 lr> . ' •.a` .69 Q .� � a y Gr 0 � a, v o � o i 100. PAD in 2090 .. PAD 3500 s400 SF ' CQNT R - j 17C T To ExCEt �SOC Si A I I.P PROPOSED Q; V) w W p � x w PROPOSED q 01 10 in i I ue 6_h--bF9-9TS 131 ' •�:.0� Jc,rc T i C7�Odk BI #3 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: APRIL 13, 1993 CASE NO. SPECIFIC PLAN 84-003 (AMENDMENT #2) APPLICANT: CUSACK RADAKER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. REQUEST: APPROVAL OF A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR A SPECIFIC PLAN WHICH ALLOWS A 86 ROOM HOTEL (THE ORCHARD) ON 37.5 + ACRES. LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE OF 50TH AVENUE APPROXIMATELY 1/4-MILE WEST OF JEFFERSON STREET. EXISTING ZONING: C-T (TOURIST COMMERCIAL) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: SPECIAL COMMERCIAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: A PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION WAS PREPARED AND ADOPTED FOR THE SPECIFIC PLAN. NO SUBSEQUENT CHANGES ARE PROPOSED. THEREFORE, ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS NOT WARRANTED FOR THIS TIME EXTENSION REQUEST. BACKGROUND: Until 1992, the applicant had been Rufus Associates. During the last two years the applicant had been in bankruptcy. On February 28, 1992, the new owners obtained title at a foreclosure sale on the property. The original Specific Plan approved by the City Council on February 7, 1984, was for the construction of a 60-unit hotel on 28.8 acres. An amendment was processed in 1986 to increase the acreage to 37.5 acres (increase of 8.7 acres) and increase the hotel units to 86 (increase of 26 units). This amendment was considered by the Planning Commission on January 28, 1986. The Commission recommended approval subject to conditions. The City Council concurred with the Commission on February 18, 1986, and adopted Council Resolution No. 86-11, subject to conditions. Condition #4 limited the approval to two years (February 18, 1986, to February 18, 1988). CS/STAFF.RPT.089 - 1 - The Applicant requested an amendment in February, 1988, to Condition #4 to permit the approval for one more year. The Commission considered the request on February 9, 1988. The Commission recommended approval of the one-year extension. The City Council considered the request and granted the extension on February 16, 1988. The Applicant, in February of 1989, requested that Condition #4 be eliminated, or a one-year time extension be granted. State law does not address the issue of time extension limits for Specific Plans, nor do City Ordinances. Upon recommendation of the Planning Commission, the City Council at their meeting of April 8, 1989, approved a further one-year extension and amended Condition #4 to require the Applicant to justify to the Planning Commission further time extension requests. The Planning Commission at their meeting of February 13, 1990, approved an additional one year extension at Mr. Diamant's request. In February, 1991, the property was in Bankruptcy proceedings under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The appointed trustee requested a time extension because they were negotiating with a party for purchase of the property and subsequent development of the hotel. The potential buyer was Mr. Chuck Strother, the Applicant for the tract and parcel map immediately to the west. On February 12, 1992, the Planning Commission granted a further one year extension to February 18, 1992. On March 24, 1992, the Planning Commission granted another one-year extension of time. CURRENT REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a fifth one year extension of time for the Specific Plan. ANALYSIS: To date, other than clearing of some citrus trees, little has been done on the site. A portion of the west end of this property was sold to Mr. Strother and incorporated into his tract and Parcel Map to the west. This will necessitate provisions for emergency access to the west side of the Hotel. An easement for five acres was given to the applicant. The Engineering and Planning and Development Departments have recommended new conditions. At this time the Fire Marshal reiterated that current Fire Department standards need to be met. This was considered and added in 1990, as Condition #27. A complete review of the project is recommended by the Fire Department. The Coachella Valley Water District stated that CS/STAFFRPT.089 - 2 - their letter of August 10, 1984 still stands and they do not have any additional comments at this time. The project will need to comply with all current codes and requirements at the time of development. RECOMMENDATION: The Specific Plan requires that the Applicant demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of the approval prior to any further time extensions. The applicants letter does not indicate that any progress has been made with this project. Economic conditions are cited again as the reason for the requested time extension. The appointed trustee for the applicant has submitted a letter requesting the extension. The Commission may wish to obtain additional justification at the meeting, regarding compliance and extension of this project for another 12 months. Staff recommends that approval of this extension by adoption of Minute Motion 93- subject to the conditions as noted in the attached conditions Attachments: 1. Location map 2. Letter from Byron C. Radaker 3. Draft Conditions of Approval 4. Plans & exhibits (reduced) 5. Minutes of Planning Commission meeting March 24, 1992 CS/STAFFRPT.089 - 3 - Attachment 1 CASE No. AMIENOMENT OiZ "jFIE �2G�IA{ZO AT LA 4iiiNrA NORTN SCALE,: 14oniG Attachment Cusack Radaker Development, Inc. 917 Tahoe Blvd., Suite 302 Incline Village, Nevada 89451 February 8, 1992 1 , Jerry Herman, Planning Director MAR 2 3 i993 City of La Quinta a CITY OF LA r%IWA 78-105 Calle Estado PLANN�trG OcFAATl�,yT La Quinta, California 92253 Z. 01I ... Re: Specific Plan 84-003, The Orchard Dear Mr. Herman: Due to continuing economic conditions in the real estate markets, the above referenced project has not progressed. Inasmuch as market conditions are beyond our control, we respectfully request continuance of approvals of the project for another year. I believe we will see a turnaround in market conditions in the 1993-94 season. Until the economic conditions change, it is extremely difficult to obtain an operations group and financing for the further development and construction of the project. Also, we have been in communication with the Resolution Trust Corporation relative dissolution of the Landmark golf course properties. They indicate that they will be marketing these in March of 1993. Changes in the status of these properties will have a direct impact on the development of the subject property. I am enclosing a check in the amount of $100 for the processing of this request. Thank you for your consideration of this request and your continuing assistance in this matter. Sincerely: B ron C. Radaker enclosure Attachment 3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN 84-003, AMENDMENT #2, TIME EXTENSION #5 "THE ORCHARD AT LA QUINTA" April 13, 1993 * Modified by the Planning Commissioner 2-12-91 ** Added by the Planning Commission 2-12-91 *** Proposed by the Planning Commission 4-13-93 1. The development of the resort hotel as approved by Specific Plan 84-003, Amendment No. 2 shall comply with the policies and provisions of the La Quinta General Plan. 2. Development of the site shall comply with the standards and requirements of the La Quinta Land Use Ordinance unless otherwise modified by these Conditions of Approval. 3. Specific Plan 84-003, Amendment No. 2 shall comply with the applicable provision of Tentative Parcel Map 19834, Revised No. 1, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. 4. The Planning Commission shall conduct annual reviews of this Specific Plan starting on or before February 18, 1990. During each periodic review by the Planning Commission, "The Orchard" developer/applicant shall be required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of the Specific Plan. The applicant/developer of The Orchard shall furnish such evidence of The Orchard's compliance as the City in the exercise of its reasonable discretion may require. Evidence of good faith compliance may include, but shall not necessarily be limited to, good faith compliance with the requirements of the Specific Plan. Upon conclusion of the annual review, the Commission may extend the approval period for twelve months at a time. (Amended by City Council Resolution #89-46, April 18, 1989.) ***5. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and or clearances from the following public agencies: o City Engineer o City Fire Marshal o Planning & Development Department o Riverside County Environmental Health Department o Coachella Valley Water District o California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit) CONAPRVL.031 1 Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 84-003, Amendment #2, Time Extension #5 April 13, 1993 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. ***6. Should project phasing plans be necessary, including phasing of public improvements, they shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning and Development Department. 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. BUILDING AND PROJECT DESIGN ***7. The development of the buildings and site shall comply with the approved Exhibits "A", "B", "C", and "D" as contained in the Planning and Development Department file for Specific Plan 84-003, Amendment #2 and the following conditions which conditions shall take precedence in the event of any conflicts with the provisions of the specific plan. If any major changes are proposed to the above referenced exhibits, the applicant must submit new exhibits to the Planning and Development Department for review by the Design Review Board. 8. The applicant shall submit plans for the location and design of any maintenance facilities for the hotel and its grounds to the Planning and Development Department for review and approval. 9. All mechanical equipment, heating and cooling equipment shall be ground mounted or screened from view by the buildings roof structure. 10. The location and design of trash enclosures shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for review and approval. STREETS, DRAINAGE. AND GRADING 11. The applicant shall comply with the following requirements of the City Engineer: a. The applicant shall dedicate all necessary public street and utility easements as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with the La Quinta General Plan. b. The applicant shall construct half width street improvements for Avenue 50 in accordance with the requirements of the City Engineer and the La Quinta General Plan. CONAPRVL.031 2 Conditions of Approval specific Plan 84-003, Amendment #2, Time Extension #5 April 13, 1993 C. The applicant shall be responsible for the construction of a landscaped median on Avenue 50, subject to compliance with City policies and procedures in effect at the time of the development. *d. In conjunction with the Conditions of Approval for Tentative Parcel Map 19834, Revised No. 1 and prior to the issuance of grading or building permits for Specific Plan 84-003, Amendment No. 2, the applicant shall submit an access/traffic circulation analysis prepared by a Registered Civil or Traffic Engineer for the hotel and parcel map site. This analysis shall address access from public roads and on -site circulation. This report shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval; and (if necessary) revised site and improvement plans conforming with the approved circulation analysis shall be submitted for review and approval. ***e. A thorough preliminary engineering, geological and soils engineering investigation shall be conducted. The report of the investigation ("the soils report") shall be submitted with the grading plan. ***f. A grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer. The plan must meet the approval of the City Engineer prior to approval of any final map(s). The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report and shall be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or an engineering geologist. A statement shall appear on the final map(s) that a soils report has been prepared for the tract pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health and Safety Code. 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. 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. In design of retention facilities, the percolation rate shall be considered to be zero unless the applicant provides site -specific data that indicates otherwise. 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. Retention basin slopes shall not exceed 3:1. If retention is on individual lots, the CONAPRVL.031 3 ,_ Conditions of Approval specific Plan 84-003, Amendment #2, Time Extension #5 April 13, 1993 retention depth shall not exceed two feet. If retention is in one or more common retention basins, the retention depth shall not exceed six feet. The design of the tract shall not cause any change in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the tract. Prior to issuance of any building permit the applicant shall provide a separate document bearing the seal and signature of a California registered civil engineer, geotechnical engineer, or surveyor that lists actual building pad elevation(s). ***g. Improvement plans for all on- and off -site streets and access gates shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the La Quinta Municipal Code, adopted Standard Drawings, and as approved by the City Engineer. Street pavement sections shall be based on a Caltrans design procedure for a 20- year life and shall consider soil strength and anticipated traffic loading. The minimum pavement section shall be 3" AC/4" Class-2 base for local streets and 41/2"/6" for arterial and collector streets. 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. ***h. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots, common retention basins and park facilities shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Common basins and park areas shall be designed with a turf grass surface which can be mowed with standard tractor -mounted equipment. CONAPRVL.031- Landscape and irrigation plans shall meet the requirements of and be signed by the Planning Director, the City Engineer, the Coachella Valley Water District, and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner. The applicant shall insure that landscaping plans and utility plans are coordinated to provide visual screening of above -ground utility structures. 4 Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 84-003, Amendment #2, Time Extension #5 April 13, 1993 The applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed grading, landscaping and irrigation plans to the Coachella Valley Water District for review and approval with respect to the District's Water Management Program. i. A detailed hydrology and hydraulic study of the site shall be required prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. All structures shall be protected from 100-year storm flooding. j. All utilities will be installed and trenches compacted to City standards prior to construction of any streets. The soils engineer shall provide the necessary compaction test reports for review by the City Engineer. k. An encroachment permit for work in any abutting local jurisdiction shall be secured prior to construction on joining improvements. *l. The applicant acknowledges that the City has formed a City-wide Landscape and Lighting District and the applicant agrees to be included in the district. Any assessments will be done on a benefit basis as required by law. ***m. 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. CONAPRVL.031 If the quality -assurance program has not been adopted, the applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 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 record 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 record drawings of all grading and improvements except water and sewer. Each sheet of the drawings shall have the words "Record Drawing" clearly marked on each sheet and be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the record condition. 5 Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 84-003, Amendment #2, Time Extension #5 April 13, 1993 ***12. The City is contemplating adoption of a major thoroughfare improvement program. If the program is in effect 60 days prior to recordation of any final map for this development, the development shall be subject to the provisions of the ordinance. *13. The applicant shall comply with the Planning and Development and Engineering Department's requirements for dust control during and after grading and construction. 14. Parking shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of the Municipal Land Use Ordinance and the City Engineer. 15. The applicant shall comply with the following requirements of the City Fire Marshal: a. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the City of La Quinta's adopted codes and ordinances in effect at the time of construction and the requirements of the City Fire Marshal. The City Fire Marshal may approve alternative means of compliance where deemed equivalent or superior to these standards. 16. The applicant shall comply with the following requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District: a. The domestic water system shall be installed in accordance with the District and City requirements at the time of development. b. The applicant shall provide and dedicate to the District, any land needed for the provision of additional facilities, including but not limited to sites for wells, reservoirs, and booster pumping stations. C. The site shall be annexed to CVWD Improvement District No. 55 for sanitation service. ***17. The applicant shall provide all necessary easements for public utilities. All existing and proposed utilities adjacent to or within the proposed development shall be installed underground. High -voltage power lines which the power authority will not accept underground are exempt from this requirement. MISCELLANEOUS: *18. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a noise study prepared by a licensed acoustical engineer. The study shall focus on the noise generated by this nonresidential use (including traffic noise) as it could affect residential uses within CONAPRVL.031 L Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 84-003, Amendment #2, Time Extension #5 April 13, 1993 1000 feet of the site and traffic noise from 50th Avenue. Based upon the study as approved by the Planning and Development Department, mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the design as required. 19. Perimeter walls or fences shall be subject to the following requirements: a. Walls shall be setback a minimum of twenty (20) feet from the Avenue 50 right- of-way. b. Portions of the wall along Avenue 50 may use wrought iron or similar open fencing to allow views into the project where appropriate. C. View of the parking lots shall be screened from Avenue 50 and adjoining parcels by the use of walls or combination walls/berms. d. The walls along the interior property lines may be placed on the property line. e. The design of the walls shall take into consideration any noise abatement considerations as required by Condition No. 18. f. All fencing designs, including location, materials and construction, shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for review and approval. g. A modification of these standards may be permitted dependent upon the overall design and location of the walls and site conditions. 20. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit plans to the Planning and Development Department for review and approval which shall indicate the following: a. Landscaping material, including plant type, species, size, spacing and location. b. Landscape Irrigation system incorporating water conservation measures where feasible. C. Locations of exterior walkways. d. Exterior lighting plan with details of proposed lighting fixtures. e. Design and location of trash enclosures in accordance with the requirements of the City and Palm Desert Disposal Service. CONAPRVL.031 Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 84-003, Amendment #2, Time Extension #5 April 13, 1993 *21. Prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy, the applicant shall submit a master signage plan to the Planning and Development Department, for review and approval by the Design Review Board. The plan shall indicate the following: a. Location, size and design of project signs. b. Directory signs at major entrances and appropriate points to direct emergency personnel. C. Location, size and design of on -site directional and informational signs. 22. Existing trees on the site shall be retained in general accordance with Exhibit "D". The applicant is encouraged to maintain the trees in agricultural production, provided that it is economically feasible. 23. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit two (2) copies of an archaeological survey report on the site to the Planning and Development Department for review and approval. Mitigation measures recommended in the approved survey shall be completed prior to commencement of grading. 24. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City's adopted infrastructure fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. This fee may include drainage fees. 25. A minimum 20-foot deep landscape setback shall be provided along 50th Avenue. Design of the setback shall be approved by Planning and Development Department. Setbacks shall be measured from ultimate right-of-way lines. Setback to be maintained by the applicant and/or operator of the hotel, unless alternate methods are approved by the Planning and Development Department. (Added by Minute Motion 90-008, February 13, 1990.) 26. 75 % of all structures within 150-feet of 50th Avenue right-of-way shall not exceed one story in height (maximum 20-feet), as approved by the Planning and Development Department. (Added by Minute Motion 90-008, February 13, 1990.) 27. All current Fire Department conditions and requirements shall be met, including upgrading of Condition of Approval #15 (City Fire Marshal conditions) of Specific Plan 84-003, Amendment #2. (Added by Minute Motion 90-008, February 13, 1990.) CONAPRVL.031 8 Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 84-003, Amendment #2, Time Extension #5 April 13, 1993 **28. Design Review Board shall review plans pertaining to buildings signage and major landscaping changes as determined necessary by the Planning and Development Department. **29. Prior to issuance of grading permit, applicant shall obtain and record permanent easement for emergency access along west side of property. Access shall be reviewed and approved by the City and Fire Marshall prior to recordation. This easement is to replace access to 50th Avenue which was eliminated with Lot Line Adjustments 90-117 and 118. ***30. 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. ***31. Prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for buildings within the project, applicant shall install traffic control devices and street name signs along access roads to those buildings. ***32. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of Ordinance 220 relating to landscape water conservation. CONAPRVL.031 9 2 �' Attachment Ak � �-' 1 •tea ��' )• -- 41 one► 13r� �< -.+. _�<. _ ' s`i • '.-' �--- �---- Ar .- ^:jTHE ORCHARD -AT;' &QUINT :':KIPP STEWARTj'DESIGN=,�-- %Y 0BERR.R AN #S; _ �-•••-tom -� ---.. i it 4.0 �6.rzsr�a�.::rc% I � ` —•may � • =—�.-r= lAcvumTY i /��yJ/�� a mb 1 �j7 11 � i lLnt O��'R�t�LrW THE ORCHARD RUFUS ASSOCIATES KIPPSTEWART DESIGN ROBERT FRANK UTTELL ARCHITECT RAKASSOViC NCHO MIRAGE ARCHITECTS SHERNA STEWART LANDSCAPE CARMEL 1 f, d r .4 i IT i t A C .. „E?10 i• y�r�.svl! .wrow 17 1 7 _ £ Tli ONpGRD e wia•wa waW� o ra`o... •.+.ems D • � _ , ' S ro•n•�.� orv<u+au s +,pose "."'ww ..i��..o+'�y.s• e•wr.. 1 4 rA Ii� "a ORCKAM DI - 1 v �I . _ -.71 :,; JIL, . ., -. - � - , - - - - - , -- - . . .. ... ir I THE ORCHARD RUFUS ASSOCIATES KIPPSTEWART DESIGN ROBERT FRANK LITTELL ARCHITECT S.KASSOVIC AJ-kARCHITECTS SHERNA STEWART LANDSCA CARMEL,'-.7- RANCHO MIRAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I r � � �• �, 3 14Li1i O r S- •• [r• o .lam ,a .. ;:(•.. ! . � r !.I •t = act' ` •••_ - E� +. r'-i Sj _ � i�`� w_ J, ��r YJ. .�`t It• m -tit 71 ; - _�� -4 - L---------------- �r•Yr....•�c��- .�.�.�o�. t 1 8 b - I i 1 11 r� • t E nE oaauM �-'-'� { 24 •fig, r ^� Kit J•' • •\ _ �z-� _ 1 - R f_�r.:--fit;;: :',.`.�'F .��/ ` '~- .� '„•- _ OAK - Mom - t an _ -TES ORCHARD:,AT,'kAyRUFUS;ASSOCI��•.' �'_:',•�s..�s, :•t; ��r :. wKIPPSTEWART . DESIGN �K?1 ET L %-AA E - �tS KASSOViC'AIA SPERNA STEWART LAND, ME HO,,M G i I t r 3 i I r� v u - _ as ��sti s VC A. 1 � _ r— f I >v � r r 1 s , f f�l eX 1. 1L•. .a�. �: .>•-_ • �� » 'iAi�. {�.-�K' `� ' ,3 1I THE ORCHARD,-ATMA'OUIPITA�'"'� ipE�J�SSSQC r ,SASS I ItKIPPSifWARTiDES* - ; ': AIM HE ORCHARD.TAT*'-,.k ap vv. `7777��,, g� J A ems: 1 A Z- MON ..,, 1 • • fly ..l� ` . i I ' _ '•s , Llj 1 r✓ «.0 _ 1 i i } � - I ' '( I�L' _' , _ _� � . I lei�' / •i. �q saa ;. .y' •!,i.+;��; .�:^a`. ,a;;-�:. '4"1G. • '.�.'y'.!l�-w: :.�i•:r'-N•k�+�•;;�.:•:.�' �5..+ i 0 RCHARD - RUFUS ASSOCIATES' '.KIPP STEWART DESIGN,' ►' f " ;' ROBERT FRANK UTTELL� ARCHITEC , •:; S.KASSOVIC AJAARCHITECTS ` CHO (RAGE.:. �:_ . SHERNA STEWART. LANDSCAPE : a.,CARMEI.:� a:; �.. a +� RA . _, M �� ► ' . Attachment 5 Planning Commission Minutes March 24, 1992 overturned by Council. $ 13. \Brcows issioner Mosher expressed his agreement with Chairwoman regarding the project and encouraged the property rs to participate during the public hearing process. 14. Discu sion followed between the Commission and Staff regarding the n ification process and making sure to obtain current property, owners. 15. There berg no further discussion, it was moved by Commissioned Mosher and seconded by Commissioner Marrs to adopt Minute Motion 92-012 denying the appeal. Unanimously approved B . Tentative Tract 23519, Minor Change #1, Second Extension of Time; a request of Santa Rosa Developers for a one year extension of time. 1. Principal Planner Sta Sawa presented the information contained in the Staff report, a c6py of which is on file in the Planning and Development Departmen 1, 2. There being no questions o Staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened the Public Hearing. Mr.3,rian Esgate, applicant, spoke on behalf of the request. 3. There being no further comment 'chairwoman Barrows closed the Public Hearing. 4. There being no comment by the ommission, Commissioner Ladner moved and Commissioner Ellsqn seconded a motion to adopt Planning Commission Resolution -011 approving the one year extension of time. N ROLLI CALL VOTE: AYES: Comnu ioners Mosher, Ladner, Ellson, MArrs, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: `lone. ABSENT: ~' None. ABSTAINING. V. PUBLIC OMMENT: - None VI. BUSINESS SESSION ` A. Specific Plan 94-003, (Amendment #2�; a request of Cusack Radaker Development Company, Inc. for approval of a one year extension of time for a specific plan which allows an 86 room hotel (The Orchard) on 37.5± acres. PC3-24 3 Planning Commission Minutes March 24, 1992 1. Planning Director Jerry Herman presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Mr. Byron Radaker, applicant addressed the Commission on the status of the project and the reason for the time extension request. 3. Commissioner Ellson asked if the original plans would be developed. Mr. Radaker stated at the present time this was their plan. Discussion followed as to which parcels were being developed. 4. Mr. Gary Lohman, representative of the applicant, asked if he could go on record as clarifying two of the Conditions of Approval. He stated Condition #29 had been met and Condition #28 regarding the landscaping plans had been approved. Staff stated and noted his comments, but stated the project would be reviewed again as the Design Review Board did not exist at the time of the project approval. 5. There being no further comment, Commissioner Ladner moved and Commissioner Mosher seconded a motion to adopt Minute Motion 92-013 approving the one year extension of time. Unanimously approved. B. or Temporary Outdoor Event 91-032; a request of Judi Combs, Th derbird Artists for approval of a time extension foOer art shows. 1. Tanning Director Jerry Herman presentqdf'the information c . tained in the letter of request, a copy which is on file in th lanning and Development Department. 2. Com Asioner Ellson asked if any changes could be made to the Conditi$►is of Approval. Staff stated they could not be done at this time., 3. There being .he further quesiions, it was moved by Commissioner Mosher and sdTnded by Commissioner Ellson to adopt Minute Motion 92-014 approving the time extension for MTOE 92-032. Unanimously apprr4d. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Commissioner Ell�on asked thet:_the Minutes of March 10, 1992, be amended on Paggw4, under Busineu Item A, #3 to show the spelling of Mr. Rover's fjest name as "Vin". ere being no other corrections, Commission Marrs move a and Commiss er Ellson seconded a motion to approve a Minutes of the regular m ling of March 10, 1992, as correct Unanimously approved. '1 PC3-24 4 � • I STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: APRIL 13, 1993 CASE NO.: GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING FOR COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT PROJECT APPLICANT: COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (CVWD) LOCATION: FRED WARING DRIVE EAST OF DUNE PALMS DRIVE 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. Recently CVWD submitted a list of 15 projects they were anticipating to construct. They have submitted an additional project for a consistency finding. The project consists of the installation of 1.5 miles of 8-inch pipe along Fred Waring Drive and Burr Street (in the County area) that will provide a secondary water and fire protection supply to the Nairobi zone. The pipeline will connect the existing larger lower La Quinta pumping zone through the smaller Nairobi zone. The Nairobi zone is currently supplied water from a single well, reservoir, and booster station. These facilities are old and deteriorating and are subject to mechanical breakdown. The installation of this pipeline will provide a secondary source of water for this area. Only a portion of this project is actually within the city limits of La Quinta. That portion is the pipeline between Dune Palms Road and Jefferson Street. East of that location the property is in Riverside County jurisdiction. Attached are maps showing the location of this project. ANALYSIS: The project while not providing service to La Quinta does provide the improved water service for the communities immediately surrounding La Quinta. CONSISTENCY FINDINGS: 1. CVWD's project is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the General Plan. PCST.115 2. As noted in the adopted General Plan, this project would strive to provide better water service to the residential communities. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above findings, the Planning and Development Department recommends by Minute Motion 93- , the Planning Commission determine that the project as proposed by CVWD in their letter dated March 9, 1993, is consistent with the General Plan. Attachments: 1. Letter from CVWD dated March 9, 1993 PCST.115 W AT ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY 'OIBTRIC� COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (619) 39&2651 DIRECTORS OFFICERS TELLISCODEKAS. PRESIDENT THOMAS E. LEVY. GENERAL MANAGER -CHIEF ENGINEER RAYMOND R RUMMONDS. VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTON, SECRETARY JOHN W McFADDEN OWEN McC00K ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER DOROTHY M DELAY March 9, 1993 REDWINE AND SHERRILL, ATTORNEYS THEODORE J FISH File: 0426.08 MAR 1 1 1993 Planning Commission City of La Quinta Post Office Box 1504 La Quinta, California 92253 Gentlemen: In compliance with Section 65402 of the Government Code, this District hereby notifies your agency that it proposes the Nairobi/Lower La Quinta Zone Intertie. The project consists of the installation of 1.5 miles of 8-inch pipe along Fred Waring Drive and Burr Street that will provide a secondary water and fire protection supply to the Nairobi Zone. The pipeline will connect the existing larger lower La Quinta pumping zone to the smaller Nairobi Zone. The Nairobi Zone is currently supplied water from single well, reservoir and booster station. These facilities are old and deteriorating and are subject to mechanical breakdown. The installation of this pipeline will provide a secondary source of water for this area. Project and general location maps are enclosed. No environmental impact report is enclosed, none having been prepared as this District has determined that this project will have no substantial impact on the environment. BAS:gh/march Enclosures/as Yours very truly, Tom Levy General Manager -Chief Yngineer TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY DETAIL MAP DRAWING No.2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: APRIL 13, 1993 CASE NO.: STREET VACATION 93•-024 REQUEST: CONSISTENCY FINDINGS FOR STREET VACATION 93-024; A REQUEST TO VACATE THE SOUTH HALF OF CALLE TAMPICO FROM EISENHOWER DRIVE TO ITS WESTERLY TERMINUS (I. E. AVENIDA CARRANZA) . APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA (ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT) LOCATION: CALLE TAMPICO BETWEEN EISENHOWER DRIVE & AVENIDA CARRANZA STREET DESIGNATION: LOCAL STREETS ARE INCLUDED SURROUNDING ZONING & LAND USE: NORTH: W-1 (WATERCOURSE, WATERSHED & CONSERVATION AREAS; LA QUINTA HOTEL GOLF COURSE AND BEAR CREEK BIKE TRAIL SOUTH: SR (SPECIAL RESIDENTIAL); VARIOUS SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS EAST: H-C (HILLSIDE CONSERVATION); INDIO MOUNTAIN WEST: C-V-T ( COMMERCIAL VILLAGE "TAMPICO") ; EXISTING APARTMENT COMPLEX ON THE EAST SIDE OF EISENHOWER DRIVE; AND SR (SPECIAL RESIDENTIAL) ; MULTIPLE FAMILY AND SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND AN EXISTING REAL ESTATE OFFICE. BACKGROUND The subject area is part of a future city assessment district (Phase V) project which has been under discussion since the early 1990's. The initial plan was to improve the area with new infrastructure improvements similar to other areas of the La Quinta Cove, south of Calle Durango (Phase IV) . One idea that has surfaced is to vacate the cross connections of Avenidas Velasco, Herrera, Vallejo, Ramirez, and Carranza with Calle Tampico, and redesign the streets so that they are short 22 lot cul-de- sacs. Future access to the area would be from Avenida Montezuma which is to the south of Calle Tampico . STAFFRPT . 004 SITE INFORMATION: Calle Tampico is presently improved with asphalt paving which was installed more than 20 years ago. The paving is old and in need of repair. The streets connecting Calle Tampico are also in the same condition. All streets in the area do not have curb and gutter improvements, but overhead utilities do exist in the area. The utilities are in the rear yards of each lot and along Calle Tampico and Avenida Montezuma. The city's future assessment district for this area will provide new water and sewer facilities, as well as new street improvements. Currently, the project area is 50% developed with single family residences. See the attached Land Use Map. Multiple unit developments are located along Eisenhower Drive. EXISTING CITY CIRCULATION PLAN: The City's Circulation Element designates Eisenhower Drive as a primary arterial (100-110 feet). Eisenhower Drive provides direct access from the La Quinta Cove to Washington Street (a major arterial) and Calle Tampico (a primary arterial) . Presently the intersection of Calle Tampico and Eisenhower Drive is a 4-way intersection but if the south half of Calle Tampico was vacated the intersection would revert to a 3-way or T-intersection. A traffic signal is planned for this intersection, however, it will not be installed until it meets the necessary warrants and when funding is available. Currently, no funds are available for this project in the next five years. PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS: Staff mailed requests for comments to all public agencies on March 19, 1993, stating that the City was reviewing the partial vacation of Calle Tampico westerly of Eisenhower Drive. We requested their responses by April 2, 1993. Those agencies which responded have been included in this report. STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS: The Planning Commission is required to examine the consistency of this request with the existing 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 Calle Tampico, west of Eisenhower Drive, as a major component of the existing General Circulation Plan. Calle Tampico is defined as a local street (approximately 60-feet wide) and its purpose is to provide access to adjoining properties with the movement of traffic given secondary importance. Local streets should discourage through traffic. POSSIBLE IMPACTS: The City's Engineering Department has contacted the neighbors in the immediate area to discuss the closing of Calle Tampico and placing cul-de-sacs in all five streets. See the attached maps. The neighbors have responded that they are receptive to the change and most people do not believe Avenida Montezuma will be impacted by the restructuring of the area. STAFFRPT . 004 2 Staff does not believe public safety personnel will be affected by the redesign of these five streets because the cul-de-sacs will be designed to accommodate vehicular turning movement for existing residents pursuant to existing design standards. CONCLUSION: The vacation request is consistent with the adopted City documents, and the public right-of-way vacation will not impact the existing local public agencies based on their attached written transmittals. FINDINGS: 1. The vacation of the south half of Calle Tampico west of Eisenhower Drive will not adversely affect the City nor impact any local public utility company provided reservation easements are maintained for the public utility companies. 2. The vacation request is in compliance with the City's existing General Plan. 3. The vacation of a portion of Calle Tampico will not adversely affect the Village at La Quinta Specific Plan (SP 87-009) because the project area is to the east of the subject area. 4. Avenida Montezuma will not be impacted by the restructuring of the area because the existing street is designed for east/west neighborhood traffic. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above finding, Staff recommends that by Minute Motion 93- , that the Planning Commission determine that the project is consistent with the General Plan. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Agency Comments 3. Land Use Map 4. Vacation Plat Map STAFFRPT . 004 3 V 14 k e /0 3A/d0 �l3MOHN3S/3 a w tayr ow• o0 O O ® a Wl 69 ♦ h m w x w 0 7 a Q VO/N3AV - w f 00 � • a d H � ? h 01. O ©w 0 01 � : © Ir sr 18 O O O O ® O �I I J/, 7S Vd3dd/3H VO/N3AV OP377YA VO/N3N3AV Z3b//YVdf VO/N3AV VZNVddVO — 101 VO/N-MV � n is y� rs I O �w m\ O� 2i O O O � gbh p O 0 4y0 � i X 78-105 CALLE ESTADO FROM: PLANNING 6 DEVELOPMENT City Manager Vfublic Works Dir. L,-�ty Engineer 1, ' re Marshal vPluilding & Safety VChamber of Commerce erial Irrigation i.�uthern California Gas _1::,eesert Sands School Dist. CV Unified School Dist. CV Mountain Conservancy CV Archaeological Society pto Management v;eneral Telephon ' CaIVrWW7D1stri�1; I I ) Agricultural Commission i.-ifs' Postal Service City of Indian Wells City of Indio Planner Associate Planner arming Director Riverside County: �eriff's Department Planning Department Environmental Health LA QUINTA CASE NO(S) : �'��►� VRG A�/!rJf3— 02�' 67Y 6,C PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VAtoox "ps's STr«.A �✓41AA af, gi G4fz2A-i PROJECT LOCATION: SouTri of �'AC.t.�E %A/"1P�/Co a use S 6� The City of La Quinta Development Review Committee is conducting an initial environmental study pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the above referenced project(s). Attached is the information submitted by the project proponent. Your comments are requested with respect to: 1. Physical impacts the project presents on public resources, facilities, and/or services.; 2. Recommended conditions: a) that you or your agency believe would 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 14fip - Z-. /993 and return the maps/plans if not needed for your filet. -You, are invited to attend the DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE meeting at La Quinta City Hall scheduled for: Date: Time: Contact Person: ��? _G� /�ZoutA6«- Title: Comments made by. AST1 0 _ Title:_12 6t' Dater 21y- %j Phone: S�13 - Agency/Division RIVERSIDE COUNTY COIS BYRD, SHERIFF she -riff 82-695 DR. CARREON BLVD. • INDIO, CA 92201 • (619) 342-89( PROUDLY SERVING AS THE LA QUINTA POLICE March 31, 1993 APR 1 1993 Mr. Greg Trousdell, Associate Planner City of La Quinta GiTY C-F 1A �.Li ,fA PLA.Nt�liou CF�R r Fdi 78-105 Calle Estado.,, La Quinta, California 92253 re: Street Vacation 93-024 Dear Mr .'3WU ell , The Police Department has no objections to the proposed street vacation. The residences situated on Avenida Montezuma, for the most part, face the north/south streets affected. I would recommend that the Building and Safety Department not allow further access to Avenida Montezuma in future building. This will serve to minimize the potential traffic conflict on Avenida Montezuma. At this point it is difficult to assess the number of additional trips to be created through the intersection of Avenida Montezuma and Eisenhower Drive. I recommend close monitoring of this intersection when the vacation is accomplished to determine whether further controls, to include signalization, are needed. To this end, our patrol officers will also monitor accidents and traffic flows. Emergency response times to homes located in the affected area will not be significantly impacted. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, D F. DYE Captain Station Commander ��, a �► �1Aw 0 IBM Ll ►--= OP3771VA VaiN3N3AV - x Ob 4 re O � �� w VO/NJAV - w w - - VZNVddVO — - VO/N3AV h F Q 0 couj � >, •r O r •E N o► cc-P 2 U- a) r N a) r ca. •r w C C) i) r cp 8 r fO e v V) O •t � Q) Q) Y�'� qt • e a; E w w w E �pv i ft w ; .• o�� •.fill MQ SCALE I' c 100 PARCEL ,CALLE N- LINE S.E. 1/4 SEC. I T. 6 S., R. 6 E., S.B.B.aM. PARCEL 2 S. 89.57'00"E. N 79.95' 80.06' ..----- Q ...... �Q 2 O� WIC ]Q w ]Q , QI 30'I I Jt=JI. i 3 1 30' 30, -SAN TA CAR L1TA UNIT NO. 9 FL 3 CALLE epared By, KICAK a ASSOC CIVIL ENGINEERS 41-555 COOK ST.,STE.220 PALM DESERT, CA. 92260 (6I9)- 341-9544 r9.95' 80.05 2 1 1 SLK, i i-p riT \/A LEE NI, s. N. LINE S.E. 1/4 SEC. I T. 6 S., R.6 E., S B. B. BI M. WEL 4 S.89° 57'00"E. LEGEND INDICATES PORTION TO BE VACATED PARCEL TAM P ICO O z-Wi JJ WJ Q' 1 30' 301 ! y1 LA Q tU J JNTA 18169 PARCEL 5 W W N CITY OF LA QU I NTA RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION PLAT SCALE: I " - 100' 1 W.O. No. 166.291 � f • DATE TO: 1 78-105 CALLE ESTADO - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 564-2246 April 13, 1993 PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR THE MERGED LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ISSUE: California Community Redevelopment Law, Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et. sea (the "Redevelopment Law") requires that the Planning Commission and Redevelopment Agency cooperate in a selection of project areas and in the preparation of a Preliminary Plan. Upon its completion and approval by the Planning Commission, this Preliminary Plan will be submitted to the Redevelopment Agency for their acceptance. Approval of the Preliminary Plan initiates the proceedings to merge the Redevelopment Agency's two redevelopment project areas. BACKGROUND: At their meeting held on March 16, 1993, the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") authorized the Interim Executive Director to proceed with the merger of the Agency's two existing redevelopment project areas, establishing the La Quinta Redevelopment Project Area that would encompass Project Area No. 1 and No. 2. Through the merger process, the Agency seeks to address the financial and time constraints embodied in the Redevelopment Plan for Project Area No. 1. Additionally, the proposed merger would expand the public infrastructure and facilities projects' list embodied in the Redevelopment Plan. Finally, adoption of the merger would provide the Agency with the maximum flexibility to utilize tax increment revenue funds throughout both project areas and mitigate the imbalance of revenue resources and needs between Project Area No. 1 and Project Area No. 2. The proposed merger does not modify the boundaries of the Project Area, nor does it add any additional territory to the Project Area. MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 Planning Commission April 13, 1993 Page 2 The Redevelopment Law prescribes that the Agency must follow the process set forth for adopting or amending redevelopment plans when undertaking this merger. As such, the Planning Commission is required to formulate and approve a Preliminary Plan for the proposed merger. ANALYSIS/FISCAL IMPACT: The contents of the Preliminary Plan are prescribed by the Redevelopment Law. Generally, the Preliminary Plan must include a description of the boundaries of the Project Area, a general description of the existing land uses, layout of principle streets, proposed population densities and building intensities, the general objectives of the Preliminary Plan, a statement of conformity to the General Plan, and a discussion of any potential impacts of the project to surrounding neighborhoods. A public hearing is not required prior to the approval of a Preliminary Plan. Approval of the Preliminary Plan does not obligate the Planning Commission to approve a proposed merger. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. approving the Preliminary Plan for the merged La Quinta Redevelopment Project and submitting the Preliminary Plan to the Redevelopment Agency for their acceptance. IM—talsnesapp PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 93- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CONFIRMING BOUNDARIES IN CONNECTION WITH THE MERGER OF THE LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND PROJECT NO. 2 AND APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAN FORMULATED FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE MERGED PROJECT AREA. WHEREAS, the City of La Quinta (the "City") has previously established Redevelopment Plans for the La Quinta Redevelopment Project ("Project No. 1 ") and La Quinta Redevelopment Project No. 2 ("Project No. 2"), which provide for the redevelopment of the project areas therein described ("Project Area No. 1" and "Project Area No. 2", respectively); and, WHEREAS the City and the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") have commenced proceedings for the merger of Project Area No. 1 and Project Area No. 2 (collectively, the "Merged Project Area"); and, WHEREAS no boundary changes are contemplated with respect to the proposed merger; and, WHEREAS, a Preliminary Plan for the Merged Project Area has been formulated; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Staff report submitted in connection with this matter and based thereon has determined that the project area boundaries as hereinafter set forth are appropriate. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California as follows: 1. The Planning Commission hereby selects and designates as the Project Area in connection with the proposed merger, the "Merged Project Area", as defined above. 2. The Planning Commission hereby approves the "Preliminary Plan" for the Merged La Quinta Redevelopment Project in the form submitted herewith as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference herein. 3. The presiding officer is hereby authorized and directed to submit the Preliminary Plan to the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency for the preparation of an official redevelopment plan for the merged redevelopment project. RESOPC.098 1 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 13rd day of April, 1993, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: KATIE BARROWS, Chairwoman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY MERMAN, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California RESOPC.098 2 EXHIBIT "A" PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR THE MERGED LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT April 6, 1993 Prepared for: La Quinta Redevelopment Agency 78-105 Calle Estado La Quinta, California 92253 619/564-2246 Prepared by: Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. 540 North Golden Circle, Suite 305 Santa Ana, California 92705 714/541-45 85 PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR THE MERGED LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................I SECTION II. PROJECT AREA LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ........................2 SECTION III. GENERAL STATEMENT OF PROPOSED PLANNING ELEMENTS......................................................................3 A. Land Use...................................................................................... 3 B. General Statement of Proposed Layout of Principal Streets............................................................................ 4 C. General Statement of Proposed Population Densities ..................... 4 D. General Statement of Proposed Building Intensities ....................... 4 E. General Statement of Proposed Building Standards ....................... 5 SECTION IV. ATTAINMENT OF THE PURPOSES OF THE LAW ........................5 SECTION V. CONFORMANCE TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY ......... 7 SECTION VI. GENERAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT UPON THE RESIDENTS OF THE PROJECT AREA AND SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS.............................................................................. 7 EXHIBIT 1 CITY OF LA QUINTA REGIONAL LOCATION EXHIBIT 2 PROJECT AREA NO. 1 MAP (EXHIBIT 3 PROJECT AREA NO.2 MAP PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR THE MERGED LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT I. INTRODUCTION This is the Preliminary Plan (the "Plan") for the proposed merger of La Quinta Redevelopment Project No. 1 and La Quinta Redevelopment Project No. 2 into one Redevelopment Project (the "Merged Project"). The adoption of this Preliminary Plan, prepared under the authorization of the La Quinta Redevelopment: Agency (the "Agency"), initiates the proceedings that would result in: (1) the merger of the Agency's two Redevelopment Project Areas (the "Merger"), (2) an increase in the tax increment and bond indebtedness financial limits to provide comprehensive financial limits for the Merged Project, (3) establishing a forty -year time period within which the Agency may incur indebtedness and implement redevelopment programs/projects, and (4) expand the public projects list embodied in the Redevelopment Plan. Once merged, the Redevelopment Plan for the Merged Project (the "Redevelopment Plan") will establish a single project area, known as the La Quinta Redevelopment Project Area (the "Project Area"). The City Council of the City of La Quinta activated the Agency on July 5, 1983. Shortly thereafter, in November 1983, the Agency adopted Redevelopment Project No. 1, which includes land designated for commercial, office, residential, retail, institutional, recreational and public uses. On May 16, 1989, the Agency established its second redevelopment project, Redevelopment Project No. 2. Located in the northern area of the City, Project Area No. 2 includes commercial and residential land uses. Neither Project Area has been modified nor amended since their respective adoption. laginta\preplan 1 04/06/93 In the summer of 1992, Agency staff initiated discussions with the Agency Board regarding the current limitations with the Redevelopment Plan for Project No. 1. These limitations will constrain the Agency's ability to correct blighting conditions, promote economic development, and facilitate the development of affordable housing within Project Area No. 1. These limitations include: 0 An unworkable public projects list which does not accord with the broader statutory authority and enabling provisions of the Redevelopment Plan for Project Area No. 1. In pursuing economic development, affordable housing, and other redevelopment activities in Project Area No. 1, the Agency finds that the development of public facilities and/or infrastructure is necessary to their success. The existing language within the Redevelopment Plan for Project Area No. 1 may frustrate the provision of funding for these projects. ® Financial limitations which constrain the Agency's ability to pursue further redevelopment activities. Should this limit be reached, the Agency will not receive tax increment revenue necessary to finance future Agency and taxing agency redevelopment projects. O As separate project areas, revenues from one project area typically cannot be used in the other project area. Although the Agency deals with many programs and activities which have benefits and applications outside of one project area, the Agency is generally constrained from utilizing the revenues from one project area in the other project area. A merger would provide greater flexibility, and would enhance the ability of the Agency to better focus and concentrate its efforts on these matters of greatest importance during a given time period. laginta\preplan 2 04/06/93 O Expiration of the power of eminent domain will inhibit future consolidation on a selective basis in promoting beneficial projects and eradicating blighting conditions. Although this task has been sparingly applied, it has been a necessary adjunct to negotiations and may be critical if the Agency is to implement powers and redevelopment programs at such time as the State and the region experience economic recovery. Given the constraints featured in the existing Redevelopment Plan for Project No. 1, combined with the infrastructure and economic development needs in Project No. 2 and the desire to set forth redevelopment plans in the existing Project Areas which are consistent and uniform in application, the Agency is proceeding with the merger of the two Redevelopment Projects. The Merger would address the limitations inherent in the Project No. 1 Redevelopment Plan, and, with its adoption, would provide the Agency with the maximum flexibility to utilize available tax increment revenue funds throughout both Project Areas. This Preliminary Plan has been prepared in accordance with Section 33324 of the Redevelopment Law which states that a preliminary plan should: (a) describe the boundaries of the project area; (b) contain a general statement of land uses, layout of principal streets, population densities, and building intensities and standards; (c) show how the purpose of the Law would be attained by such implementation of the redevelopment plan; (d) show how the proposed redevelopment plan conforms to the general plan; and (e) describe, generally, the impact of a redevelopment project upon residents of the project area and surrounding neighborhoods. laginta\preplan 3 04/06/93 U. PROJECT AREA LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The Project Area is located in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California. Located in the Coachella Valley, the City of La Quinta is 20 miles southeast of Palm Springs and 237 miles from Los Angeles. The City was incorporated in 1982 and encompasses an area of 23 square mules. The regional location of the City is depicted on Exhibit 1. Project Area No. 1 is bounded generally by Avenue 50 to the north, Jefferson Street to the east, Avenue 60 to the south, and the City limit boundary on the west. The boundaries of Project Area No. 1 are shown on Exhibit 2. Located in the northern area of the City, Project Area No. 2 is bounded by Avenue 50 to the south, Fred Waring Drive (Avenue 44) to the north, Washington Street to the west and Jefferson Street to the east. Project: Area No. 2 also includes property west of Washington Street, north of the prolongation of the future alignment of Avenue 48; property surrounding Point Happy, north of Highway 111 and west of Washington Street; and property easterly of Jefferson Street and north of Highway 111. Project Area No. 2 is depicted on Exhibit 3. As merged, the Project Area would encompass all territories of Project Area Nos. 1 and 2. The Merger does not propose to either add or delete property from the existing Project Areas. 1ag1nta\pmp1- 4 04/06/93 III. GENERAL STATEMENT OF PROPOSED PLANNING ELEMENTS A. LAND USES The land uses permitted in the Project Area shall be in conformance with the City of La Quinta General Plan (the "General Plan"), the Zoning Ordinance of the City, and all other state and local building codes and guidelines as they now exist or are hereafter amended. The following uses are presently permitted by the General Plan: - RESIDENTIAL Very Low Density Low Density Medium Density High Density - COMMERCIAL Village Commercial Tourist Commercial Special Commercial Mixed Commercial General Commercial Commercial Park - OPEN SPACE - WATER COURSE/FLOOD CONTROL B. GENERAL STATEMENT OF PROPOSED LAYOUT OF PRINCIPAL STREETS The principal streets within the Project Area include State Highway 111, Avenue 50, Washington Street, and Jefferson Street. The layout of principal streets and those that may be developed in the future shall conform to the Circulation Element of the General Plan as currently adopted or as hereafter amended. lagmta\preplan 5 04/06/93 Existing streets within the Project Area may be closed, widened or otherwise modified, and additional streets may be created as necessary for proper pedestrian and/or vehicular circulation provided they are consistent with the General Plan. C. GENERAL. STATEMENT OF PROPOSED POPULATION DENSITIES Permitted densities within the Project Area shall conform to the General Plan as currently adopted or as hereafter amended, and applicable ordinances and local codes. D. GENERAI. STATEMENT OF PROPOSED BUILDING INTENSITIES Building intensity shall be controlled by limits on: (1) the percentage of the building site covered by the building (land coverage); (2) the ratio of the total floor area ;For all stories of the building to the area of the building site (floor area ratio); (3) the size and location of the buildable area on the building site; and (4) the heights of the building. The limits on building intensity shall be established in accordance with the provisions of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and local codes and ordinances, as they now exist or are hereafter amended. The land coverage, sizes and location of the buildable areas will be limited, as is feasible and appropriate, to provide adequate open space and parking. E. GENERAI. STATEMENT OF PROPOSED BUILDING STANDARDS Building standards shall conform to the building requirements of applicable local codes and ordinances. The Agency may consider more restrictive requirements and may incorporate such requirements into the Redevelopment Plan in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare. pinta\preps 6 04/06/93 IV. ATTAINMENT OF THE PURPOSES OF THE REDEVELOPMENT LAW The purposes of the California Community Redevelopment Law, Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq. (the "Redevelopment Law") are to protect and promote the sound development and redevelopment of economically, socially and physically deficient areas, and to protect the general welfare of the inhabitants of the communities in which they exist. These purposes would be attained more extensively through the Merger by allowing the Agency to alleviate conditions of blight in the Project Area, revitalize commercial and industrial areas, protect residential uses and neighborhoods, incorporate additional public improvement and facilities projects and provide funds necessary to finance them. Procedurally, the Merger would be accomplished by amending both Redevelopment Plans for Project Area Nos. 1 and 2. Public Projects The Redevelopment Law requires that public facility and infrastructure projects are to be provided for in the redevelopment plan in conjunction with the redevelopment agency's funding said projects. As stated above, the Redevelopment Plan for Project Area No. 1 includes an unworkable public projects list which does not accord with the broader statutory authority and enabling provisions of the Redevelopment Plan for Project Area No. 1. Certain language in the existing Redevelopment Plan for Project Area No. 1 may frustrate the ability of the Agency to gain outside support for or to provide needed funding to address particular public improvements which are identifiable as community development needs, and the provision of which would alleviate such conditions of blight as poor traffic circulation, inadequate street construction, flooding conditions, and traffic safety problems. 6q-taa-pt- 7 04/06/93 Bonded Indebtedness and Tax Increment Revenue Limits The Redevelopment Law states that a redevelopment plan shall contain a limitation of the total tax increment an agency may receive and total dollar amount of bonds outstanding at one time. By modifying the limitations as contemplated by the Agency, the Agency will have an ongoing capability to meaningfully address and support economic development programs, programs to remedy deficiencies of public improvements, and programs for the promotion of affordable housing. Although Project Area No. 2 has the greater development potential, which could result in significant tax increment revenue, the existing tax sharing agreements with affected taxing entities have resulted in the Agency retaining only 50% of all tax increment revenue generated within this Project Area. Of these funds, the Agency must allocate 20% to increase and improve the supply of affordable housing within the community. As a result, for every dollar of tax increment revenue generated within Project Area No. 2, the Agency is left with only $0.30 to facilitate nonhousing redevelopment activities. In addition, activities concerning the taxing of Agency revenue from Project Area No. I have resulted in the frustration of planning and implementation which would be alleviated in part by the Merger. The Redevelopment Law generally does not allow the transfer of tax increment revenue from one project area to another project area. However, through the merger process, all of the resources of Project Area No. 1 and Project Area No. 2 can be pooled to better focus upon these programs needed from time to time, and generating wider benefit. V. CONFORMANCE TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY This Preliminary Plan conforms to the City of La Quinta General Plan. The Plan proposes a consistent pattern of land uses and includes all highways and public facilities as indicated by the General Plan as it now exists or is hereafter amended. laginta\preplan 8 04/06/93 VI. GENERAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT UPON THE RESIDENTS OF THE PROJECT AREA AND SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS The impact of the Merged, Project will generally be in the areas of improved public infrastructure, facilities and services, improved living environment, increased and improved supply of affordable housing, and enhanced employment and economic activity. Redevelopment activities within the Project Area will provide for the improvement, development, replanning, redesign, reconstruction and rehabilitation of the area and the provision of commercial, industrial, public and other structures and open spaces in the interest of the general welfare of the community. It is also anticipated that redevelopment activities orchestrated by the Agency will provide additional employment opportunities and enhance the environmental quality of the community. Thus, the impact of the Merged Project upon the entire City will be positive. Implementation of the Redevelopment Plan will occur as sufficient financial resources are available. Redevelopment projects are intended to be phased over a period of time, with only a limited amount of direct activity at any one time. Redevelopment projects will be subject to future review and approval by the City Council, Agency, Planning Commission and other appropriate bodies after input has been solicited from affected residents, property owners and other interested parties. laq-ta\preplan 9 04/06/93 MILES JF7 gamin X1114, AVENUE O aiv ToNj q, s an AVENUE X11111 a MWE mg IK % )-i LU w NI AVENUE imonminmelva AVENUE 50 m = a ® m ® 11 Project Area Boundaries EXHIBIT 11311, PROJECT AREA NO. 2 MAP RoSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP INC. `— -- - <y .�.. Project Area Boundaries -,w: 04 MEN 51 r9mc— a I I i MP W[_ P. - - ��tVP "01A or AlIxur i Is 1 I - N L L m" m mm" EXHIBIT 11211 PROJECT AREA NO. 1 MAP ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP INC. DESERT HOT SPRINGS ® RIVERSIDE RhK0d• County PALM 6PQINOS ® LA t?u" EXHIBIT 11111 CITY OF LA QUINTA REGIONAL LOCATION ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP INC. CC MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California March 23, 1993 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. The meeting was called to order at 7:03 P.M. by Chairwoman Barrows who led the flag salute. II. ROLL CALL A. Chairwoman Barrows requested the roll call. Present: Commissioners Mosher, Ellson, Marrs, Adolph, and Chairwoman Barrows. B. Staff Present: Planning Director Jerry Herman, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Department Secretary Betty Anthony. C. Chairwoman Barrows excused herself from the public hearing due to a possible conflict of interest and turned the meeting over to Vice Chairman Mosher. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. General Plan Amendment 92-041 Preannexation Zoning_92-073. Sohere of Influence #9,and Annexation #9; a request of Travertine Corporation 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). 1. Planning Director Jerry Herman presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Commissioner Adolph asked Staff if Section 32 would be included in the annexation. Staff stated it would be. Commissioner Mosher inquired if the Bureau of Land Management owned the entire Section. Staff stated they did and explained the procedure that would need to be followed should the area be developed. PC3-23 Planning commission Minutes March 23, 1993 3. Commissioner Ellson asked Staff to clarify the purpose of the dike and whether there would be access to the area. Staff explained the area was in a flood plain and the dike was to divert that water. As to access, Staff would see that right-of-ways would be preserved. Discussion followed as to possible access to the area and how that access could be obtained. 4. Commissioner Adolph asked Staff if a complete EIR should be done at this time to ensure protection of the trails. Staff explained that since there was no project proposal before them, there virtually was nothing to do an EIR on. Commissioners then discussed with Staff the constraints that the area would demand if a development were proposed. Commissioner Adolph expressed his concern that provisions were in place that an EIR would be required when and if a development were proposed. 5. Vice Chairman Mosher explained to the public that Staff had answered most of the questions brought up during the public hearing on the 23rd of February, and he would re -open the public hearing at this time for anyone wishing to offer new information that had not be stated at the previous meeting. 6. Ms. Bern Schwenn, Coachella Valley National History Association, stated her concern that Section 5 should be downzoned due to the flood control problems. She went on to explain the possible location of the flood control diversion and this would block the trail heads. She further stated her concern for the Desert Tortoise and Big Horn Sheep in the area. She felt a complete EIR must be done at this time. In addition, she felt that the designation of "Open Space" should be defined as "natural open space" and not include golf courses. 7. Planning & Development Director stated that according to the BLM ratings, the Desert Tortoise is not known to inhabitat this area. 8. Commissioner Ellson questioned Staff regarding the Hillside Open Space designation in relation to density. Discussion followed regarding units per acre and development transfers. 9. Commissioner Adolph asked Staff if a buffer zone was utilized by the City and what a "buffer zone" was. Staff stated that at the present time there was no buffer zone used by the City, but should one become necessary it would be utilized. It merely referred to a set distance between development and the natural environment. 10. Commissioner Marrs stated he felt there was no way an EIR could be accomplished at this time with no development being proposed. PC3-23 Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 1993 11. Commissioner Ellson expressed her concern regarding the density and the slope. There was a potential to have 6,000 units on the three Sections. She felt the zoning should be no more than 2 units per acre. Commissioner Ellson asked if any development was allowed in the H-C zone. Staff explained that one unit per 10 acres was allowed. Staff went on to explain the H-C zoning. 12. Vice Chairman Mosher stated he felt the 2-4 units per acre was adequate density. 13. Following a discussion regarding density, Commissioner Adolph moved and Commissioner Marrs seconded a motion to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 93-007 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 application. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Ellson, Marrs, Adolph, & Vice Chairman Mosher. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. Chairwoman Barrows: None. Chairwoman Barrows rejoined the Commission. B. Tentative Tract 23773; a request of Starlight Dunes for approval of a third one year extension of time for recordation of final tract map for Phases 2 and 3. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Commissioner Mosher inquired why Staff had changed Condition 11. Staff explained that it was to bring it into compliance with current regulations. 3. There being no further questions, Chairwoman Barrows opened the public hearing. As no one wished to address the Commission regarding the matter, Chairwoman Barrows closed the public hearing. 4. Commissioner Marrs moved and Commissioner Ellson seconded a motion to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 93-008 recommending to the City Council approval of a final extension of time for Tentative Tract 23773 for Phases 2 and 3. Pc3-23 3 Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 1993 IV. ]PUBLIC COMMENT: A. Ms. Audrey Ostrowsky, La Quinta resident expressed her concern that the ]Engineering Department was leap -frogging the sewer systems and the closure of Tampico would cause safety problems. Chairwoman Barrows explained to Ms. Ostrowsky that the Planning Commission has no jurisdiction over the sewer assessments. This is handled by the Council. V. BUSINESS SESSION: A. Review of Landscaping Plans; a request of the City for review of landscaping plans prepared by TKD Associates, Inc. 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 Marrs questioned Staff as to whether the sound wall was being built by Birtcher. Staff stated it was. Discussion followed as to who was responsible for the landscaping costs for the median on Washington Street. 3. Mr. Tom Doczi, TKD Associates reviewed the landscaping plans with the Commission. 4. Commissioner Marrs questioned how the lawn area irrigation could be accomplished without watering the street. Mr. Doczi explained that a 6- inch curb with a 12-inch mow strip plus recessing the sprinklers should eliminate street watering. Discussion followed regarding the type of sprinkler heads and drip irrigation. 5. Commissioner Adolph asked whether the wall footings would be a problem. Mr. Doczi stated they would be that was why vines were being used in narrow areas. Commissioner Adolph questioned why more and plants were used in previous medians and now the more lush plants were being planted. Mr. Doczi stated this was due to more accessibility of the work crews. Commissioner Adolph felt the medians should maintain continuity throughout the City. He further expressed his concern regarding the maintenance of the Pepper trees. 6. Chairwoman Barrows expressed our concern regarding continuity and feels the City should make a statement by using more and plants. She PC3-23 4 Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 1993 further stated that all the turf should be eliminated and replaced with rock and more and plants. Also the Pepper tree replaced with a Mesquite, Palo Verde tree, or Ocotillo tree. Discussion followed among the Commissioners regarding the different type of plants that could be used. 7. Following the discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Marrs and seconded by Commissioner Ellson to adopt Minute Motion 93-014 recommending approval of the landscaping plan to the City Council subject to the following changes: a. The turf to be replaced with more and plants. b. Replacement of the Pepper tree with more native trees. C. Use of boulders and more drought tolerant, native plants such as the Brittle Bush and Ocotillo. Unanimously approved. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Chairwoman Barrows asked that the Minutes of February 23, 1993, be amended on Page 2 and 4 to show that Chairwoman Barrows with drew from the public hearing due to a possible conflict of interest. Commissioner Mosher moved and Commissioner Adolph seconded a motion to approved the Minutes as amended. Unanimously approved. VII. OTHER - None VIH. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Adolph and seconded by Commissioner Mosher to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting on April 13, 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 8:37 P.M., March 23, 1993. PC3-23 5