1993 09 28 PCW11FIV,a� �a �utin(a
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall Council Chambers
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California
September 28, 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 93-035
Beginning Minute Motion 93-046
CALL TO ORDER - Flag Salute
ROLL CALL
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Item ............... CHANGE OF ZONE 91-066, SPECIFIC PLAN 93-023,
TENTATIVE TRACT 27854, AND PLOT PLAN 93-022
Applicant .......... JASCORP
Location ........... ±700 feet north of Calle Tampico on the west side. of
Washington Street.
Request ............ Approval of a change of zone designation for from R-1 R-
2 8,000, and C-P to R-2; a specific plan to develop design
and architectural standards for a 124 unit planned unit
development project; a tentative tract map to subdivide 12±
acres into 124 single family lots; and a plot plan to develop
a low and moderate income zero lot line single family home
pproject.
Action ............. Resolution 93- Resolution 93- Resolution 93-
, and Minut- e-iv otion 93-
PC/AGENDA
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 - None
CONSENT CALENDAR
Approval of the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of September 14, 1993.
OTHER
ADJOURNMENT
STUDY SESSION
MONDAY, September 27, 1993
4:00 P.M.
1. All Agenda items.
PC/AGENDA 2
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: SEPTEMBER 28, 1993 (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 14, 1993)
PROJECT: CHANGE OF ZONE 91-066, SPECIFIC PLAN 93-023, TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP 27854 & PLOT PLAN 93-502; (LA QUINTA VILLAGE)
APPLICANT: JASCORP (MR. JOSEPH A. SWAIN, PRESIDENT)
ARCHITECT: STOFFREGEN FULLER & ASSOCIATES; MR. ROGER DE COSTER
PROJECT
ENGINE.R: HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES;
MR. BRUCE HUNSAKER & MR. STEPHEN MC CUTCHAN, AICP
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT: HORTON SHEPARDSON & ASSOCIATES (JOHN COSTANZA)
OWNER: AMCOR CAPITAL INC. (MR. ROBERT WRIGHT)
REQUEST: CHANGE OF ZONE: THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A
CHANGE IN THE ZONING DESIGNATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 12
ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM R-1 (ONE FAMILY DWELLING), R-2
*8,000 (MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS), AND C-P (GENERAL
COMMERCIAL) TO R-2 (MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS) FC
PROPERTY ON APPROXIMATELY 12 ACRES OF LAND ON THE WEST
SIDE OF WASHINGTON STREET, JUST SOUTH OF THE LA QUINTA
STORM CHANNEL/WASHINGTON STREET BRIDGE AND 700 FEET
NORTH OF CALLE TAMPICO.
SPECIFIC PLAN: TO DEVELOP DESIGN AND ARCHITECTURAL
STANDARDS FOR A 124 UNIT (SINGLE FAMILY) PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP: TO SUBDIVIDE APPROXIMATELY 12
ACRES INTO 124 DEVELOPABLE LOTS FOR FUTURE ATTACHED
SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING AND OTHER COMMON LOTS FOR
STREETS, RECREATION OR LANDSCAPING PURPOSES. THE
REMAINDER PARCEL IS PROPOSED.
PLOT PLAN: TO DEVELOP A 124 LOW AND MODERATE INCOME
ZERO LOT LINE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
BONUS
DENSITY: THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A DENSITY BONUS FOR THEIR
PROJECT BASED ON GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65915 BECAUSE
THE PROJECT WILL INCLUDE PROVISIONS FOR AFFORDABI
HOUSING UNITS.
EXISTING ZONING: R-1 (ONE FAMILY DWELLING) & R-2 *8,000
(MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS) & C-P (GENERAL
COMMERCIAL)
STAFFRPT.113/CS -1-
SURROUNDING ZONING
& LAND USE: NORTH: R-3/R-2 8,000 MULTI-FAMILY/R1 SINGLE
FAMILY; LA QUINTA COUNTRY CLUB
(TENNIS RESORT)
SOUTH: C-P GENERAL COMMERCIAL; VACANT
(FUTURE RALPH'S SHOPPING CENTER)
EAST: SR SPECIAL RESIDENTIAL; SCATTERED
SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
WEST: R-3 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; VACANT
DESCRIPTION
OF SITE: THE PROPOSED +12 ACRE SITE IS THE NORTHERLY HALF
OF A PORTION OF A 17.6 ACRE SITE (2 TAX LOTS). THE LOT
IS FLAT AND UNDEVELOPED AT THIS TIME. THE PROPERTY
HAS +680 FEET OF FRONTAGE ALONG WASHINGTON STREET AND
IS 740 FEET IN DEPTH. THE SITE ELEVATION ALON
WASHINGTON STREET IS APPROXIMATELY 60 FEET ABOVE SEA
LEVEL.
LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF WASHINGTON STREET AND SOUTH OF THE LA
QUINTA STORM CHANNEL AND APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET NORTH
OF CALLE TAMPICO
ON -SITE PARKING: PROVIDED (124 COVERED/258 UNCOVERED) = 382
REQUIRED (2 GARAGE SPACES/UNIT) + 2 DRIVEWA
SPACES + ACCESSORY SPACES FOR THE CLUBHOUSE) = 50
BACKGROUND:
In 1991, the Planning Commission reviewed a low and moderate income
senior citizen apartment complex for this site (Plot Plan 91-467).
The developer proposed approximately 550 square feet to 1,550 square
feet one story units. The original Applicant proposed 109 units on
approximately 9 acres. The developer had requested Redevelopment
Agency assistance, but an agreement could not be secured. On
November 19, 1991, the City Council tabled the case until later for
further review and consideration. No action has occurred on this
case since 1991.
On September 14, 1993, the Planning Commission continued JASCORP's
request to develop a 124 unit apartment complex at the site because
the Applicant was in the process of submitting a subdivision map and
specific plan for the project so the dwelling units could be sold
instead of rented. The Planning Commission continued the Change of
Zone and Plot Plan applications to September 28, 1993.
SITE BACKGROUND
The site is improved with street improvements along Washington Street
but the site does not have permanent curb, gutter, and sidewalk
improvements at this time. The improvements along the frontage of
the site were installed by the City in 1992. The site will be
allowed access onto Washington Street pursuant to the past
review/approval of the Ralph's Shopping Center project. This common
driveway will be signalized.
STAFFRPT.113/CS -2-
A secondary access point is proposed into the shopping center at the
southwest corner of the site at the cul-de-sac bulb.
SITE DESIGN
The design concept uses a mixture of one and two story (duplex style)
residential units around a 32 foot wide private street. The front
yards and the back yards will be for private recreation. A community
building and swimming pool and spa has been proposed at the main
gated entry.
MARKET CONCEPT
Approximately 40 units are planned for very low, low, and moderate
income families and the Developer is presently working with the
City's Redevelopment Agency on this matter as of the writing of this
report. The remaining units will be market rate units. The
developer will explain the marketing concept at the meeting.
CIRCULATION/PARKING
As mentioned above, the site has one point of access onto Washington
Street which is a divided major arterial (120-foot right-of-way).
The entry into the site is located at the southeast corner of the
property. The entry is to be signalized and shared with the future
Ralph's Shopping Center to the south. The project will be a gated
community. The private streets will be 32-feet wide and will permit
parking on one side of the street plus two-way travel.
SECONDARY ACCESS
The Riverside County Fire Marshal has requested that the project have
two points of access into the site. To accommodate the Fire
Department's request an emergency access gate will be provided at the
southwest corner of the residential complex at the terminus of the
cul-de-sac bulb. The access point can be for either emergency
purposes or for on -site resident usage. The number of parking spaces
on the Ralph's site will be reduced by 2 or 3 spaces to provide this
access. The design solution should be reviewed by Staff and the
Riverside County Fire Marshal either prior to or during plan check.
LANDSCAPING/SCREENING
The landscape setback along the frontage of the site is approximately
20 feet (excluding the parkway right-of-way), and a meanderin
sidewalk is shown along Washington Street. This sidewalk should be
eight feet wide to allow pedestrian and bikeway travel. Landscaping
will be interspersed throughout the site and a six foot wall will be
installed around the perimeter of the site for security purposes.
Decorative wall features are located at the main gated entry.
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
The proposed single and two story Mediterranean design of th
residential units and clubhouse is consistent with the City's design
guidelines (e.g. the roof, rough stucco exterior, and consistent
with the design standards of a low density condominium project,
etc.). The duplex units include a variation in architectura
elements and color schemes.
STAFFRPT.113/CS -3-
The project architect has proposed four architectural styles for the
two story plan and two for the one story plan. The plans vary the
roof design style by using a combination of hip roofs and gable
roofs. Additional embellishments include changes in textures, window
treatments, wing walls, column supports and other sligh
architectural changes. The seven color schemes use a collection of
light desert color tones to accent each building type. However, the
concrete roofing material will be the same for each building (Espanz
Mission #108).
A one story clubhouse (approximately 1,436 square feet) for the
residents is also proposed. The design is consistent with the
overall design theme for the project.
UNIT SIZES
The Developer has proposed units which range in size from 1,109 to
1,232 square feet which is larger than the minimum 750 square foot
size required. These size units are consistent with the normal size
of a small single family home. All units will be two and three
bedroom units, therefore, staff believes the project will be geared
for small families, singles or senior citizens.
BUILDING HEIGHTS
One story buildings (approximately 18 1/2 feet high) have been
proposed along Washington Street because of the "low density" height
policy in the City's General Plan. The City's policy has been to
require one story units within 150-feet of a major thoroughfare for
aesthetic purposes. The Applicant's plan meets this requirement. A
two story design has been used for a majority of the units
independent of the one story units along Washington Street. The two
story units are approximately 24-feet in overall height. The R-2
Zone code standards permit 28-feet.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
A planned unit development (PUD) usually involves a mixture of
single-family residences, town houses, apartments, some commercial or
industrial uses. However, not all PUD's include nonresidential uses,
nor do all PUD's contain clustered housing, but PUD's do involve
variation in building architectural styles and other design
standards. Planned unit development controls are usually implemented
as part of a zoning ordinance, overlay zone, or specific plan. This
project outlines the general parameters of the PUD in the proposed
Specific Plan.
DESCRIPTION OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 27854
The Tract Map request was submitted to staff on September 10, 1993,
in order to change the project from a multiple family apartment
complex into a zero -lot line planned unit development (attached
single family condominiums). The map proposes approximately 2,500
square foot lots or larger for each home on a private street
circulation system. The streets are 32-feet wide. A remainder
parcel is shown but it will be used in the future Ralph's Shopping
Center (PP 91-456), which was approved by the City in 1991 and
amended in 1992.
STAFFRPT.113/CS -4-
The PUD project will provide single -deed ownership (fee simple) to
each home to the boundaries of each lot. Each owner will be a member
of the incorporated homeowner's association to manage the common
lots, clubhouse, or other common facilities.
DESCRIPTION OF SPECIFIC PLAN 93-023
The Specific Plan has been submitted because the developer would like
to develop and sell single family (zero -lot line) homes. The R-2
Zoning Code does not specifically address this type of housing,
therefore, the Specific Plan document will guide development of the
site. It implements the local general plan by creating a bridge
between General Plan policies and individual development proposals.
It contains the locations and standards for land use densities,
streets, and other public facilities in greater detail than the
General Plan. The Specific Plan can supercede the provisions of the
Zoning Code as long as the standards do not run contrary to the
general plan.
The developer requests the following features or adjustments:
1) Lot Size: The minimum lot size is 7,200 square feet for this
property. The Specific Plan proposes approximately 2,500 square
foot lots or larger because the homes will be sharing a common
property line (zero -lot line). Each private lot will be required
to meet the normal -setback requirements for the other three sides
of the lot.
Staff Comments:
Zero -lot line projects help create interest in a project by
creating a larger building mass and eliminating one small side
yard which is common standard in detached single family housing.
The common property line building wall design has a number of
advantages both to the owner and builder. The owner's savings
are during the construction process and the future owner saves
money in monthly energy costs. Further, the State encourages
cities to provide incentives to the developer to assist in the
construction of affordable projects. A smaller lot size is one
way to reduce the overall cost of the project. Large lot sizes
impede construction of smaller single family homes. Smaller lots
allow a higher net density to be achieved. Staff is more
receptive to this type of concession than reducing the City's
architectural standards to accommodate the proposed project.
STAFFRPT.113/CS -5-
2) Private Streets: The developer is proposing private streets
for the project which will be maintained by the future
Homeowner's Association. The streets are 32 feet wide and all
homes have either direct or indirect access to the circulation
system. Planned residential projects are permitted 32 foot wide
private streets.
However, items which can be discussed in the Specific Plan are:
1) whether the cul-de-sac bulbs need to be 90-feet in diameter,
2) whether the lot frontages should be 60-feet unless on a
cul-de-sac which is 35-feet, 3) whether street sidewalks are
necessary, and 4) whether or not the minimum return radius of
25-feet should be maintained.
Staff Comments:
The street design standards for the tract are not unusual for
condominium style projects since the focus is on creating common
recreation areas and private facilities with limited maintenance
for roadway areas. The 32-foot wide streets will allow on -street
parking on one side of the street. Thirty-two foot wide streets
have been allowed by the City in the past. and they were permitted
in portions of the Tradition and Rancho La Quinta tracts. The
City would prefer 36-foot wide streets because it adds some
additional space for two-way traffic movement, but the proposed
streets will provide adequate space for vehicular circulation.
Smaller street widths reduce direct capital costs for pavement
and cut and fill. It also reduces incidental costs associated
with utility installation and maintenance. These future cost
savings will be conveyed to the future buyers.
3) Architectural Character & Guidelines: The Specific Plan
proposes that all of the units of the project will be
architectural compatible. The project architecture is
representative of a California Mediterranean architecture (e.g.
tile roofing, heavy stucco, etc.), and included in the Specific
Plan text are examples of the proposed units.
Staff Comments:
The architectural characteristics of the one and two story units
is consistent with the existing single family homes in the
general area. The only difference is the project contains two
story units which are allowed in the R-2 Zone District but not
allowed in the SR zoned properties to the east. Staff supports
the two story units because they are not located on Washington
Street and they will assist in providing additional outdoor
recreation spaces for each home since the lots are smaller than
average for this area of the City.
4) Phasing: The Tract Map will not be phased, but the developer
might choose to phase the development during the building permit
process. Any phasing plans should be reviewed by the Director of
Planning and Development.
STAFFRPT.113/CS -6-
5) On -Site Parking: The developer has requested that the City
permit single one car garages for the project instead of two -car
garages. The developer would like to substitute open parking
spaces in -lieu of the required second garage space.
Staff Comments:
Each unit will have three on -site parking spaces versus four, but
on -street parking is also proposed to make up for this
deficiency. The Specific Plan can provide for this adjustment
because the State Code encourages cities to permit parkin
deviations to assist affordable projects. The parking
modification will reduce capital costs and avoid over consumption
of land otherwise available for housing. As referenced earlier,
on -street parking will supplement the on -site parking program.
Staff is not opposed to the Applicant's parking program since the
project is a private, gated facility.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
The Design Review Board met on August 4, 1993, to discuss this
application request. The Applicant's representative, Mr. Joe De
Coster, presented both the Applicant's marketing strategy and the
design program. Mr. De Coster stated that his client would like to
build an affordable project for empty -nesters, single parents, or
senior citizens and they anticipate a large portion of the project
will be first time home buyers.
The Board discussed initially the security features of the project
and some of the members felt the perimeter fencing should bi
masonry. They thought a masonry wall would be more appropriate
because it would last longer than wood fencing and although it would
cost more, it would benefit the future residents both in security and
durability. The Board also discussed the pros and cons of masonry
fencing within the project for each respective unit.
Mr. De Coster stated that his client has proposed painted wood
fencing for the interior areas because they believe it will reduce
the development costs and will withstand the desert climate because
they are using clear heart redwood or cedar lumber. The Board
discussed whether or not the interior fencing should be masonry or
wood and whether the rear yard fencing abutting the passive greenbelt
recreation areas should be wrought iron (e.g. 2-foot block with
wrought iron). Mr. De Coster stated that the fencing will be used
for both the confinement of animals or children.
The Board also discussed whether or not metal garage doors (sectional
or otherwise) should be considered in -lieu of wooden doors. The
Design Review Board thought that the doors would last longer than
wood, however, they recognized the possibility that if the doors were
hit the metal would be permanently dented. The applicant would
prefer the wood doors because they are less expensive and can
withstand bumps better than metal doors. The Board debated whether
or not the future Homeowner's Association should maintain the doors
so that they are kept nice if the project should become an ownership
development.
STAFFRPT.113/CS -7-
The Board thought the one and two story units were attractive and
that the exterior colors and materials were consistent with the
desert environment. The Board did debate whether or not one story
units should be used along the entry driveway into the project to
reduce the "tunnel" effect created by the two story units on the west
side of the private drive. Mr. De Coster stated that the two story
units along the first north/south (east side) are stepped and do
create a pleasing exterior elevation in conjunction with the one
story units along Washington Street. He said he would be opposed to
this change.
The Washington Street wall was discussed because staff proposed that
the applicant duplicate the six foot wall design on the east side of
the street which was installed by the City last year. The
applicant's representative stated that they would like to build a
stuccoed masonry wall along their frontage but they did not feel that
they should be responsible for the green ceramic tile band along the
top portion of the wall. This would be an added expense to their
project and their wall is approximately 32 feet from the future
Washington Street curbing versus the 12-feet wall to the east.
Mr. De Coster stated their project landscaping would conceal a large
portion of the wall; therefore, the tile would not.be necessary. He
said he would work with staff to insure that the wall is "compatible"
with the wall across the street.
The Design Review Board also discussed the two-way access into the
development on Washington Street. The Board felt the existing plan
was not adequate because the signalized access would not allow
vehicle stacking at the card gate, and without this area future
traffic would be blocked either into the 124 unit project or the
Ralph's Shopping Center.
The members discussed a three lane access program for the site (e.g.
two lanes in with one lane out). Mr. De Coster stated he could meet
this requirement if the building along Washington Street were moved
closer together.
The Design Review Board voted to approve the project subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval enclosed herein. The vote was 5-1
with Planning Commissioner Marion Ellson voting no because she felt
additional landscaping should be incorporated and the number of units
should be reduced (Boardmember Rice was absent).
BONUS DENSITY
The Developer has requested additional units over and above the
General Plan density standards. The maximum yield under the R-2
provisions would be 93 units, but the Applicant is desirous to have
23 extra units for this project because the project will have
affordable units. State Government Code (Section 65915) requires
local governments to exceed the density provision standards if the
project is restricted to persons for families with incomes below the
median for this area and the units shall remain affordable for a
specified time frame (e.g. 30 years). If these provisions can be
met, the City must grant a density increase, which shall be at least
25%.
STAFFRPT.113/CS -8-
The Applicant is requesting the maximum allowed plus an additional
10% increase based on their overall design and amenity package
(General Plan Policy 2-1.1.3.). The Applicant is currently
negotiating with the Redevelopment Agency for affordable housing
assistance.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
A Medium Density Residential (MDR) category is established on the
Land Use Policy Diagram. The density standard for this category
ranges from 4-8 DU/AC. The maximum density is 8 DU/AC. The general
residential product type is characterized by one to two-story, single
family detached homes on medium and small lots and/or one tc
two-story, single family attached units in projects with open space,
subject to the conditions for varying residential use guidelines as
specified in Policy 2-1.1.9. Appropriate locations of MDR uses
include the Cove area, near transportation arteries and in planned
communities. The general residential product type allowed within the
Cove is one-story single family detached homes. (Policy 2-1.1.6)
CONCLUSION
The project has been designed to encourage first time homeownership
by providing a smaller than average single family home on a small
lot. The outdoor spaces will be comparable to the homes being built
in the Cove except the project will have private streets and a
Homeowner's Association to maintain the common landscaping and
clubhouse building. The project will include both affordable units
and market rate units as determined by the City Council and State
Government Code 65915.
To keep the units more affordable, the developer proposes creative
site planning, and since the units share a common side lot line, this
facilitates unit density and allows for efficient use of the narrow
lots. To offset some of the disadvantages of higher density, the
development offers many site amenities, including common open space
and recreational facilities. The overall density will not create an
adverse impact on the area since the immediate area is planned for
medium density residential uses, neighborhood commercial uses, and
major community facilities (i.e. Civic Center Complex). Further, the
project has been conditioned to meet the architectural requirements
of the City.
The Change of Zone request is consistent with the City's long range
General Plan document which depicts this area as an area Medium
Density (4-8 Dwelling Units/Acre). Another reason to approve the
change is: 1) the development is in the downtown area and medium
density projects should be encouraged to provide housing for this
future employment area, 2) the property is serviced by public
transportation, and 3) the goals of the City's General Plan Housing
Element will be met (Implementation Policy 8.06).
STAFFRPT.113/CS -9-
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 93- recommending
to City Council approval of Change of Zone 91-066 from R-1 (One
Family Dwelling), R-2 *8,000 (Multiple Family Dwellings) and C-P
(General Commercial) to R-2 (Multiple Family Dwellings) an
recommending to the City Council concurrence with the proposed
Negative Declaration.
2. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 93- , and
Resolution 93- recommending to City Council approval of
Specific Plan 93-023 and Tentative Tract Map 27854 and
recommending to the the City Council concurrence with the
approval of the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact
subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
3. Staff also recommends that the Planning Commission approve Plot
Plan 93-502, by Minute Motion 93- subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval.
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Environmental Assessment 93-267
3. Agency comments
4. Additional letters
5. Plan Exhibits (large)
6. Specific Plan Document
7. Design Review Board Minutes
8. Draft PC Resolutions for CZ 91-066, SP 93-023, TTM 27853
9. Draft Conditions of Approval for PP 93-502
STAFFRPT.113/CS -10-
aJLD o
OEI�oo
�ooF1oa�aoaoa�
AVI
uuu ALLE
nnnnnnnnn
CITY OF LA QUINTA
FRITZ BURNS
'52
ORTH
SCALE.' i'=1000'
Plot Plan 93-502 , Change of Zone 91-066, Tentative
Tract Map 27854, and Specific Plan 93-023
S Y2 NW. SEC. 6 r 6S , R. 7E. MIS 1V.IP is FO
AXff SAMMr PNRPQ4i
\ orNorth
Existing Vacant
Property
Future Shopping Center
rt
�p o
a �
Y MA OM-Ml sco tr pn1
Vacant Parcel
ear ' O J.es Ise
!oo
fit/set
C
At 0 !O t[7r M�
r
ji-a a
so ta,sr
0
an
isti
PROPERTY IN QUESTION
,,. 01
New City Hall Site .-
P.M. IZ2189 - 90 Farce/ fip 19730
PA( 17511-2 • IT 27109
A-ZF $ MAP 8X. 769 M. 05
RIRsiDE -ter, Cr.AO.r
EA 93-267
yam-- CITT or to Quint
op ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
I. BACKGROOD
1. Name of Proponent: Joseph A. Swain, Pres. -
Jascorp
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 7CJ-811 CnuntrV
fah Drives
Bermuda Dunes,., CA 92201
3. Date of Checklist: Aug. 24, 1993
4. Agency Requiring Checklist: City of La Quinta
S. Name of Proposal, if applicable: I a- Quints leil]age
II. ENVIRONA'—EENTAL IMPACTS
'
(Explanation of all "Yes" and "Maybe" answers Is required
on attached sheets.)
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
Yes Maybe No
a. Unstable earth conditions or Li changes in
geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, cozTaction or
overcovering of the soil?
1�--
c. Change in topography or gro=n d surface
relief features?
d. The destruction, covering or =dification of
any unique geologic or physical features?
e. Any increases in wind or water erosion of soils,
either on or off the site?
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach, sands,
or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel cf a river or
stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay,
inlet or lake?
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud-
slides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of
ambient air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
_
c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or
temperature, or any change in climate,
t"
either locally or regionally?
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements, in either marine or fresh
waters?
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface water runoff?
C. Alterations to the course of flow of flood
waters?
_
d. Change in the amount of surface water in any
water body?
_
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality, in-
cluding but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow
of ground waters?
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or with-
drawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations?
(3)
Yes Maybe No
h. Substantial reduction in the amount of
crater otherwise available for public
water supplies?
L_
i. Expos=e of people or property to water
relat&Z hazards such as flooding or
tidal waves?
4.
Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changt in the diversity of species, or number
of ar.z- species of plants (including trees,
shrub=, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic
Plants' ?
b. Red -::;on of the numbers of any unique,
rare :r endangered species of plants?
_ g.
c. Int=,!jction of new species of plants into
an area, or result in a barrier to the
nor._a: replenishment of existing species?
�..
d. Reduc::on in acreage of any agricultural
crop?
_ IL.
S.
Animal Lire. Will the proposal result in:
,
a._ Change in the diversity of species, or numbers
of any species of animals (birds, land animals,
incl;:c:ng reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
orgar._sms, insects or microfauna)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare,
or en isngered species of animals?
_ 1•-_
c. Int=.aiction of new species of animals into an
area, or result in a barrier to the migration
or mc•, ement of animals?
L -'
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat?
6.
Noise. W:11 the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. Expos..=e of people to severe noise levels?
7.
Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new
light or glare?
_
S.
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial
alteration of the present or planned land use of an
area?�'
9.
Natural n;ff sources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of any use of any natural
reso=_-ces?
_
b. Substamtial depletion of any renewable
natural resource?
10.
Risk of LYset. Does the proposal involve a risk
of an exp:asion or the release of hazardous sub-
stances (including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
11.
Will the proposal alter the location,
�PPoppu_�lat�iar.
ist�t±on, density, or growth rate of the
human population of an area?
12.
Ho!! . mill the proposal affect existing housing,
or create a demand for additional housing?
13.
Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
r.'
_
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking?
(4)
c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation
systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns cf circulation
or movement of people and/or goods'
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail ar air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to m:trz vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrians?
14. Public Services. Will the proposal a :t an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or a::ered govern-
mental services in any of the follow=] areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational faci::t:.es?
e. Maintenance of public facilities, ;= eluding
roads?
f. Other governmental services?
1S. Energy. Will the proposal result in.
a. Use of substantial amounts of fue: rr energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand u;.cn existing
sources of energy, or require the zle,,elopment
of new sources of energy?
16. Utilities. Will the proposal resu:t :- a need
Tor new systems, or substantial alte:a:_ons to
the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
17. Human Health. Will the proposal resu:t in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or rc:e?ntial
health hazard (excluding mental hta::h)?
b. Exposure of people to potential hea::h hazards?
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result := the
obstruction of any scenic vista or vit4 men to
the public, or will the proposal resu:: _.n the
creation of an aesthetically offensive s:te open
to public view?
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result In an impact
upon the quality or quantity of exist:=i recrea-
tional opportunities?
20. Archeological/Historical. Will the prrpcsal result
in an alteration of a significant arches'_ogical
or historical site, structure, object mr building?
21. Mandatory Finding of Significance.
a. Does the project have the potentia: a degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially re-
duce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to ds-jp below
self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plan or animal community, reduce the n=ber or
restrict the range of a rare or endangere-2 plant
or animal or eliminate important examp:es of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
Yes Maybe No
c-
(5)
Yes Maybe No
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, en-
vironmental goals' (A short-term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a relatively
brief, definitive period of time while long-term
impacts will en!.r^e well into the future.) —
c. Does the pnje:t have impacts which are indi-
vidually limiter., :ut cumulatively considerable?
(A project may i_"qact on two or more separate
resources where t.`.e impact on each resource is
relative,',, small, 'ut where the effect of the
total of those --acts on the environment is
significant.) _
d. Does the prc;e:t have environmental effects
which will cause s-zb stantial adverse effects on
human beings, eit'.er directly or indirectly?
III. DISCUSSION 'IF ENV: a\'MENTAL EVALUATION
IV. DETERMINATION
(To be com:leted by the Lead Agency)
On the basis cf this initial evaluation;
_ I ::nd t=e :roposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect c: t;.e environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATI01: will
be prepare.:.
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 prefect. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
— I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect
oa the environment, and an ENVIRO*IE TAL IMPACT REPORT is
required.
tip �a� I Date: _y
�
- E
a4--�'
Signature
r61
CITY OF LA QUINTA
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
CASE NOS. CZ 91-066, SP 93-023, TTM 27854 and PP93-502 (EA93-267)
JASCORP
GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
The applicant has proposed a very low, low, moderate and market
rate Zero -lot (PUD) single family subdivision (124 units) on +12
acres cn property Zoned R1 (One Family Dwelling), R2*8,000
(Multiple Family Dwellings), and C-P General Commercial. The
property is located on the west side of Washington Street, just
south of the La Quinta Evacuation Storm Channel.
The applicant has requested that the City redesignate the site to
R2 verses the existing R1, R2 and C-P Zone categories.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
EXPLANATION OF "YES" AND "MAYBE" QUESTIONS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
1. EARTH: *******************************************************
a. Unstable Earth Conditions or Changes in Geologic
Substructures? (Checked "Maybe")
The soil on this property has been classified as Myoma
Fine Sand and Coachella Sand/Loam. This type of soil has rapid
permeability and can be used for crop production or homesite
development. The site is vacant (never developed) and the
applicant is desirous to pursue development of the site with urban
services (i.e. single family dwellings). The development of the
site will involve grading and recontouring of the existing land
features. However, all work will be done in conformance with the
final Geotechnical Report required by the Engineering Department
during final plan review. The site is protected from seasonal
storm water by an earthen levee (to the north).
b. Disruption, Displacement, and Compaction of Soil (Checked
"Yes")
Earth moving to support the project will be done as part
of the grading plan, and no on -site work shall be done until a
study has been prepared which identifies the cut and fill needs of
the site.
C. Change in Topography or Relief Features (Checked "Yes)
The general elevation of the site is approximately 40 to
60 feet above sea level. The site is in a Zone 3 Seismic/Geologic
Hazard area as noted by the City's General Plan. A Zone 3 is an
area with moderate shaking qualities but less severe than a Zone 12
(highest level). It is categorized as: "effect on people: felt by
most people indoors. Some can estimate duration of shaking. But
many may not recognize shaking of building as caused by an
earthquake, the shaking is like that caused by the passing of light
trucks.
Earth moving to support the project will be done as part
of the grading plan, and no on -site work shall be done until a
study has been prepared which identifies the cut and fill needs of
the site.
d. Modification of Unique Physical Features (Checked "No"
No unique physical characteristics exist at the site.
e. Increase in Soil Erosion (Checked "Maybe")
Preventative measures to minimize seasonal flooding and
erosion should be incorporated into site grading plans (e.g.
phasing of grading) and provisions shall be made with the Coachella
Valley Water District and the City regarding on or off -site
drainage.
f. Effects on Beach Sands, Channels, Rivers, Streams, Ocean,
Bay, Inlet, or Lake (Check "No")
The site is adjacent to the La Quinta Evacuation Channel
(earthen levee) which is to the north of the site. The developer
can request that CVWD allow them access to the channel for off -site
drainage needs, however, these provisions are usually worked out
with the water district and the developer. The City is not
actively involved with these negotiations, and it is the
responsibility of the developer to work out this solutions during
plan check.
g. Exposure to Geologic Hazards (Checked "Maybe")
The project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo
Special Study Zone, but it could be affected by potentially active
faults nearby since this site lies within the Riverside County
Ground Shaking Zone 3 based on distance from causative faults and
soil types. The effects of ground shaking will be mitigated by
seismic design requirements and procedures outlined in the City's
Uniform Building Code, and the future developer prepared
Geotechnical Report.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
1). Grading of the site shall occur pursuant to the approval of
the future grading plan as specified by the City's Engineering
Department. All work shall be conducted in a manner so that it
does not disturb other abutting properties unless off -site
agreements have been made and/or approved. The grading quantities
have not been submitted, but it is assumed that most of the earth
moving at the site (contouring) will occur on the premises and that
importation will also occur to develop the single family pad sites.
2). The site is greater than 5 acres, therefore, a National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit is required
prior to any on -site grading. The permit process was enacted in
1992 by the State Water Resources Control Board to insure that any
storm discharges associated with a construction activity was
examined by the Board. The permit requires all property owners
to: eliminate or reduce non -storm water discharges to storm sewer
systems or other waters, develop an implement a storm water
pollution prevention plan, and perform inspections of storm water
pollution prevention measures (control practices).
3). The site shall meet the provisions of Uniform Building Code
Section 2312 (d) 2 because the project lies within a Seismic Zone
4. It is recommended that all structures be designed according to
current Uniform Building Code requirements.
4). Levee improvements (i.e. concrete) shall be required if deemed
necessary by the Coachella Valley Water District.
2. AIR•******************************************************
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air
quality? (Checked "Maybe")
The City's Environmental Hazards Element identifies on -
site soils as being a wind erosion hazard. This is a concern as
the Coachella Valley exceeds federal air quality standards for
particulate matter.
In accordance with the City's Air Quality Element, the project was
evaluated to determine if the project would have a significant
adverse impact on air quality. The South Coast Air Quality
Management District's significance threshold includes residential
projects of 160 or more units or 177 acres per day. As the
proposed project involves construction of a smaller project than
noted above, it does not exceed the significance criteria threshold
for air quality impacts.
The project site is located within the Southeast Desert Air
Basin (SEDAB) and is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD). With the proposed
construction, there may be air pollutant sources which may
deteriorate ambient air quality. These sources are stationary and
mobile sources. Stationary source considerations include emission
from on -site construction activities and natural gas combustion.
Mobile source consideration include exhaust emissions resulting
from short term construction activities and long term generation
associated with the project.
It could be anticipated that with the construction of the proposed
project there will be a reduction in the overall mobile emission
releases because the location of the apartment complex is
convenient to local downtown services.
b. The creation of objectionable odors? (Checked "No")
The project is not of a type which would create
objectionable odors. No impacts are anticipated.
C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature or
any change in climate, either locally or regionally? (Checked "No")
The single family subdivision is not of a type, design or
density which would significantly alter air movement, moisture, or
temperature. It is anticipated that the climate would not be
either locally or regionally altered.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
1). Adequate watering techniques shall be employed to partially
mitigate the impact of the construction generated dust.
2). Areas graded but not immediately constructed on shall be
planted with a temporary ground cover to reduce the amount of open
space subject to wind erosion.
3). Grading and construction shall comply with all applicable City
Ordinances (PM10) and the requirements of the Air Quality
Management Plan (Rule 403).
3. WATER•
a. Change in currents or the course of direction of water
movements, in either marine or fresh waters? (Checked "No")
None are proposed by the development of the site.
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (Checked "Yes")
With the proposed construction it can be expected that
there will be a change in the absorption rate (due to impervious
surfaces), drainage patterns and amount and rate of surface water
run-off. The project proponent will provide an on or off -site
retenticn/detention basin (off -site if approved by the City
Engineer) for the collection of storm water and nuisance water run-
off and, special measures will be needed to assure the earthen
levee to the north is adequate to protect the property from storm
water flows.
This area might be subject to liquefaction. Liquefaction is the
term which is used when the ground water table is very close to the
surface, and during an earthquake the ground has a tendency to
vibrate building structures from their respective foundations and,
thus causing failure and other adverse side -effects.
The site has an AO flood insurance rating (FIRM). This means that
the area is within the 100 year flood plain and special measures
are necessary to insure that any site improvements are designed to
prevent damage to any structure or building by periodic flooding.
C. Alteration of Flood Water (Checked "No")
The project will not modify or alter the existing La
Quinta Evacuation channel to the north of the site.
d. Change in the Amount of Surface Water (Checked "No")
Similar to existing conditions, after project
construction surface water runoff will be captured either on -site
or diverted off -site through engineered designs. Thus, the change
in the amount of surface water is not expected to be significant.
e. Alteration of Surface Water Quality (Checked "No")
Stormwater runoff project improvements may contain small
traces of urban pollutants (e.g. oil, fertilizer, etc.) which can
be accepted into the on or off -site retention basin(s) or accepted
off -site provided CVWD is agreeable to this solution. All
solutions shall be prepared by the licensed engineer and approved
by the City and the local water agency.
f. Alteration of Groundwater Direction (Checked "No")
The project would not alter the direction of existing
groundwater resources nor impact its flow rate.
g. Change in Groundwater Quantity (Checked "Maybe")
The proposed residential development would cause an
incremental increase in the demand for groundwater, which would be
provided by CVWD via an existing distribution system. The
additional withdrawals are not considered to be significant.
h. Reduction in Public Water (Checked "Maybe")
The development of the site will reduce the amount of
water available for public consumption. It is assumed that each
unit can or will consume approximately 350 gals./day which means
the project could use 43,400 gals./day based on 124 units. If the
number of units is reduced, the amount of water used would be
reduced too. However, these amounts are not inconsistent with
other types of residential developments in the City and nothing
unusual is anticipated by the development of the site with an
residential project.
i. Exposure to people or property related hazards such as
flooding or tidal waves (Checked "Maybe")
The project will not modify or alter the existing La
Quinta Evacuation channel to the north of the site.
This area might be subject to liquefaction. Liquefaction is the
term which is used when the ground water table is very close to the
surface, and during an earthquake the ground has a tendency to
vibrate building structures from their respective foundations and,
thus causing failure and other adverse side -effects.
The site has an AO flood insurance rating (FIRM). This means that
the area is within the 100 year flood plain and special measures
are necessary to insure that any site improvements are designed to
prevent damage to any structure or building by periodic flooding.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
1. The project shall comply with all applicable City requirements
regarding storm water and nuisance water. The developer shall
complete a hydrology study, prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer.
The study will identify the increased water run-off quantities
which will be generated at the site by analyzing the assumed
quantities in an undeveloped state and factoring this against the
development proposal. Based on this study, the project engineer
shall design the necessary on or off -site drainage basins
(retention/detention) which will contain storm water run-off from
the property and allow gradual dissipation of the water into the
ground. A draft hydrology study has not been prepared and it is
staffs understanding that the project proponent would like to work
with the City to develop an off -site retention basin for this
project. Furthermore, the developer will be required to insure
that earthen levee to the north of the site is adequate to assure
the safety of the future occupants of the complex. Measures
which might be warranted are: a concrete levee, elevated building
pads, etc.
2. Very low flow (1.6 gallon) toilets shall be installed pursuant
to Public Health Code Section 17921.3.
4. PLANT LIFE•**************************************************
a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any
species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops,
microflora and aquatic plants? (Checked "No")
The subject site is presently vacant and void of any
significant plant life. No impact is anticipated by the
development of this site.
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of plants? (Checked "Maybe")
The City adopted a Master Environmental Report in 1992, and in this
document, the adopted plan has indicated that the site might have
the California Ditaxis (flora) present on this property or other
property in the general area. The Ditaxis is a special interest
plant and determined to be "Endangered" by the State Department of
Fish and Game. Staff would recommend that the City require the
applicant to perform an on -site field review of the site to
determine if the Ditaxis exists on the property. Staff is unaware
of any other significant plant life existing at the site at this
time. No impact is anticipated by the development of this site
provided a horticulturist examines the site prior to on -site
grading.
C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or
result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals?
(Checked "No")
The subject site is presently vacant and void of any
significant animal life. The area is not used in the migration of
animals from one part of the City to another. No impact is
anticipated by the development of this site.
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat?
(Checked "No")
The subject site is presently vacant and void of any
significant fish or wildlife species. No impact is anticipated by
the development of this site.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None required except the applicant shall
have a horticulturist examine the site to ascertain whether or not
the California Ditaxis is present on the 12 ac. site. The
findings of the field study shall be submitted to staff prior to
any on -site grading.
5. Animal Life: ************************************************
a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any
species of animals (birds, land animals, including reptiles, fish
and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? (Checked
"No")
No protected animal species exist on the property at this
time which would hinder the development of the site. This is based
on the City's (city-wide) adopted Master Environmental Assessment
prepared for the City in 1992.
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or
endangered species of animals? (Checked "No")
The subject site is not located in an area defined as a
Fringed -Toed Lizard Habitat area (a Federally protected species).
It has been therefore determined that mitigation fees shall not be
required of the applicant to develop this site.
C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or
result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals?
(Checked "No")
The development of the site with residential units will
bring the introduction of domestic animals into this area.
However, the types of animals will be similar to those normally
associated with urban living (e.g. cats, dogs, etc.). No unusual
species are proposed and, therefore, no impact is expected by the
development of this site.
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat?
(Checked "No")
No impacts are anticipated by the development of the site
on either fish or wildlife habitats because the site is not in the
Fringed -Toed Lizard Habitat area nor are there any marine animals
on the property.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None required except the provision of
the Municipal Code shall be complied with.
6. NOISE• *****************************************************
a. Increases in existing noise levels? (Checked "Maybe")
Because of the proposed construction and subsequent operation of
the residential complex, it can be expected that there will be some
increase in the existing noise levels on the site. Most of the
noise generated will be from motorized traffic coming to and from
the site. The developer has proposed a six foot high masonry wall
along the frontage of the site for security purposes but the wall
will also benefit the noise reduction to the units which are in
close proximity to Washington Street.
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (Checked
"Maybe")
The existing noise levels along Washington Street are generally
over 60dba. This measurement was taken in 1992 during the General
Plan Update. Levels greater than 60 Db (CNEL) require mitigation
by the developer in order to bring the project into the required
City standard of less than 60 dB for outdoor areas and less than 45
dB for inside areas. A noise study has not been prepared, but
the Applicant will be required to provide a study prior to any on -
site construction.
MITIGATION MEASURES: As required by the General Plan, this
project shall prepare a noise analysis to minimize noise impacts on
surrounding land uses. The City's General Plan Guidelines for
indoor and outdoor noise shall be met. A comprehensive study shall
be submitted to staff for review prior to the issuance of any
building permit. The study shall use existing and projected
traffic levels along Washington Street to project noise levels, and
then determine ways to reduce road noise impacts on the future
residents. Possible mitigation measures can include: berming,
landscaping, acoustic walls, or other measures deemed necessary by
the licensed acoustic engineer. The final mitigation plan shall
be reviewed by the Planning Department.
7. LIGHT AND GLARE: *********************************************
Will the proposal produce new light and glare? (Checked "Yes")
It is anticipated that the building(s) and/or parking
lot/landscaping will include lighting. However, at this time, much
of the material has not been submitted to staff. During the plan
check process of this case in the future the applicant will be
required to gain approval of this material from the City's Design
Review Board and the Planning and Building Department prior to
construction permit issuance.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
1). All lighting will have to comply with the City's "Dark Sky
Ordinance". Additionally, light sources shall be shielded to
eliminate light glare and off -site spillage onto abutting vacant or
developed properties.
2). A lighting plan shall be submitted for the on -site parking
lot. The plan shall include a photometric study of the lighting
which analyzes the necessary footcandle light intensity, height and
spaces of the light poles, type of lighting fixtures, and any other
pertinent information which is necessary to assure City compliance
(i.e. Dark Sky Ordinance). The light poles should be less than 10
feet in overall height.
8. LAND USE(S):***********************************************
Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the
present or planned land use of an area? (Checked "Maybe")
The General Plan has designated the property as Medium Density
Residential (4-8 units per acres) and the existing Zoning of the
site is R1 (Single Family ) and R2 (Multiple Family). The
southerly side of the site is Zone C-P (General Commercial).
The Applicant has requested that the City redesignate the 12 acre
site to R2 (Multiple Family).
In 1991, the City processed a Change of Zone request for this area
(CZ 91-066) for a different developer but the case was tabled based
on the City Council's action of November 19, 1991. The current
applicant has requested that the City reprocess this request based
on their new development plan (i.e. R1 and CP property to R2).
The change will require by the Planning Commission and City
Council.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None is required. However, it is
necessary that the City Council approve the land use designation
change in order for the applicant to develop the project to the
density proposed. If this does not occur, the site is to remain
vacant until other land use plans can be reviewed and it is
determined they will meet the intent of the City's existing General
Plan and Zoning Code provisions. The project density will be
adjusted accordingly. The Planning Commission must also address
the applicant's request to allow additional dwelling units on the
site (bonus units) because affordable units are being proposed
(State Code 65915).
9. NATURAL RESOURCES•******************************************
a. Increase in the rate of any use of any natural resources?
(Checked "Yes")
As with any development, the project would require water, natural
gas, and electricity, which are all considered natural resources.
The proposed project, however, would not increase the rate of use
of these resources more than any other similar residential and
commercial development. The project is not of type, size (124
units) or density that could substantially deplete any non-
renewable natural resource.
No major adverse impacts are anticipated with by the construction
of this project.
b. Substantial depletion of any renewable natural resource?
(Checked "No")
The project is not large enough to substantially deplete any non-
renewable natural resource based on the attached local agency
transmittals. Therefore, no major adverse impacts are anticipated
with the construction of this housing project.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None required. However, the applicant
shall meet all necessary requirements of the local serving agencies
as outlined in the attached agency comments or as mandated during
construction plan implementation. Building energy conservation
will largely be achieved by compliance with Title 20 and 24 of the
California Administrative Code. These standards are handled by
the Building and Safety Department during construction plan check
review.
10. RISK OF
Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the
release of hazards substances (including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset conditions? (Checked "No")
No adverse impact is anticipated due to explosion or release of
hazardous substances.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None required. However, all
construction activities whether or not they are permanent or
temporary shall meet all necessary safety standards of the Federal,
State and local government requirements.
11. POPULATION:************************************************
Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density,
or growth rate of the human population of an area? (Checked "Yes")
The developer is proposing 124 units which are 1,100 to 1,200 sq.
ft. All units are two or three bedroom dwellings. The sizes of
the units are comparable to normal smaller homes or townhouse
condominiums.
It is not anticipated that the proposed project will have an
adverse or significant impact on population distribution, density
or growth rate in the area. The developer's intent is to provide
attached single family housing. Some of the units will be for
people who have income levels less than median as established by
the County of Riverside and HUD (Housing and Urban Development) if
the bonus density provisions are allowed by the City. Currently,
the City's population per household is approximately 2.85
people/household. Therefore, it can be assume that the project
will support approximately 353+ people living in the single family
subdivision.
MITIGATION MEASURES: The developer shall be required to meet
all the HUD income level standards if the developer pursues the
density bonus units, as requested, plus the number of people per
unit shall be based on the Uniform Building Code provisions.
12. HOUSING•*****************************************************
Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand
for additional housing? (Checked "No")
The development of the site as a single family (attached)
affordable housing complex is consistent with the policies of the
City's General Plan. The City encourages this type of project in
order for the City to meet its fair -share regional housing needs,
as required by the Southern California Association of Governments
and the City's General Plan Housing Element. The SCAG plan
requires both cities and counties to provide different types of
housing units (i.e. single family and multiple family units) and to
accommodate low/moderate income families. Cities or counties can
examine either rental assisted housing, sweat equity self help
housing, or grant assisted housing pursuant to their redevelopment
guidelines. The City's Redevelopment Agency can examine whether
or not to assist the project with their set -aside RDA monies or in
other ways which can reduce the burden on the developer (i.e. off -
site development improvements).
It is assumed that only minor incremental demands on City services
will be generated by the possible development of the site with
single family units; therefore, the development of the site would
have insignificant affects on the City. Further, the City has an
over surplus of land designated and planned for detached single
family housing thus the City is in need of rental housing or
subsidized units at this time. This project will help the City
meet its fair -share housing requirements.
The developer has also requested bonus apartment units pursuant to
State statues (Bonus Density) pursuant Gov. Code Section 65915.
The City is allowed to assist the developer is increasing his
project density if the project is designed and rented or sold to
low income persons and, the project remains affordable.
Generally, the units are kept affordable for between 15 to 30 years
depending on the type of project.
MITIGATION MEASURES: The City should insure that the housing
units which are for the very low or low income families are
retained for 15 to 30 years as below market units to accommodate
this section of the population which is in need of proper housing.
The City should examine whether or not the project warrants
consideration for additional units per Government Code Section
65915. The Planning Commission and City Council will examine this
issue and act accordingly on the request.
13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION•************************************
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement?
(Checked "Maybe")
With the proposed project it can be anticipated that there will be
a generation of additional vehicular traffic movement in the
immediate area. The City's Trip Generation book (1987, ITE Manual)
indicates that attached single family housing generates on the
average between 8-10 vehicle trips per day. However, car ownership
is not as important for first time homeowners if public
transportation (bus or mini -bus) is available or needs services are
in close proximity to their residence. The site is located along
Route #4 of the Sunline Transit, therefore, public transportation
is available.
The developer will be required to install ultimate street
improvements along Washington Street. The improvements will
include: curb, gutter, street median, sidewalks, etc. The
developer will also be required to assist in paying for a portion
of the new traffic signal proposed for this project site and the
future shopping center to the south (Ralph's Shopping Center/Koenig
Development Company).
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new
parking? (Checked "Yes")
The developer is proposing on -site parking spaces for the project
which is not consistent with the City's Off-street Parking Code
since only one garage parking space will be provided per unit.
However, the proposed specific plan document can make an adjustment
to this deficiency in order to provide affordable housing units.
Both garage parking and open parking spaces will be provided in
close proximity to each proposed unit. If parking should occur
within the private street inside the development, this type of
parking will not impact the abutting projects to the south since
all parked cars will be on private property.
c. thru f - Effects upon existing transportion, movement of
people and/or goods, etc. (Checked "No")
MITIGATION MEASURES:
1). Compliance with all applicable City requirements regarding
street improvements of adjacent street(s). The level of off -site
improvements shall be commensurate to the magnitude of the project.
2). The developer shall provide adequate on -site parking spaces to
accommodate the proposed use per the requirements of the City's
Off-street Parking Ordinance or unless dictated otherwise in the
Specific Plan document.
3). An eight foot wide sidewalk shall be provided on Washington
Street (major arterial) for pedestrian/bike traffic.
4). A bus stop and shelter shall be install along the frontage of
the site on Washington Street. The location shall be approved by
Sunline Transit and the City Engineering Department. If a separate
bus turn -out is required, the turn -out shall not affect traffic
movement and it shall be recessed within the street parkway.
5). A traffic signal shall be installed when warranted at the two-
way access driveway on Washington Street as required by the
Engineering Department. The signal will service this site and the
future project to the south (Ralph's Market Shopping Center).
The Engineering Department shall determine the fair -share of the
signal costs for the developer during review of the project with
the Planning Commission.
6). A second point of access into the project shall be required
unless otherwise determined by the City Engineer, the Planning
Commission or the City Council.
14. PUBLIC SERVICES• ********************************************
Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for
new or altered governmental services (e.g. fire, police, schools,
parks or recreation, maintenance of public facilities, or other
governmental services)? (Checked "Maybe")
The project may create a need for additional fire protection,
police protection and maintenance of public roads in the area.
However, it is anticipated that any increases in this area will be
incremental, and further, should only have negligible impacts on
existing personnel or services. The site is approximately 1/2 mile
from Fire Station #32. Response times to the facility should be
within acceptable levels as prescribed by the fire personnel.
MITIGATION MEASURES: The applicant will be required to pays impact
fees which are in effect prior to the issuance of a building permit
for any of the future units.
15. ENERGY:*****************************************************
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? (Checked
"Maybe")
The project will consume 641,328 kWh of electricity per year. This
number or amount is consistent with normal per unit figures for
this type of development. The Imperial Irrigation District
(provider) has not indicated that they cannot service the project
based on the applicant's request. However, the project will have
an incremental increase in the amount of available energy if the
project is completed.
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of
energy, or require the development of new sources of energy?
(Checked "No")
The project is not large enough to substantially deplete any non-
renewable natural resource. No significant impacts are
anticipated.
MITIGATION MEASURES: The applicant shall be responsible to submit
plans as required by each respective local agency and install the
future facilities as required to meet all safety standards in
affect at the time of the application.
16. UTILITIES•**************************************************
Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power/Natural Gas? (Checked "No") - Power and natural gas
services are available at the subject site. IID power lines are
currently located on the east side of Washington Street, and power
will be provided to the site based on IID requirements. All on -
site electric facilities will be placed underground from the source
to each new apartment building. The new facilities will not
substantially alter or affect any of the existing off -site
utilities.
b. Communications? (Checked "No") - Telephone and cable
services will be available from extensions from nearby existing or
planned neighborhoods. Significant service alterations will not
be necessary.
c. Water? (Checked "No") - Project implementation will not
require significant upgrades or extensions to water facilities.
The project will comply with all water service extension measures
required by CVWD and no significant impacts are anticipated because
the project is not designed to use more water than other types of
multi -family apartment projects.
d. Sewer/Septic? (Checked "No") - The project will be
connected to the CVWD's forced main, which will convey wastewater
to the Mid-Vally Water Reclamation Plant. The 124 unit project is
expected to generate 200-300 gallons per dwelling unit per day.
Substantial alterations or extensions of existing systems will not
be necessary. The project will be required to meet all
requirements of CVWD. No significant impacts are anticipated.
e. Storm water drainage? (Checked "Maybe") - The Applicant
has not addressed how they will manage storm water drainage.
However, based on the plans, an off -site program will be needed to
handle any water generated by the development of the site. The
Applicant will be required to submit a hydrology plan to the City
Engineer for his review and approval. All storm drainage
facilities shall be developed by the developer or by the City with
the developer reimbursing the City for its costs.
f. Solid waste? (Checked "No") - Project implementation will
not generate amounts of solid wastes which would require
substantial alterations to collection services and disposal
facilities. Each unit is expected to generate 9 lbs./day which
1,116 lbs./day for the entire complex. No significant impacts
will occur.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
1). All necessary infrastructure improvements as mandated by the
City or any other public agency shall be met as part of the
development of this site. As mentioned before, the site will be
required to install appropriate drainage facilities which will
house storm water run-off during seasonal rain storms or to contain
nuisance water from both irrigation and surfaced areas (i.e.
parking lots, buildings, etc.). Off -site drainage will be allowed
if approved by the City Engineer.
2). Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant will
be required to pay the City's Infrastructure Fee. This fee will
help mitigate impacts as noted above.
3). The project shall comply with all requirements of the Fire
Marshal and the Riverside County Sheriffs Department. The School
District's mitigation fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of
a building permit.
4). Water, sewer, and electric service provisions shall be made
and secured prior to securing building permits.
5). On -site curb recycling programs shall be established for the
project similar to existing recycling programs which are on -going
in the Cove.
17. HUMAN
a. and b. - Creation of hazards or exposure to people of
potential hazards? (Checked "No")
No additional hazards are contemplated other than those
identified in Section 3 (water).
18. AESTHETICS:**************************************************
Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic
vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in
the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public
view? (Checked "No")
The site is presently vacant. The construction of buildings will
disrupt the site and change the existing views of the Santa Rosa
Mountains. However, in order to reduce this impact, the developer
has proposed single story buildings within 150 feet of Washington
Street. The two story buildings are located westerly of the one
story apartment units. The developer's plan creates diversity
because of the height variation (18' vs. 24' ) and the different
styles of architecture proposed for each prototype duplex unit.
The proposal is compatible with the surrounding area and the
development should not impact or affect the surrounding residential
properties to the east (across Washington Street).
MITIGATION MEASURES:
1). The height of the apartment building(s) should be single story
alone Washington Street (first 1501) to meet the policy provisions
of the City's General Plan. Two story units should be allowed on
the other portions of the site per the R2 standards.
2). The development of the on and off -site landscaping program
should take into consideration the unique setting of this property
as it relates to the downtown area. The developer should consider
vertical type plant material (Palm trees, etc.) and the use of
accent type trees (Jacarandas, etc.) which will create view
"windows" into the project but accentuate the mountains to the west
of the proposed buildings. Native landscaping should be pursued
and accent lighting on the landscaping should be encouraged.
Parking lot lighting should be discouraged wherever possible.
18. RECREATION•***************************************************
Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or
quantity of existing recreational opportunities? (Checked "No")
No significant adverse impacts are anticipated in this area because
the applicant is proposing a central recreation building with pool
for the future residents. Passive walking trails are also
included.
MITIGATION MEASURES: No major impact is anticipated because
the development will have its own recreation facilities for the
tenants. However, the will be required to contribute the City's
park fees to assist off -site development of community facilities
which can benefit this development (or others in the City) as
required by the City's Subdivision Ordinance. This issue will be
evaluated further prior to recordation of the Subdivision Map with
the City Council, as required.
20. ARCHEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL:**************************************
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the
destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site?
(Checked "Maybe")
Due to the historical nature of the City, there may be an adverse
impact created by the construction of the project.
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic
effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object?
(Checked "Maybe")
Due to the historical nature of the City, there may be an adverse
impact created by the construction of the project on prehistoric
features buried in the earth. No known historic buildings are
currently located at the site since it is vacant. However, buried
remains are possible.
c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical
change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (Checked
"Maybe")
Due to the historical nature of the City, there may be an adverse
impact created by the construction of the project.
d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred
uses within the potential impact area?
Due to the historical nature of the City, there may be an adverse
impact created by the construction of the project.
MITIGATION MEASURES: An archaeological survey of the site by
qualified archaeologists will need to be completed prior to
activities which would disturb the site (i.e. site grading).
Compliance with the results of the archaeological survey will be
required.
21. MANDATORY FINDINGS: It is not anticipated that there will be
any adverse impacts by the project in the areas of plant and animal
life, long term environmental goals, cumulative impacts, or impacts
on human beings as long as the proposed mitigation measures are
incorporated into the conditions for the project.
Attached: Agency Comments
Developer's Letter
repay by: Greg Trousdell
ESTABLISHED 1N 1911 AS A ►MIC AGENCII
COACNEL LA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
POST OFFICE BOX lose. COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA M36 • TELEPHONE (e19) 3*=l
DIRECTORS
TELLIS CODEKAS. PRESIDENT
RAYMOND R. RUMMONDS, VICE PRESIDENT
JOHN W. MtFADDEN
DOROTHY M. DE LAY
INEODORE J. FISH
Planning Commission
City of La Quint&
Post Office Box 1504
La Quinta, California 92253
Gentlemen:
OFFICERS
FE. LEVY. GENERAL MAKAGER-OW ENGINEER
b 2000F INE S ECRETARY
.Tune 28. 1993'V; I MANAGER
01 1991°►"
Subject: Plot Plan 93-502, Portion of the
Northwest Quarter of Section 6, Township 6
South. Range 7 East, San BernardinoMeridian
This area is shown to be subject to shallow flooding and is designated Zone A0,
depth one foot on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which are in effect at this
time.
The district will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in
accordance with the current regulations of this district. These regulations
provide for the payment of certain fees and charges by the subdivider and said
fees and charges are subject to change.
This area shall be annexed to Improvement District No. 55 of Coachella Valley
'Eater District for sanitation service.
There are existing district facilities not shown on the development plans.
There may be conflicts with these facilities. We request the appropriate public
agency to withhold the issuance of a building permit until arrangements have
been made with the district for the relocation of these facilities.
Plans for grading, landscaping. and irrigation systems shall be submitted to
Coachella Valley Water District for review. This review is for ensuring
efficient water management.
If you have any questions please call Bob Meleg, stormwater engineer,
extension 264.
Y urs very t y,
Om Levy
General Manager -Chi Engineer
RF:lmf/e/PP93502
cc: Don Park
Riverside County Department
of Public Health
TRUE CONSERVATION
USE WATER WISELY
SunLlne
nc
Transit L.
MEMBER AGENCIES
Cathedral City
Coachella
Desert Hot Springs
Indian Wells
Indio
La Quinta
Palm Desert
Palm Springs
Rancho Mirage
Riverside County
Mr. Greg Trousdell
Associate Planner
City of La Quinta
78-105 Calle Estado
La Quintal CA 92263
RE: Plot Plan 93-502; Jascorp
Dear Greg:
} JUN Z g M3
.My.�scr�.a P7�w
PLAW;
�ITY��iyy,F LA Ltgqnr
i�L�l.
ENT
Thank you for allowing SunLine Transit Agency to review the plans
for the low and moderate income housing project to be located on
Washington Street north of Calle Tampico. SunLine does operate
services in the vicinity of this project. As projects of this
size and nature develop, the pressure for transit services
increases. Therefore, we request the city's assistance in
placing the following mitigation measure on the developer in the
conditions of approval:
"The developer shall provide a bus turnout (to SunLine
standards), a passenger waiting area with seating space, wind
protection and sunshade, a trash barrel, and utility connections,
including electricity and telephone at each bus stop location.
In addition, the developer must receive approval from SunLine on
the design of the improvements to the bus stop(s)."
For this project, we recommend the bus stop be placed at one
location: on Washington street far -side of the entrance to the
project. If a second exit is created on Washington Street, we
recommend that the turnout be centered between the two exits.
SunLine Transit Agency is willing to work with the developer and
the city to design a mutually acceptable bus stop. Please let me
know if you have any questions on these comments.
Yours Very Truly,
S LINE TRANSIT AGENCY
Debra Astin
Director of Planning
32.505 Harry Oliver Trail -Thousand Palms, CA 92276 • (619) 343.3456 • FAX (619) 343.3845
COUNTY°, RIVERSIDE COUNTY Il
RIVERSIDE ter �tea>; R - 1= y FIRE DEPARTMENT
J. M. HARRIS 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE • PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92570 • (909) 657-3183
FIRE CHIEF
September 20, 1993
To: City of La Quinta
Planning Division
i
Attn: Greg Trousdel l ! SEP 2 Z 1993
y J
Re: Tentative Tract No. 278549[,=
Please be advised that the following corrections are required: -
1. Provide secondary or emergency access.
2. Provide adequate turning radius at intersections.
3. Provide improvement plans for gated entrance.
For your information, 32 foot wide streets allow for parking on one
side only.
Previous conditions for this project do not apply. Once the above
corrections are made, conditions will be set and a letter issued.
All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be
referred to the Fire Department Planning Engineering Staff at (619)
863-8856.
Sincerely,
RAY REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
Hy
Tom Hutchison
Fire Safety Specialist
JP/th
FIRE PREVENTION DIVISION , /
D RIVERSIDE OFFICE PLANNING SECTION iN INDIO OFFICE
3760 12th Street, Riverside, CA 92501 79-733 Country Club Drive, Suite F, Indio, CA 92201
(909) 275-4777 9 FAX (909) 369-7451 (619) 863-8886 0 FAX (619) 863-7072
printed on recycled paper<�1
R
dl Cb/VERS)DEUN7TY ,��'
;I - �r
r�►r ��
J. M. HARRIS
i FIRE CHIEF
To: City of La 0uinta
Planning Division
Attn: Greg Trousdell
Re: Plot Plan 93-502
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE u PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92570 9 (909) 657-311
June 289 1993
r4T ► iJ11 '
JUN 2 9 1993
CITY J� �. fulh iA
PLANNI i OEPkRT!AEKT
Please be advised that the following corrections are required.
1. Provide secondary or emergency access.
2. Provide adequate turning radius at the street adjacent to the
entrace gate.
All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be
referred to the Fire Department Planning Engineering Staff at
(6191 B63-8886.
Sincerely,
RAY REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
By p .. fA�...o�
Tom Hutchison
Fire Safety Specialist
.7P:th
FIRE PREVENTION DIVISION
Q RIVERSIDE OFFICE PLANNING SECTION f0 INDIOOFFICE
3760 12th Street, Riverside, CA 92501 79-733 Country Club Drive, Suite F. Indio, CA 9220
,....,. ��c ���� • C•Y roro% 1R0_7d(1 (619) 863-8886 r FAX (619) 863-7072
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
COLS BYRD, SHERIFF
City of La Quinta
Planning & Development Division
78-105 Calle Estado
La Quinta CA 92253
Attention: Greg Trousdell
Associate Planner
Dear Mr. Trousdell:
Sheriff
NOMMMMEM
82-695 DR. CARREON BLVD. ® INDIO, CA 92201 * (619) 342-85
June 24, 1993
JUN 2 9 >ya�
Clf�•if• 1• ;t, ,�_
-,q
mac:: aav s •- � ,� .tea.:mar-�
RE: PP 93-5021JASCORP
We have the following comments concerning the above project.
Regarding Police Sta&S: Increase in population result in an increase of called for services.
The projected population increase will also impact traffic conditions by increasing daily round
trips in the area.
Regarding Pmiect Design: We recommend that address numbers be mounted on contrasting
background. The numbers should be of sufficient size to be legible from the roadway and should
be situated near the roo}line on the corner of the residence. This will reduce the response time
of emergency vehicles to the residence.
Streets, security walls and parking areas should be well lighted to provide a safer environment
for the residents and to dissuade would-be criminals from targeting the area for illegal activities.
High pressure sodium lights are recommended as they provide the greatest amount of light per
kilowatt and are the least expensive to operate.
All residential doors should have an industrial quality key and latch system. Deadbolt locks are
suggested for all exterior doors. The locks should be installed using three inch set screws to
provide maximum benefit. All exterior doors, without windows, should have a peephole installed
in order to allow good visibility of the outside area without having to open the door. Windows
should not be placed close enough to the doors, which would allow a person to break the glass
and unlock the door by hand.
Page 2
Elk #93-502
Tune 24, 1993
Shrubbery and bushes should be trimmed low to the ground to eliminate hiding places for
criminals and allow better visibility from the street for patrolmen. Windows should never be
concealed by vegetation.
The crime prevention measures outlined in this letter are merely suggestions and are not required
as a prerequisite for plan approval. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the project
from a law enforcement point of view.
Sincerely,
COIS BYRD, SHERIFF
►
Alb.
t�s
Bui�Iorll
lding the Wture i
July 8, 1993
La �Quinta Planning Dept.
P.O. Box 1504
78-105 Calle Estado
La Quinta, CA 92253
Attn: Gary Trousdell
Dear Mr. Trousdell,
f �
JUL 0 W3f
PILP
Thank you for responding to our submittal and application for
our affordable housing community located on the N/W corner of
the intersection of Washington and Tampico (just north of the
proposed Ralphs Shopping Center.
The community is envisioned to include 124 homes within a
gated and carefully landscaped environment that will also
share a recreation center for small get togethers with
adjoining pool & perhaps bar-b-que area.
The community is intended to provide affordable housing
without compromise to the pride of ownership quality expected
of the young professional or the mature move down buyers we
encounter today.
The homes are designed by the architectural firm of
Stoffregen/Fuller a licensed architect with offices located
both in Palm Desert and the Orange County area. The smart
design has allowed for a popular duplex configuration of
single story units as well as side by side two story units
(vs. Jones below/Smith above). All homes include a generous
single car garage with a driveway that will accommodate 2
more cars to insure off street parking.
Common areas are
yards fenced on
front courtyard
intended to be kept
property lines along
and side yard areas.
to a minimum with rear
with a variation of
79-811 Countn• Club Drive #A
We are sensitive to the standard R-2 zoning which allows for
a density of 8 units per acre. The affordable aspect of the
project as I understand allows a 25% density bonus (or 2
units per acre) this brings us to 10 units per acre. The
design may bring an additional 10% bonus (or 1 unit per acre)
bringing the total density to 11 units per acre. As we have
11.68 net acres, this could equate to 128 units. We propose
124 units.
The financing for this project anticipates state and federal
tax exempt bond status as the developer looks to the city of
La Quinta to provide a letter of inducement resolution to be
issued for procurement of bonds. The bonds are guaranteed
through a letter of credit placed by our local financial
institution guaranteed by the developer.
We trust this will provide you with a better understanding of
our La Quinta Village project. Should you have any further
questions please don't hesitate to give us a call.
Regards,
Bob Wright
Partner
cc: Dennis Moran
/JPOo
h . Swain
artner
RUPERT E. YESSAYIAN
Box 251
LA QUwT•A, CA 92253
September 14, 1993
La Quinta Planning Commission
City of La Quinta
La Quinta, California
RE: Plot Plan 93-502
Change of Zone 91-066
Commissioners:
I represent the majority of the property owners
in Desert Club Tract Unit #5, which is across
Washington Street from the proposed project.
We protested the assessment for the wall along
the east side of Washington St. in the belief
that the property owners on the west side of
Washington St. were responsible for its cost.
Our efforts were unsuccessful and the very ex-
pensive wall is now being paid for by us, raising
our taxes considerably.
Our argument is that the Ralph's center and the
project which is before you tonight should pay
their fair share for the buffer wall, since they
both are receiving changes of zone and other con-
cessions from the city. We request therefore, that
as a condition of approval for Change of Zone 91-
066 and Plot Plan 93-502, that provision be made
for the developer to pay a fair share for the ex-
pense of the beforementioned wall.
Thank you for your consideration.
S
•G'
IRu*perE.essayian
REY/ss
Design Review Board Minutes
August 4, 1993
16. Boardmember Campbell stated ad strong objections to react to
without seeing all four si
17. After further dIjAsion on the review process, ardmembers
Anderson/W . withdrew the motion and moved to rove Public Use
Permit 9 6 with a recommendation that parate drawings be
compl for Phase I and Phase 1I and if lanning Commission so
/de'to refer the project back to the De ' Review Board, subject to the
ions of Approval with the ad . n of a non -reflective alternative
metal be submitted. The motion sed unanimously.
'r_111t rsiut "-�Iiz ano l-nan a Ot Lone y1-nA% ; a request of Jascorp for approval
to develop a 124 unit one and two story apartment complex on the west side of
Washington Street south of the La Quinta Storm Channel/Washington Street
bridge and 700 feet north of Calle 'Tampico, along with a change of zone from
R-1, R-2, and C-P to R-2.
1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in
the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and
Development Department.
2. Boardmember Anderson asked if the material board was acceptable to
staff. Staff stated they were.
3. Mr. Joe DeCoster, applicant, gave a lengthy detailed description of the
project. Chairman Curtis asked if the applicant had any objection to the
Conditions of Approval. Mr. DeCoster stated no except they would be
applying to for a variance to the parking requirement.
4. Boardmember Wright asked for clarification on the variance. Mr.
DeCoster stated they would be asking for approval to allow a third
parking space to be the tandem parking of behind the garage door.
Discussion followed regarding the parking space.
5. Commissioner Ellson asked what the market would be, apartments or
condominiums. The applicant stated they would be selling condominiums
but they have not filed a subdivision map with staff.
6. Boardmember Wright asked if they would be low income. Mr. DeCoster
stated they would be affordable units (i.e., low and moderate income
units).
DR38-4 4
Design Review Board Minutc:a
August 4, 1993
7. Commissioner Ellson asked what would happen to the project if Ralph's
shopping center did not go in. Mr. DeCoster stated it would stand alone.
Commissioner Ellson asked what fences would be built between the units
and would the perimeter fence be a block wall. She stated she preferred
an open landscaped area that would give a more open feeling for the green
belt areas. Mr. DeCoster stated the market they were targeting was the
low income group which normally have children and the fencing would
give them privacy. Discussion followed regarding alternate locations for
block wall fencing, wrought iron fencing, and wood fencing.
8. Boardmember Wright asked if there would be a problem if Ralph's was
not built with a second access for the project and especially a fire truck
entry. Staff clarified that the land is owned by the same individual and
therefore an easement for the access will be provided. Boardmember
Wright asked if the second entrance would be a crash gate. Staff stated
it would be.
9. Boardmember Wright asked whether the garage door would be wood or
a metal (roll -up vs. swing). He was concerned there would not be enough
clearance to open the door if a car was parked behind the garage. Mr.
DeCoster stated he preferred the metal roll -up because they were attractive
but the expense was a problem. He further stated there was enough
distance to park the car and open the door and not have the car in the
street. Discussion followed regarding the garage door type and material.
10. Boardmember Wright asked the applicant to show the Board where the
two story units would be placed. He felt the units adjacent to the
recreation building should be single story so not to create a cavity effect.
Discussion followed regarding the location of the two story units.
11. Chairman Curtis asked for clarification that the perimeter wall would be
a block wall and would he have any objection to making it comparable to
the wall on the east side of Washington Street. Mr. DeCoster stated it
would be a block wall but he felt the 20-feet of landscaping would be
more attractive than duplicating the east wall (i.e., file cap). Following
discussion, the Board determined the 20-feet of landscaping was preferable
to the file treatment. Further clarification was made that the block wall
would be stuccoed on Washington Street and painted block walls would
be used for the perimeter areas.
12. Planning Commissioner Ellson asked how much stacking there would be
at the entrance. She felt two or three car stacking was needed and there
DRB8-4
Design Review Board Minutes
August 4, 1993
did not appear to be enough room. Following discussion regarding
different alternatives, Chairman Curtis suggested that the entrance be
widened and stripped to allow two lanes in and one lane out (e.g., 36-feet
wide). '
13. Boardmember Anderson stated his concern for the wood fencing between
the units and strongly suggested that block walls be used and possibly
relocated to the rear portion of each unit. He felt that anything less than
this would detract from the overall look of the project. Mr. DeCoster
stated this would be a budget determination by the owners and those that
have been constructed in other projects have been attractive.
14. Mr. DeCoster asked for clarification of Condition #6 in that the 20-feet
of landscaping is included in the 30-foot setback. Staff stated it was
included.
15. Following discussion, it was moved and seconded by Boardmembers
Anderson/Harbison to recommend approval as submitted subject to staff
conditions, and as amended as follows:
a. The applicant would submit to the Planning Commission elevations
for the half two story half one story unit for their approval.
b. Condition #4: The block wall on Washington Street shall be
stucco and compatible with the east wall (without the green tile.
C. Condition #10: The perimeter wall with the exception of
Washington Street shall be painted block wall to match the stucco
color on Washington Street.
d. The driveway should be 36-feet wide on Washington Street with
two lanes in and one lane out.
VOTE: AYES: Boardmembers Anderson, Harbison, Wright,
Campbell, Chairman Curtis. NOES: Planning
Commissioner Ellson. ABSENT: Boardmember Rice.
ABSTAINING: None.
C. Plan - ; a req t of Forecast Homes k approval of arch tural plans
forXle family resident located on the north 'de of Miles Aven , east of
Adam c treet.
1. As 'ate Planner Greg T sdell presented\thermation containthe S report, a copy o which is oe Planning an
Develop t Department.
DRBB-4 6
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 93-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF CHANGE OF ZONE 91-
066
CASE NO. CZ 91-066 - LA QUINTA VILLAGE
JASCORP
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did,
on the 14th day of September, 1993, and 28th day of September, 1993, hold duly noticed
Public Hearings to consider the request of JASCORP for a Change of Zone from R-1 (One
Family Dwelling), R-2* 8,000 (Multiple Family Residential), and C-P (General Commercial)
to R-2 (Multi -Family Dwellings) on ± 12 acres, located on the west side of Washington Street,
±700 feet north of Calle Tampico, more particularly described as:
APN: 769-030-039, AND 040 (NORTH PORTION) SOUTH 1/2
OF THE NORTHWEST SECTION 6, T.6.S., R.7.E., S.B.B.M.
WHEREAS, said Change of Zone request has complied with the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (as amended), and adopted by City Council
Resolution 83-68, in that the Planning and Development Department has completed an
Environmental Assessment/Negative Declaration, which has been reviewed and considered by
the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta.
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission
did find the following facts and reasons to justify the recommendation for approval of said
Change of Zone.
1. The proposed Change of Zone, as requested, will not adversely affect the goals and
policies of the La Quinta General Plan.
2. The proposed zoning is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan.
3. The proposed zoning is consistent and compatible with surrounding land use and zoning
designations.
4. Approval of this proposal will not result in a significant adverse impact on the
environment due to mitigation measures contained in the proposed Negative Declaration.
RESOPC.113
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
Commission in this case.
2. That it does hereby recommend adoption of the Negative Declaration pursuant to the
attached Environmental Assessment.
3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of Change of Zone 91-066
for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as illustrated in the map labeled Exhibit
"A", attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission, held on this 28th day of September, 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.113 2
VpOAM1
VACANT t
R-3
ZONING
zn
rn
R-2
ZONING p0F
,PROPOSED ZONING: R2
MULTIPLE FAMILY
DWELLINGS
:XISTING ZONING: R-1
SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING
PROPOSED ZONING: R2
MULTIPLE FAMILY
DWELLINGS j
EXISTING ZONING: R,Z*
(8,000) MULTIPLE
FAMILY 'DWELLINGS
Ar I'll 73509, /;,
PROPOSED ZONING: R-2 (MULTIPLE
FAMILY DWELLINGS EXISTING ZON NG:
C-P GENERAL C -m
EXISTING ZONING: C-P GENERAL
COMMERCIAL
CASE Flo: EXHIBIT A
CHANGE OF ZONE 91-066/JASCORP.
WASHINGTON
STREET
BRIDGE
S-R
ZONING
SINGLE FAMILY
RESOLUTION 93-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN 93-023
CASE NO. SP 93-023 - JASCORP (LA QUINTA VILLAGE)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the 28th
day of September, 1993, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Jascorp
to develop design standards for a 124-unit zero lot line single family residential project on ± 12
acres in the R-1, R-2, and C-P Zones on property located in ±700 feet north of Calle Tampico,
on the west side of Washington Street, more particularly described as:
THE SOUTH ONE HALF OF THE NORTHWEST SECTION 6, T. 6. S . , R.7. E.
(APN: 769-030-039 & 040)
WHEREAS, said Specific Plan request has complied with the requirements of
"The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended
(Resolution 83-68) in that the Planning Director has proposed a Negative Declaration for the
project to mitigate any impact the project may have on the area. The Planning Commission will
evaluate the proposed Negative Declaration on September 28, 1993; 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 recommending approval of said Specific Plan:
1. The proposed specific plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta
General Plan.
2. The project will include provisions for affordable housing which will assist the City in
its fair --share regional housing needs pursuant to the goals and policies of the Housing
Element. The project will include a percentage of either very low or low income
families as required by Government Code Section 65915 (Bonus Density).
3. The specific plan is compatible with the existing an anticipated area development.
4. The project will be provided with adequate utilities and public services to ensure public
health and safety.
5. Approval of this proposal will not result in a significant adverse impact on the
environment due to mitigation measures contained in the proposed Negative Declaration.
RESOPC.117
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby recommend adoption of the Negative Declaration by the City Council
pursuant to the attached Environmental Assessment.
3. That it does hereby recommend approval of Specific Plan 93-023 with conditions as set
forth in this Resolution, labeled Exhibit "A", attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission, held on this 28th day of September 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.117 2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 93- Exhibit "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 93-023 - JASCORP
SEPTEMBER 28, 1993
GENERAL:
1. The development shall comply with Exhibit B, the Specific Plan document for Specific
Plan 93-023 and the following conditions, which shall take precedence in the event of any
conflict with the provisions of Plot Plan 93-502.
2. Public improvements shall be provided as required by the Engineering Department and
Tentative Tract Map 27854.
3. All dwelling units within 150 feet of the Washington Street right -of way shall be limited
to one story in height. All one story units in this area of the project shall be a maximum
of 19 feet in height with twc story units in project a maximum of 24 feet in height.
4. A master landscaping plan for all perimeter street parkways shall be submitted and
approved by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission prior to issuance of a
building permit for the project. Landscaping materials to be native and drought tolerant.
Irrigation system to utilize emitter irrigation system where possible. Within 5 feet of
curb, no spray irrigation heads nor lawn shall be used. Within this area only emitters
and spreading shrubs and groundcover may be used.
5. Landscaping and architectural plans for individual lots and dwellings shall be reviewed
and approved by staff.
6. Lighting of permanent subdivision identification signs shall be permitted. All permanent
signs shall be approved by the Design Review Board.
7. Maximum overall density of the development shall be 10.3 dwelling units per acre (i.e.,
124 units) provided the project is sold to low and moderate income buyers per the
requirements of Plot Plan 93-502. A minimum of 30 units shall be used by either very
low or low income families respectively as required by Government Code Section 65915.
The units shall be guaranteed to remain affordable for a minimum of 30 years, pursuant
to contractual arrangements approved by either the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency or
City Council, prior to issuance of a building permit. The units shall be intermixed within
the project as determined by the City.
8. The minimum house size shall be 1,109 square feet, excluding garage area.
CONAPRVL.10:3
Conditions of Approval
Specific Plan 93-023
September 28, 1993
9. The minimum setbacks for each home shall be:
a.
Front
- 20 feet
b.
Rear
- 10 feet*
C.
Side (interior)
- 0 feet (zero lot yard)
d.
Side (exterior)
- 5 feet (one story)
- 7.5 feet (two story)
e.
Street side
- 10 feet
* Patio covers which are open on three (3) sides may extend to within five feet of the
rear yard property line.
10. Architectural variety: exterior building elevations shall make provisions for architectural
variety by using different colors, styles, roof treatments, window treatments, garage door
treatments, and similar methods. A mediterranean design theme shall be used.
11. The minimum lot area shall be 2,500 square feet.
12. Each single family home shall have a single garage parking space (with tandem driveway
parking space) and a second open concrete parking space immediately adjacent to the
concrete driveway for the garage. The garage size shall not be less than 12 feet by 20
feet (inside dimensions). The garage space shall remain clear of mechanical equipment
or appliances.
13. The doors for each garage space shall be either made of wood or metal. If metal is used,
sectional doors shall be instzlled. Automatic garage door openers shall be optional.
14. Internally illuminated or externally illuminated mounted building numbers shall be no less
than three inches in height and be of a color contrasting to the background in a prominent
location. The illumination source for the address sign shall be controlled by a photocell
sensor or a timer.
15. A centralized or gang -box mailbox delivery system shall be used for the project pursuant
to the provisions and requirements of the U. S. Postal Service.
16. The applicant shall establish a Design Review Committee to review and approve all
development within Tentative Tract 27854. The main objectives of this Committee shall
be to assure that building architecture, building materials and colors, building height and
setbacks, and landscape design follow appropriate design themes throughout the tract.
Procedures and operation of the committee shall be set forth in the Tract's CC & R's.
CONAPRVL.103
Conditions of Approval
Specific Plan 93-023
September 28, 1993
17. Applicant shall establish within the CC&R's site design standards appropriate for the zero
lot line homes pursuant to Condition #9, including but not limited to front, side, and rear
setbacks, lot coverage, etc. Standards shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning
and Development Department as part of its review of the CC&R's, but be no less
restrictive than the R-2 Zone standards, as appropriate.
18. Property lines and perimeter walls for all residential units shall be located at the top of
the graded slope for each parcel.
19. All roofing material within the project shall be concrete barrel tile (i.e., Lifetile Espana
Mission #108).
20. Restroom facilities for the groundskeepers shall be provided at the clubhouse. The
restroom can be a separate attached or detached building which has a toilet and lavatory
and/or storage facilities.
21. Height of fences and walls constructed as acoustical barriers shall be subject to the
approval of the Planning Director. All other fences or walls shall be limited to six feet
in height unless they are attached to a main building and are an architectural design
element, in which case they may exceed six feet subject to approval of the Planning
Director.
22. This specific plan approval shall not be effective until and unless Change of Zone 91-066
is granted.
23. The specific plan document approval period shall run concurrently with both of its
companion cases (e.g., TTM 27854 and PP 93-502).
24. The clubhouse swimming pool shall be handicap accessible and meet all the requirements
of the Building Department and the State of California.
25. Attached or detached second units (e.g. Granny Housing and/or guest houses) shall not
be permitted within the single family development.
26. All fencing within the project shall be decorative. No chain link, agricultural fencing or
wood fencing will be allowed.
27. The applicant shall be required to enter into an agreement with the City to provide
reciprocal access to the property to the south via the private driveway on Washington
Street.
CONAPRVL.103 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 93-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL CONCURRENCE WITH THE
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AND APPROVAL OF A
TENTATIVE TRACT TO ALLOW A 124 LOT SINGLE
FAMILY SUBDIVISION ON A 12± ACRE SITE
CASE NO. TT 27854 - LA QUINTA VILLAGE (JASCORP)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did,
on the 28th day of September, 1993, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing, to consider the request
of JASCORP to subdivide 12± acres into 124 single-family lots, and other miscellaneous lots,
generally located on the west side of Washington Street, 700± feet north of Calle Tampico,
more particularly described as:
A PORTION OF SECTION 6,
T6S, R7E, S.B.B.M.
WHEREAS, said tentative map has complied with the requirements of "The Rules
to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution No.
83-68), in that the Planning Director conducted an initial study, and has determined that the
proposed tentative tract will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and,
WHEREAS, mitigation of various physical impacts have been identified and will
be incorporated into the approval conditions for Tentative Tract 27854 in conjunction with this
tentative tract, thereby requiring that monitoring of those mitigation measures be undertaken to
assure compliance with them; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission
did find the following facts to justify the recommendation for approval of said tentative tract
map:
That Tentative tract 27854, as conditionally recommended, is generally consistent with
the goals, policies, and intent of the La Quinta General Plan for land use density, unit
type, circulation requirements, R-2 zoning district development standards, and design
requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance.
2. That the subject site will have a flat topography. The proposed circulation design and
single-family lot layouts as conditioned are, therefore, suitable for the proposed land
division.
RESOPC.119 1
3. That the design of Tentative Tract Map 27854 will not cause substantial environmental
damage or injury to the wildlife.
4. That the design of the subdivision, as conditionally recommended, will be developed with
public sewers and water, and, therefore, is not likely to cause serious public health
problems.
5. That the design of Tentative Tract Map 27854 will not conflict with easements acquired
by the public at large for access through the project, since alternate easements for access
and for use have been provided that are substantially equivalent to those previously
acquired by the public.
6. That the proposed Tentative Tract 27854, as recommended, provides for adequate
maintenance of the landscape buffer areas.
7. That the proposed Tentative Tract 27854, as recommended, provides on- and off -site
storm water retention, park in -lieu fees, and noise mitigation.
8. That general impacts from the proposed tract were considered within the MEA prepared
and adopted in conjunction with the La Quinta General Plan.
WHEREAS, in the review of this Tentative Tract Map, the Planning Commission
has considered the effect of the contemplated action of the housing needs of the region for
purposes of balancing the needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City of
La Quinta and its environs with available fiscal and environmental resources;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of Environmental Assessment 93-267 relative
to the environmental concerns of this tentative tract;
3. That it does hereby recommend approval to the City Council of the subject Tentative
Tract Map 27854 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached
conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission, held on this 28th day of September, 1993, by the following vote, to wit:
RESOPC.119 2
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
KATIE BARROWS, Chairwoman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERM[AN, Planning Director
City of La Quinta, California
RESOPC.119 3
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 27854, JASCORP
SEPTEMBER 28, 1993
GENERAL
1. Tentative Tract 27854 shall comply with the requirements and standards of the State
Subdivision Map Act and the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance, unless
otherwise modified by the following conditions.
2. This approval shall expire and become void within two years unless extended pursuant
to the City's Subdivision Ordinance.
3. Tract phasing plans, including phasing of public improvements, shall be submitted for
review and approval by the City Engineer and the Planning and Development Department
prior to recordation of any final map under this tentative map. The applicant shall
develop tract phases in the order of the approval phasing plan so that improvements
required of each final map are complete prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy
within subsequent final maps.
4. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit for construction of any building or
use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances
from the following public agencies:
- City Fire Marshal
- Public Works Department
- Planning and Development Department
- Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
- Desert Sands Unified School District
- Coachella Valley Water District
- Imperial Irrigation District
- California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Per
- Sunline Transit
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.
Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above mentioned agencies shall be
presented to the Building and Safety Department at the time of the application for a
building permit for the use contemplated herewith.
CONAPRVL.106 1
conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract 27854, Jascorp
September 28, 1993
5. As required by the General Plan, Applicant shall provide noise study by a qualified
acoustical engineer prior to issuance of building permit, to determine impacts to the
future residents from roadway noise from Washington Street and the future commercial
projects to the south surrounding residential zones and uses. The noise study shall
suggest mitigation measures which the City can require concerning the development of
the site.
6. The developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist (with the Developer to pay costs), to
prepare a mitigation and monitoring plan for artifact location and recovery. Prior to
archaeological studies for this site as well as other unrecorded information, shall be
analyzed prior to the preparation of the plan. The Planning Director shall approve the
individual or firm retained to prepare the work prior to any on -site activities.
The plan shall be submitted to the Coachella Valley Archaeological Society (CVAS) for
a two -week review and comment period. At a minimum, the plan shall: 1) identify the
means for digging test pits; 2) allow sharing the information with the CVAS; and 3)
provide for further testing if the preliminary result show significant materials are present.
The final plan shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for final
review and approval.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall have retained a qualified
cultural resources management firm and completed the testing and data recovery as noted
in the plan. The management firm shall monitor the grading activity as required by the
plan or testing results.
A list of the qualified archaeological monitor(s), cultural resources management firm
employees, and any assistant(s)/representative(s), shall be submitted to the Planning and
Development Department. The list shall provide the current address and phone number
for each monitor. The designated monitors may be changed from time to time, but no
such change shall be effective unless served by registered or certified mail on the
Planning and Development Department.
The designated monitors or their authorized representatives shall have the authority to
temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of resources. In
the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains, there shall be no further
grading, excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby areas reasonably suspected
to overlie adjacent human remains until appropriate mitigation measures are completed.
CONAPRVL . 10 Ei 2
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract 27854, Jascorp
September 28, 1993
Upon completion of the data recovery, the Developer shall cause three copies of the final
report containing the data analysis to be prepared and published and submitted to the
Planning and Development Department.
7. Final landscaping plans shall include approval stamps and signatures from the Riverside
County Agricultural Commissioners office and Coachella Valley Water District.
8. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written
report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with those
conditions of approval which must be satisfied prior to issuance of a building permit.
Prior to a final building inspection approval, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a
written report demonstrating compliance with all remaining conditions of approval and
mitigation measures. The Planning and Development Director may require inspection
or other monitoring to assure such compliance.
CITY FIRE MARSHAL
9. Provide secondary or emergency access to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal.
10. Provide adequate turning radius at intersections. Street improvement plan to be reviewed
by the Fire Marshal prior to plans approval.
11. Provide improvement plans for gated entrance for review and approval of the Fire
Marshal prior to issuance of a building permit.
12. Parking will be allowed on only one side of the private street since a 32-foot wide street
is proposed.
13. Gates installed to restrict access shall be power operated and equipped with a Fire
Department override system, Improvement plans for the entry street and gates shall be
submitted to the Fire Department for review/approval prior to installation.
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
14. The applicant shall construct, or enter into a secured agreement to construct, the on- and
off -site grading, streets, utilities, landscaping, on -site common area improvements, and
any other improvements required by these conditions before approval of any final map(s)
under this tentative tract map.
Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing structures
or obstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements.
CONAPRVL.106 3
Conditions of. Approval
Tentative Tract 27854, Jascorp
September 28, 1993
15. If development improvements are phased with multiple maps, off -site improvements (ie:
streets) and tract -wide improvements (ie: perimeter walls, common -area and setback
landscaping, and gates) shall be constructed or secured prior to approval of the first map
unless otherwise approved by the engineer.
The City Engineer may consider proposals by the applicant to stage the installation of
off -site and tract -wide improvements with development of two or more phases within the
tentative map.
16. The applicant shall pay cash or provide security in guarantee of cash payment for
required improvements which are deferred for future construction by others.
Deferred improvements for this project include a traffic signal on Washington Street at
entry drive - 50% of the cost to design and construct and the completion and landscaping
of the Washington Street median island - 100% of the cost to design and construct.
The applicant's responsibility for deferred improvements may be satisfied through
participation in a City major thoroughfare improvement program if this development
becomes subject to such a program.
17. The applicant shall dedicate public street right-of-way and utility easements in
conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans,
and as required by the City Engineer.
Dedications required of this tract include:
A. Washington Street - 60-foot half width
Street right-of-way geometry for cul-de-sacs, knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall
conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #800, #801, and #805 respectively
unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
18. The applicant shall dedicate common -area setback lots, of minimum width as noted,
adjacent to the following street rights -of -way on Washington Street - 20'
Minimum widths may be used as average widths for meandering wall designs.
Where sidewalks and/or bikepaths are required, the applicant shall dedicate blanket
easements over the setback lots for those purposes.
CONAPRVL.106 4
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract 27854, Jascorp
September 28, 1993
19. The applicant shall vacate vehicle access rights to the following streets from lots abutting
the street(s):
Washington Street
Access to this street shall be restricted to street intersections and approved emergency
access locations.
20. The applicant shall dedicate any easements necessary for placement of and access to
utility lines and structures, park lands, drainage basins, common areas, and mailbox
clusters.
21. The Applicant shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any portion of
this property between the date of the approval by the City Council and the date of
recording of any final map(s) covering the same portion of the property unless such
easements are approved by the City Engineer.
TRACT DESIGN
22. The requirements of the City's off-street parking ordinance shall be met concerning all
supplemental accessory facilities.
GRADING
23. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the Applicant shall
submit and receive approval of a fugitive dust control plan prepared in accordance with
Chapter 6.10, La Quinta Municipal Code. In accordance with said Chapter, the
Applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the city, in an amount sufficient
to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit.
24. 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.
25. 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), if any are required of this development, that a soils
report has been prepared pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health and Safety Code.
CONAPRVL.106 5
Conditions of. Approval
Tentative Tract 27854, Jascorp
September 28, 1993
Prior to issuance of any building permit the applicant shall provide a separate document
bearing the seal and signature of a California registered civil engineer, geotechnical
engineer, or surveyor that lists actual building pad elevations. The document shall, for
each building pad in the project, state the pad elevation approved on the grading plan,
the as -built elevation, and shall clearly identify the difference, if any. The data shall be
organized by tract phase and lot number and shall be cumulative if the data is submitted
at different times.
DRAINAGE
26. The tract shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention capacity to flow out
of the project 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.
27. Storm water runoff produced in 24 hours during a 100-year storm shall be retained in on -
site retention facilities unless the developer participates in off -site facilities sized to
accommodate runoff from this development. The tributary drainage area for which the
applicant is responsible shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets.
28. In design of on -site retention facilities, the percolation rate shall be considered to be zero
unless site -specific data 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
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.
29. The design of the tract shall not cause any change in flood boundaries, levels or
frequencies in any area outside the tract.
UTILITIES
30. 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.
CONAPRVL.106 6
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract 27854, Jascorp
September 28, 1993
31. In areas where hardscape surface improvements are planned, underground utilities shall
be installed prior to construction of the surface improvements. The applicant shall
provide certified reports of utility trench compaction tests for approval of the City
Engineer.
STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
32. 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.
If this development is not subject to a major thoroughfare improvement program, the
applicant shall design and construct street improvements as listed below.
33. 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
sections shall be as follows:
Residential 3.0" a.c./4.50" a.b.
Collector 4.0"/5.00"
Secondary Arterial 4.0"/6.00"
Primary Arterial 4.5"/6.00"
Major Arterial 5.5"/6.50"
If the applicant proposes to construct a partial pavement section for use during
development of the tract, the partial section shall be designed for projected traffic
loadings during the temporary condition or shall have a strength equivalent to the 20-year
design strength.
34. 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.
35. The City Engineer may require miscellaneous incidental improvements and enhancements
to existing improvements as necessary to integrate the new work with existing
improvements and provide a finished product conforming with City standards and
practices. This may include, but is not limited to, street width transitions extending
beyond tract boundaries.
CONAPRVL.106 7
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract 27854, Jascorp
September 28, 1993
36. The following street improvements shall be constructed to conform with the General Plan
street type noted in parentheses:
OFF -SITE STREETS
Washington Street - Major Arterial (96' curb to curb). Complete street
improvements on the west side and fully landscape the existing median island.
ON -SITE STREETS
Private Residential - 32 feet wide
37. Access points and turning movements of traffic shall be restricted as follows:
Single full -turn access at signalized intersection of Washington Street and access drive
shared with development to the south.
The entry drive and gate shall be designed with adequate stacking room to ensure that
traffic from this development does not impede the flow of traffic into and out of the
development to the south. The entry gate design shall include a turn -around between the
guard house or card reader and the gate.
]LANDSCAPING
38. The applicant shall provide landscape improvements in the setback lots along Washington
Street. The applicant is encouraged to minimize steep slope designs within the perimeter
landscaping setback areas. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or spray
irrigation within 5-feet of street curb.
39. Landscape and irrigation plans for the Washington Street median island, 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.
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.
40. The applicant shall insure that landscaping plans and utility plans are coordinated to
provide visual screening of above -ground utility structures.
CONAPRVL.106 8
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract 27854, Jascorp
September 28, 1993
PUBLIC SERVICES
41. The applicant shall provide public transit amenities as required by Sunline Transit and/or
the City Engineer. These amenities shall include, as a minimum, a bus turnout location
and passenger waiting shelter on Washington Street.
The precise location and character of the turnout and shelter shall be as determined by
Sunline Transit and the City Engineer.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
42. The City is contemplating adoption of a quality -assurance program for privately -funded
construction. If the program is adopted prior to the issuance of permits for construction
of the improvements required of this map, the applicant shall fully comply with the
quality -assurance program.
If the quality -assurance program has not been adopted, the applicant shall employ
construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer.
43. The applicant shall employ or retain California registered civil engineers, geotechnical
engineers, or surveyors, as appropriate, who will provide, or have his or her agents
provide, sufficient supervision and verification of the construction to be able to furnish
and sign accurate record drawings and certify compliance of all work with approved
plans, specifications and applicable codes.
44. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record
drawings of all plans signed by the City Engineer. Each sheet of the drawings shall have
the words "Record Drawings", "As -Built", or "As -Constructed" clearly marked on each
sheet and be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy
of the drawings.
MAINTENANCE
45. The applicant shall maintain the landscaped areas of the subdivision such as common
lots, landscaped setbacks and retention basins until those areas have been accepted for
maintenance by the City's Landscape and Lighting District or a homeowners' association
(HOA). The applicant shall maintain all other improvements until final acceptance of
tract improvements by the City Council.
CONAPRVL.106 9
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract 27854, Jascorp
September 28, 1993
FEES AND DEPOSITS
46. The applicant shall pay all deposits and fees required by the city for plan checking and
construction inspection. Deposit and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the
applicant makes application for the plan checks and permits.
MISCELLANEOUS
47. All mitigation measures of Environmental Assessment 93-267 shall be met.
48. An on -site field study shall be conducted by a qualified horticulturist to determine .if the
California Ditaxis plant species exists on the property. A written summary of the field
study shall be submitted to staff prior to any on -site grading. The work shall be paid for
by the applicant or developer.
49. The City's Water Conservation Ordinance (Ordinance 220) shall be met.
50. Approval of this tentative tract map shall be subject to final approval of Change of Zone
91-066, Plot Plan 93-502, and Specific Plan 93-023.
51. The appropriate Planning approval shall be secured prior to establishing any of the
following uses:
a. Temporary construction facilities.
b. Sales facilities, including their appurtenant signage.
C. On -site advertising/construction signs.
52. Prior to final map approval by the City Council, the Applicant shall meet the parkland
dedication requirements as set forth in Section 13.24.030, La Quinta Municipal Code,
by paying parkland fees in lieu, as may be determined in accordance with said Section.
53. Design and architectural standards for the single family homes shall be submitted to the
Director of Planning & Development for review and approval prior to final map
recordation. All approved Specific Plan (SP 93-023) standards shall be included in the
CC&R's. A copy of the CC&R's shall be submitted to the Planning Department for
review. The final documents shall require City Attorney approval.
54. Grading, drainage, street, lighting, landscaping and irrigation, park, gate, and perimeter
wall plans are not approved for construction until they have been signed by the City
Engineer.
CONAPRVL.106 10
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract 27854, Jascorp
September 28, 1993
55. Prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for buildings within the tract, the applicant
shall install traffic control devices and street name signs along access roads to those
buildings.
CONAPRVL.106 11
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
PLOT PLAN 93-502, JASCORP
SEPTEMBER 28, 1993
GENERAL
1. Phasing plans, including phasing of public improvements, shall be submitted for review
and approval by the City Engineer and the Planning and Development Department prior
to the issuance of a building permit.
2. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit for construction of any building or
use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances
from the following public agencies:
- City Fire Marshal
- Public Works Department
- Planning and Development Department
- Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
- Desert Sands Unified School District
- Coachella Valley Water District
- Imperial Irrigation District
- California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit)
- Sunline Transit
Applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those
jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall
furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approvals and signatures on the
plans.
Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above mentioned agencies shall be
presented to the Building and Safety Department at the time of the application for a
building permit for the use contemplated herewith.
3. The development of the property shall be generally be in conformance with the exhibits
contained in the file for PP 93-502, unless amended otherwise by the following
conditions or by Tentative Parcel Map 27854 and Specific Plan 93-023.
4. The approved plot plan shall be used within two years of the final approval date;
otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. "Be used" means
the beginning of substantial construction which is contemplated by this approval, not
including grading which is begun within the one year period and is thereafter diligently
pursued until completion. The plot plan case shall run concurrently with Tentative Tract
Map 27854 and Specific Plan 93-023 once approved.
CONAPRVL.097
conditions of Approval
Plot Plan 93-502, Jascorp
September 28, 1993
5. Approval of this plot plan shall be subject to final approval of Change of Zone 91-066,
Specific Plan 93-023, and Tentative Tract Map 27854.
6. There shall be no outdoor storage of boats, trailers, or RV's without specific approval
of the Planning Commission.
7. All exterior lighting shall be shielded and directed so as not to shine directly on
surrounding adjoining properties or public rights -of -way. Light standard type with
recessed light source shall also be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director.
Exterior lighting shall comply with Outdoor Light Control Ordinance and off-street
parking requirements.
8. A decorative trash enclosure shall be built for the proposed clubhouse building. The
structure shall be designed with pedestrian access that does not require opening the doors,
and provided with opaque metal doors. Plans for trash enclosures to be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of a building permit. Applicant shall
contact local waste management company to insure that enclosure design, size, and
location is adequate.
9. Handicapped parking spaces and facilities shall be provided per Municipal and Federal
Code requirements (e.g. clubhouse building).
10. As required by the General Plan, Applicant shall provide noise study by a qualified
acoustical engineer prior to issuance of building permit, to determine impacts to the
future residents from roadway noise from Washington Street and the future commercial
projects to the south surrounding residential zones and uses. The noise study shall
suggest mitigation measures which the City can require concerning the development of
the site.
11. The project shall comply with applicable Arts in Public Places Ordinance prior to
building permit issuance.
12. Final landscaping plans shall include approval stamps and signatures from the Riverside
County Agricultural Commissioners office and Coachella Valley Water District.
13. Construction shall comply with all local and State Building Code requirements in affect
at time of issuance of building permit as determined by the Building Official.
14. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written
report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with those
conditions of approval which must be satisfied prior to issuance of a building permit.
CONAPRVL.097 2
Conditions of Approval
Plot Plan 93-502, Jascorp
September 28, 1993
Prior to a final building inspection approval, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a
written report demonstrating compliance with all remaining conditions of approval and
mitigation measures. The Planning and Development Director may require inspection
or other monitoring to assure such compliance.
15. That all conditions of the Design Review Board shall be complied with as follows:
A. The landscape program for Washington Street includes a variation of planting
materials such as: palm trees, accent shade trees, lawn, shrubs, and
groundcover. Unlighted trees or palms should be considered along Washington
Street. Incandescent light fixtures will be required (less than 160 watt). The
final landscaping plan should be reviewed by the Design Review Board during
plan check.
B. A meandering eight foot wide sidewalk shall be installed on Washington Street
along the frontage of the site. The sidewalk shall meander into the right-of-way
but not touch the curb.
C. A common area parking lighting plan shall be reviewed by the Planning and
Development Department prior to building plan check. A photometric study
should be developed with analysis of the lighting pattern on the project and meets
the City's Outdoor Lighting Ordinance provisions as explained in Chapter 9.210.
the height of the light poles should not exceed 10 feet in height.
D. The screen wall along Washington Street shall be a minimum height of six feet
high as measured from adjoining grade height and the wall shall be constructed
to match the recently installed privacy screen wall on the east side of the street
which was installed by the City in 1992, except the green ceramic tile does not
need to be installed. The wall should be stepped or terraced to create an
architectural element on Washington Street which is consistent with the City's
Image Corridor design guidelines.
E. Both passive and active outdoor equipment shall be examined and the on -site
recreational facilities shall be approved by the Design Review Board during final
plan review.
F. All dwelling units along Washington Street shall be a minimum of 30 feet from
the property line (landscape lot). The measurement shall be to the edge of any
building exclusive of building patios or eave overhangs.
CONAPRVL.097 3
Conditions of Approval
Plot Plan 93-502, Jascorp
September 28, 1993
G. The comments of the Riverside County Sheriff's Department (June 24, 1993)
shall be incorporated into the final design of the project.
H. The final construction plans shall be reviewed by the Planning and Development
Department during Building Department review.
I. Landscaping for each duplex unit shall comply with the following:
1' . The front, side, and rear yards of each duplex unit should be landscaped
to property line, edge of curb, sidewalk, or edge of street pavement,
whichever is furthest from the residence.
2. The front yard landscaping shall include trees (minimum three 15-gallon
trees per duplex and three extra trees on the exterior sides of the corner
units), shrubs, and groundcover and/or hardscape of sufficient size,
spacing, and variety to create an attractive and unifying appearance.
Landscaping shall be in substantial compliance with the standards set forth
in the Manual of Architectural Standards and the Manual on Landscaping
Standards as adopted by the Planning Commission.
3. A permanent water -efficient irrigation system shall be provided for all
areas required to be landscaped.
4. The landscaping shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and viable
condition by the property owner.
J. 'The perimeter security fencing for the project (excluding Washington Street) shall
be masonry and painted to match the Washington Street wall (Item D). The fence
shall be six feet high.
K. The combination one story/two story duplex design shall be approved by the
Planning Commission on September 28, 1993, or the matter shall be returned to
the Design Review Board for final review.
L. The entry drive and gate shall be designed with adequate stacking room to ensure
that traffic from this development does not impede the flow of traffic into and out
of the development to the south. The entry gate design shall include a turn
around between the card reader and the gate. The final design shall require the
Fire Marshal, Engineering Department, and the Planning and Development
Department approval.
CONAPRVL.097 4
Conditions of Approval
Plot Plan 93-502, Jascorp
September 28, 1993
M. The driveway on Washington Street shall be a minimum width of 36-feet (i.e. two
lanes in and one lane out) or as determined by the City Engineer.
CITY FIRE MARSHAL
16. The comments of the Riverside County Fire Department (September 20, 1993) shall be
incorporated into the final design of the project.
SPECIAL
17. The Environmental Fees of the State Fish and Game Department and the County of
Riverside shall be paid within 24 hours after review of the proposed by the Planning
Commission and/or City Council (i.e. $1,328.00).
18. All required improvements shall be completed prior to site occupancy of the proposed
development.
19. No roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be permitted unless screened from view by
a building parapet wall or other integral architectural feature per City ordinance.
20. All mitigation measures of Environmental Assessment 93-267 shall be met.
21. The City's Water Conservation Ordinance (Ordinance 220) shall be met.
22. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's
adopted Infrastructure Fee Program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits.
CONAPRVL.097 5
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California
September 14, 1993
I. CALL TO ORDER
7:00 P.M.
A. The meeting was called to order at 7:04 P.M. by Chairwoman Barrows.
Commissioner Ellson led the flag salute.
II. ROLL CALL
A. Chairwoman Barrows requested the roll call. Present: Commissioners Ellson,
Marrs, Abels, and Chairwoman Barrows.
B. Commissioners Abels/Marrs moved and seconded a motion to excuse
Commissioner Adolph. Unanimously approved.
C. Staff Present: Planning Director Jerry Herman, Principal Planner Stan Sawa,
Associate Planners Greg Trousdell and Leslie Mouriquand-Cherry, and
Department Secretary Betty Sawyer.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
B. Continued Tentative Tract 27840; a request of TD Desert Development (Chuck
Strother) for approval of a tentative tract map to create 127 single family
residential lots and miscellaneous lots on 55+ acres.
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 asked staff to clarify the changes to the Conditions
of Approval staff was requesting.
3. There being no further comment, Chairwoman Barrows opened the public
hearing. Chuck Strother, applicant, addressed the Commission regarding
his project and asked for clarification on Condition #37, last paragraph,
PC9-14 1
Planning Commission Minutes
September 14, 1993
regarding off -site street improvements which were recommended by the
Engineering Department. Mr. Strother then question Condition #20 and
went on to explain to the Commission why the condition was being
required and gave his reasoning as to his alternative to Condition #20.
4. Chairwoman Barrows asked staff to clarify the alternatives offered for
Condition #20. Staff explained that Condition #20 was recommended for
amendment by the Engineering Department. The condition deals with
acquisition and dedication of street right-of-ways. Presently at the
southwest corner of the site adjacent to Washington Street, there is a
triangular shape piece of land which is privately owned and needed to
widen Washington Street. This property is in front of the subject property
but under a separate ownership not associated with the project. Staff
explained that the Engineering and Planning and Development staff met
with Mr. Strother prior to the Planning Commission meeting to discuss
acquisition of this triangular shape piece of land. Based upon a review of
the Development Agreement, it was staff's position the applicant should
acquire the land and deed or dedicate the right-of-way to the City for
street improvements. The applicant did not agree with staff's
interpretation of the Development Agreement and wanted the City to
acquire this piece of land and then he would construct the required street
improvements. A third option of sharing the costs was being presented
to the Planning Commission for their recommendation.
5. Following discussion with staff and there being no further questions,
Chairwoman Barrows closed the public hearing.
6. Commissioner Ellson asked if the agricultural requirement was the
standard requirement. Staff stated it was.
7. Commissioner Marrs asked if staff had any comment on Condition #37.
Staff stated the condition requires was intended to provide for incidental
improvements to make a safe and finished road transition. Commissioners
asked staff to modify this condition to reflect this transition.
8. The Engineering Department and Planning and Development Department
did recommend further conditions be added and/or amended. Condition
#38.A.2. was amended clarifying the extent of the half -street
improvements along Washington Street. The condition noted that the
improvements must be between Avenue 48 on the north and the southern
boundary adjacent to Park La Quinta, including the triangular shaped
piece of land which is under the ownership of a separate individual.
PC9-14 2
Planning Commission Minutes
September 14, 1993
Condition #38.A.3. was modified regarding signal costs. Since the
specific plan specified the extent of the costs it was deleted from this
condition as part of the tentative tract map. Condition #38.A.4. was
amended to include Adams Street improvement requirements. Condition
#38.B.1-3. were added to stipulate on -site street widths. The on -site street
widths were not previously noted in the draft conditions. Condition #67
was added to require a stripped golf cart lane along the main collector
road as required by the specific plan. Condition #68 was added to require
a pedestrian and bicycle path system within the project. This condition
was also required as a result of the specific plan requirements. The
conditions and requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District were
added as Condition #69. The Coachella Valley Water District conditions
were for the most part, relatively standard. A flooding easement for the
portion of the golf course, which will act as an evacuation channel, will
be required. Additionally, the applicant will need to provide other
facilities for the expansion of the domestic water system, such as wells,
reservoirs, and booster pumping stations. Lastly, the landscaping and
irrigation plans will need to be submitted to the District for review to
insure efficient water management. The applicant stated he had no
objection with these revisions.
9. Commissioners discussed with staff the alternatives to Condition #20.
Following this discussion, the Commission recommended the third option
which would require the City and applicant to share in the acquisition of
the land. Under this option, the applicant will be responsible to front all
costs for acquiring the land. One third of the cost of the acquisition of the
property shall be the applicant's responsibility (one third is needed for the
street improvements). The City will grant a credit to the applicant in the
amount of two thirds of the cost of acquisition. The credit will be made
against the applicant's other obligations (i.e., fees, etc.) with respect to
this development. The means of granting this credit is to be determined
at a later date. There shall be no out-of-pocket expense to the City in
acquiring the needed right-of-way or future credits.
10. Following discussion, it was moved/seconded by Commissioners
Marrs/Abels to adopt Resolution 93-032 recommending approval of
Tentative Tract 27840 subject to the modified conditions as stated above.
ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Ellson,
Marrs, Abels & Chairwoman
Barrows. NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Adolph.
ABSTAINING: None.
PC9-::4 3
Planning Commission Minutes
September 14, 1993
B. Continuing Change of Zone 91-066 and Plot Plan 93-502; a request of Jascorp
for a Change of Zone from R-1, R-2*8,000 and C-P to R-2 for approximately 12
acres, and a Plot Plan to develop a 124 unit one and two story low and moderate
income apartment complex.
1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell stated the applicant had requested a
continuance of the project to September 28, 1993. The public hearing was
opened by Chairwoman Barrows. There being no discussion, it was
moved and seconded by Commissioners Marrs/Ellson to continue Change
of Zone 91-066 and Plot Plan 93-502 to September 28, 1993.
Unanimously approved.
C. Vesting Tentative Tract 27031 (Minor Change Amendment #1); a request of Mr.
E. George Marzicola on behalf of the Washington Square property owners for a
one year time extension.
1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in
the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and
Development Department.
2. Commissioner Ellson asked staff to clarify the Avenue 47 access.
3. There being no further questions of staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened
the public hearing. Mr. George Marzicola addressed the Commission
regarding the request.
4. There being no further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the
public hearing.
5. Commissioners Ellson/Abels moved and seconded a motion to adopt
Resolution 93-033 recommending approval of Tentative Tract 27031
(Minor Change, Amendment #1) first extension of time, subject to
conditions.
ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Ellson,
Marrs, Abels & Chairwoman
Barrows. NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Adolph.
ABSTAINING: None.
D. Public Use Permit 93-016; a request of Bernardo Gouthier for approval of a
sculpture park with an art school, garden gallery, and administrative offices.
PC9-14 4
Planning Commission Minutes
September 14, 1993
1. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand-Cherry presented the information
contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning
and Development Department.
2. Commissioner Marrs asked staff to clarify the width of the exit and the
purpose of the shuttle system. Staff stated they were requiring the exit to
be 15-feet and the shuttle system was to transport the students to the
school and keep the parking lot close to the street.
3. Commissioner Ellson asked if there was any problem with the waste
disposal company getting access. Staff stated Waste Management of the
Desert had no problem.
4. Commissioner Ellson asked if the entire caretakers facility would be
constructed in the first phase. Staff referred the matter to the applicant.
5. There being no further questions of staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened
the public hearing. Mr. Bernardo Gouthier, in answer to Commissioner
Ellson question, stated the first phase would consist of only the
highlighted area. Commissioner Ellson then pointed out that the restroom
facilities for the caretaker were not included in that portion. Mr. Gouthier
amended his stated and included the complete building in the first phase.
6. Mr. Gouthier asked for clarification on Condition #32. Staff stated Mr.
Gouthier's street improvements existed and he would have no off-street
requirements except for landscaping. Following discussion, it was
recommended that Condition #32 be deleted.
7. There being no further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the
public hearing. Commissioners Ellson/Abels moved and seconded a
motion to adopt Minute Motion 93-042 recommending approval of Public
Use Permit 93-016, subject to the deletion of Condition #32, the
increasing of Phase I to include the entire classroom, storage, and
caretakers facility, and Condition #35.A.1 being changed to 15-feet.
Unanimously approved.
IV. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
V. BUSINESS SESSION:
A. Continued Tentative Tract 23913 (Qui nterra) -Phase II; a request of Forecast
Homes for approval of architectural plans for single family residences.
PC9-14 5
Planning Commission Minutes
September 14, 1993
1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in
the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and
Development Department.
2. There being no questions of staff, Chairwoman Barrows asked that only
those who had something new to add to the previous comments address
the Commission at this time.
3. Mr. Ed Kibbey, representing Building Industry Association stated that the
building industry depends upon builders being able to process their
projects through the City process according to their established
regulations. This was also true for the property owners as well. He felt
the City should base their decision on what the Code called for.
4. Mr. Russell Robertson, representing Quinterra, submitted additional
petitions to the Commission and stated he felt that any units approved for
development should be compatible with the existing homes. He submitted
a picture comparison of the existing homes and those built by Forecast
Homes in Moreno Valley.
5. Mr. Michael Damson, Cactus Flower, stated his opposition to the project
based on incompatibility.
6. Mr. Dwight Robb, La Quinta Vistas, stated his objection and fear that
what was happening to Quinterra would happen in his project. He felt
there must be an alternative to the smaller units being mixed with the
larger.
7. Mr. David Alpert, Acacia, stated his opposition to the project. He has
invested his life savings in his home and he had purchased a certain life
style by buying in the Acacia development. He further stated he was
losing equity due to the economy, why should the developer profit from
his misfortune.
8. Mr. Doug Phillips, attorney for Quinterra (Best, Best & Krieger),
reviewed the letter submitted by the property owner (Pri Merit Bank) on
behalf of Forecast Homes. He stated that even though the banks can't
afford to build a larger unit, the property owners can't afford to lose any
more equity in their homes. He went on to reiterate that the City Zoning
regulations stated that if a project was not in harmony or compatible with
the existing homes, then the Planning Commission was required to deny
the project.
PC9-14 6
Planning Commission Minutes
September 14, 1993
9. Mr. Lance Eldred, Topaz, stated his desire to see the City adopt a
protective ordinance on how to deal with this issue which will be repeated
in every unfinished tract. He did not feel there was a solution to the
problem and Forecast Homes should conform to the Zoning Ordinance.
The units did not fit.
10. Mr. Bruce Strickland, applicant, gave the Commission some comparison
figures relative to the surrounding tract house sizes. He stated he was not
changing the density of the area, and the units were compatible. He went
on to discuss the issues raised regarding the photograph display submitted
by Mr. Robertson. He further stated that no where in the Zoning
Ordinance does it state that a unit is incompatible due to size. He stated
that the City doesn't guarantee an investment to the property owners.
There were fundamental rights on both sides of this issue and the
Commission needed to address those issues.
11. There being no further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows asked the
Commission for their comments. Commissioner Abels stated the City was
in the process of refining its Zoning Ordinance and he felt it necessary to
deny the project at this time. He felt the issue needed to be resolved with
new City regulations. He stated the City was very much for growth, he
would like to see the tracts as they were originally planned.
12. Commissioner Ellson stated her agreement with keeping the tracts as they
are. She empathized with the homeowners as they are the City. She went
on to share what she felt was an average house size for the area.
Following discussion with the Commissioners it was felt that no more than
a 30% differential in house sizes should be allowed within an existing
tract.
13. Commissioner Marrs expressed his concern that a solution could not be
reached. He felt a builder should be able to build on his property. He
felt there was no reason why a decision on a minimum house size could
not be reached to bring the project in conformance with the existing
homes. Commissioners Ellson and Abels stated their agreement.
14. Chairwoman Barrows stated her agreement with the 30 % differential on
the size of the homes to be built. She stated her empathy for both sides
and felt there needed to be a reasonable compromise on both sides.
PC9-14 7
Planning commission Minutes
September 14, 1993
15. Commissioner Ellson stated the Zoning Ordinance did not address the size
of a home to be built within an existing tract. She felt the architectural
review within the existing tracts needed to address the existing homes
(i.e., CC & R's document).
16. Following an agreement between the Commissioners that the project
should be approved, Commissioners discussed with staff the Conditions
of Approval. Conditions were amended as follows:
a. Condition #13: block wall would be required for all fencing of
perimeter and interior walls.
b. Condition #15: Metal roll -up doors would be required for all
garages.
C. Condition #7: Plans for the 1,868 square foot unit or larger would
be required next to or adjacent to any existing units.
d. Condition 14: 18" overhangs would be required.
e. Condition 9: Gray roof tile would be deleted from the color
board.
f. Condition #16: The minimum house size would be 1,650 square
feet.
g. Condition 17: All additional house plans not already approved by
the Planning Commission would be resubmitted for Planning
Commission approval.
h. Condition #12: the use of River Rock and the new "red" brick
would not be allowed.
17. Following the discussion regarding the conditions, Commissioners
Abels/Mans moved to adopt Minute Motion 93-043 approving Tentative
Tract 23913, Phase II subject to the amended conditions as stated above.
Unanimously approved.
18. Planning Director Jerry Herman discussed with the Commission their
findings to base their approval on. They are as follows:
PC9-14 8
Planning Commission Minutes
September 14, 1993
a. The Conditions of Approval for Tract 23913 grant the authority to
the Planning Commission for review and approval of the
architectural residential units proposed for construction within the
development.
b. The Planning Commission has reviewed and approved the
architectural residential style and size of the homes to be
constructed within the tract on December 11, 1990.
C. The development contains 116 lots of which 18 homes have been
constructed per the approved architectural residential style.
e. The proposed smaller residential units are not in harmony,
conformance, or compatible in size or architectural style with the
existing developed units or the units approved by the Planning
Commission.
f. The Planning Commission further finds that the minimum house
size shall be 1,650 square feet which is in harmony, conformance,
and is compatible with the existing development.
19. Commissioners Abels/Ellson moved to adopt Minute Motion 93-044
approving the findings as stated above. Unanimously approved.
20. The Commissioners asked staff to relay to the Council their request to
review the Zoning Ordinance as it relates to minimum house sizes to
include a stipulation that would protect homeowners within an existing
tract.
Chairwoman Barrows excused the Commission for a ten minute break. The Commission broke
at 9:25 P.M. and reconvened at 9:35 P.M.
B. Street Name Change 93-003; a request of La Quinta Golf Properties for approval
of a Resolution Intent to set a public hearing to consider a street name change
from Schwabacker Road to Quarry Lane.
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.
PC9-14 9
Planning Commission Minutes
September 14, 1993
2. There being no questions of staff, Commissioners Abels/Ellson moved to
adopt Resolution 93-034 approving the Resolution of Intent to set October
26, 1993, as the date for a public hearing on Street Name Change 93-003.
Unanimously approved.
C. General Plan Consistency Finding; a request of Coachella Valley Water District
for approval of General Plan consistency findings for water and sanitation projects
throughout the City.
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. There being no questions of staff, Commissioners Ellson/Abels moved to
adopt Minute Motion 93-045 approving the proposed Coachella Valley
Water District projects as being in compliance with the La Quints General
Plan. Unanimously approved.
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Commissioners Ellson asked that the minutes be amended on Page 6, Item #26,
the word "objection" should be changed to "opinion"; Page 3, Item #8, should
be "La Quinta Del Oro" not "La Quinta Del Rey". There being no further
corrections Commissioners Abels/Ellson moved and seconded a motion to
approve the Minutes of August 24, 1993 as corrected. Unanimously approved.
VII. OTHER - None
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Mans to adjourn this regular
meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on
September 28, 1993, at 7:00 P.M. at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chambers. This meeting
of the La Quinta Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:36 P.M., September 14, 1993.
PC9-14 10