Loading...
1988 07 12 PCA G E N D A CF� M0FTN PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA A Regular Meeting to be held at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California July 12, 1988 - 7:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER Flag Salute III. HEARINGS - None IV. 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. Persons wishing to address the Planning Commission under Public Comment and scheduled Agenda items should use the form provided. Please complete one form for each item you intend to address and submit the form to the Planning Director prior to the beginning of the meeting. Your name will be called at the appropriate time. When addressing the Planning Commission, please state your name and address. The proceedings of the Planning Commission meeting are recorded on tape and comments of each person shall be limited. V. CONSENT CALENDAR Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of June 14, 1988. VI. BUSINESS A. Item: Tentative Tract 21555, One -Year Extension of Time; A Request for the Filing of a Final Map Concerning the 0 i �• MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California June 14, 1988 I. II. CALL TO ORDER A. The meeting was called to Chairman Walling. The Commissioner Bund. 'DnT.T. rAT.T. 7:00 p.m. order at 7:02 p.m. by Flag Salute was led by A. Chairman Walling requested the roll call. Present: Commissioners Steding, Zelles, Bund, Moran, and Chairman Walling. B. Staff Present: Planning Director Murrel Crump, Principal Planner Jerry Herman, Principal Planner Ted Bower, Assistant Planner Glenda Lainis, and City Engineer Frank Reynolds. WVAVTWnQ Chairman Walling introduced the Public Hearing Items as follows: A. Change of Zone Nos. 88-032 and 88-033, and General Plan Amendments 88-019 and 88-020; requests by Rick Johnson Construction, Owens -Parks Co., Harold and Nancie Palmer, Bernardo Gouthier, Russell Wade, Carol Morton, Lee Martin, Tanya Adams (Miller), and the City of La Quinta; for preannexation zoning amendments and an amendment to the General Plan to expand area covered to include two annexations and designate land uses for new areas; for the following locations: A) northwest corner Adams and Fred Waring (44th Avenue); and B) north of Avenue 58, approximately one -quarter mile east of Jefferson and one-half mile west of Madison; plus, south of Avenue 58, approximately one-third mile west of Madison Street to Jefferson, and extending southward along the Jefferson alignment to 60th Avenue. MR/MIN06-14.DFT -1- L I1 • 1. Planning Director Murrel Crump presented the information contained in the Staff Report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Chairman Walling opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Greg Swajian, partner of Applicant Rick Johnson, addressed the Commission on behalf of their request. 3. There being no further public comment, Chairman Walling closed the Hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion. The Commission then discussed the requests as presented. 4. A motion was made by Commissioner Zelles and seconded by Commissioner Steding to adopt, for Location A, Planning Commission Resolution 88-011, recommending to the City Council approval of Preannexation Zone Case No. 88-032 and General Plan Amendment No. 88-019, designating the land use for the site as Low Density Residential and the zoning as R-1-9000, according to Exhibits A and B. Following a roll call vote, the motion was unanimously adopted. A motion was made by Commissioner Zelles and seconded by Commissioner Steding to adopt, for Location B, Planning Commission Resolution 88-012, recommending to the City Council approval of Preannexation Zoning Case No. 88-033 and General Plan Amendment No. 88-020, designating the land use for the site as Low Density Residential (2-4 du/ac), Very Low Density Residential (0-2 du/ac), and Open Space, and zoning the site as R-1, R-1-20, and W-2-20, according to Exhibits A and B. Following a roll call vote, the motion was unanimously adopted. B. Tentative Tract 23269 (Revised); a request by Triad Pacific Development to divide a 72+ acre portion of a 120+ acre parcel into 284 single-family lots, located at the southwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Adams Street. 1. Assistant Planner Glenda Lainis presented the information contained in the Staff Report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. The Commission then had various questions for City Engineer Frank MR/MIN06-14.DFT -2- 0 • 2. Reynolds regarding storm retention and access to Fred Waring. It was the City Engineer's opinion that, if only two acres are to be uses for retention, the area will need to be 8 to 10 feet deep, potentially creating a liability problem when containing water. Regarding the access to Fred Waring, the City Engineer commented that 1) too much traffic could be generated on Fred Waring; 2) a temporary access would be acceptable; 3) permanent access should be from Adams; and 4) right-in/right-out only might be possible. Chairman Walling opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Thomas Thornburgh, representing the Applicant, addressed the Commission, reviewing the proposal and various Conditions of Approval. 3. There being no further public comment, Chairman Walling closed the Hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion. During this discussion, the following comments were expressed: MORAN: • Would like to direct Applicant to redesign. • Concerns include: lot sizes, streets, access to Fred Waring, combination park/retention basin. • Not opposed to right -turn -only on Fred Waring, but does not want a median break. ZELL'ES: a Feels no problem with the tract is insurmountable. • Lot sizes conform. e Not happy with the flow of the streets, but it is correctable. ® Regarding the park - Developer is willing to work with the City. • Likes two access points, one each on Adams and Fred Waring. BUND: • Has some concerns; prefers Alternate A, likes the variety. • Agrees with Commissioner Zelles regarding design. • Regarding access to Fred Waring: right-in/right-out only and move entrance to the west. STEDING: • Favors Staff's recommendation to continue. • Encourage land for park, not fee -in -lieu. • Park/retention unresolved, not the time to approve. • If higher density is to be approved, it should be for a fantastic design. • Regarding Fred Waring: MR/MIN06-14.DFT -3- signalize Adams/Fred Waring, entry to project on Adams, not Fred Waring. • Feels that the urgency of this project has interrupted the communication process between the Developer and the Planning Staff, and that this urgency is not in the best interest of the City and its concerns (i.e., attractive, safe designs for the Community). WALLING: • Staff's points are well taken, but the Commission has approved other similar subdivisions in the past. • It is not fair to be inconsistent with approvals. ® The problems all appear to be solvable. e Fred Waring access could work, Adams access alone won't work„ 4. A motion was made by Commissioner Steding and seconded by Commission Moran that Tentative Tract 23269, Revised #1, be continued for redesign, observing the points listed in the Staff Report and with instructions to resolve the retention design prior to the return to Commission. By roll call vote, Commissioners Bund, Zelles, and Chairman Walling voted "no"; Commissioners Steding and Moran voted "aye". The motion was defeated by a three -to -two vote. A motion was made by Commissioner Zelles to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 88-013 and recommend to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract 23269, Revised #1, with attached conditions, including right -turn -only from Fred Waring, and directing Staff to resolve park issues with the Developer; and to adopt Negative Declaration No. 88-092. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bund with an amendment that the motion include adding Condition No. 31: without substantially altering the street circulation plan, that it be re-evaluated by the Developer and modified to create a flow which the Commission feels will be less confusing; more specifically, that the second to the far -westerly street (the longest north/south leg) be continued through to the north; that the cul-de-sac in the easterly part of the project be continued through; and that this circulation be identified as a major. MR/MIN06-14.DFT -4- IV. V. VI. A. VII. • • VIII. By roll call vote, Commissioners Bund, Zelles, and Chairman Walling voted "aye"; Commissioners Steding and Moran voted "no". The motion was passed by a three -to -two vote. PUBLIC COMMENT No one wished to address the Commission. CONSENT CALENDAR A motion was made by Commissioner Steding and seconded by Commissioner Moran to approve the minutes of May 24, 1988. Unanimously approved. BUSINESS Chairman Walling introduced the Business Item as follows: Continued discussion of the Draft Outline of the Highway 111 Specific Plan. 1. Principal Planner Ted Bower presented the information contained in the Status Report. 2. The Commission discussed the draft outline as presented. 3. A minute motion was made by Commissioner Steding and seconded by Commissioner Zelles to accept the Policy Framework for the Highway 111 Specific Plan Draft Outline, and to direct Staff to proceed with the next phase. Unanimously adopted. OTHER - Future Agenda Items. The following items were Commission discussion: Criteria for tract design. Status of High Density issue. ADJOURNMENT suggested for future A motion was made by Commissioner Steding and seconded by Commissioner Moran to adjourn to a regular meeting on June 28, 1988, at 7:00 p.m., in the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California. This meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:28 p.m., June 14, 1988. MR/MIN06-14.DFT -5- ° ® • V'./ . • REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE: JULY 12, 1988 APPLICANT: DENNIS FREEMAN/FREEMAN REALTY & DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: TENTATIVE TRACT 21555; A REQUEST FOR A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR THE FILING OF A FINAL MAP CONCERNING THE SUBDIVISION OF 40.33 GROSS ACRES INTO 150 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS PLUS ONE STORM WATER RETENTION/COMMON RECREATION LOT PROJECT LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND SAGEBRUSH AVENUE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-4 UNITS/ACRE) ZONING DESIGNATION: R-1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 84-020 WAS PREPARED AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS ADOPTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ORIGINAL TENTATIVE TRACT MAP APPROVAL RELATED ACTIONS: 1. The original application for Tentative Tract No. 21555 was approved on October 27, 1986. 2. Change of Zone Application No. 86-021 was approved on October 27, 1986, amending the zoning from R-3, R-2-8000, and R-1 to R-1. 3. Washington Street Specific Plan No. 86-007, Amendment No. 1, was approved on September 2, 1986. 4. A Minor Adjustment Application was approved on April 5, 1988. This adjustment included reduction in lots from 151 to 150, combining the two storm water retention/open space areas, and adjusting some lot lines. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: On October 27, 1986, the City Council approved the original Tentative Tract Map. The current Owner/Applicant requests a time extension of one year in which to record the final MR/STAFFRPT.047 - 1 - map(s). If approved, the new expiration date would be October 27, 1989. The proposal is a subdivision of 40.33 gross acres into 150 single-family lots. One additional parcel designated as landscaped/storm water retention area is also included. The net density of the proposal is 3.94 units per acre, which is within the density range for the Low Density Residential (2-4 units/acre) designation on the site. ANALYSIS: This Application for extension of time was circulated to the relevant City Departments and other agencies. No substantial comments were received that would present a change in circumstances from the original approval, but some "housekeeping" in terms of conditions is in order. The Developer is presently examining ways in which the project can gain access to Washington Street over land that is not in their ownership. Conditions of Approval for this project state this will be done when the City exercises its power of Eminent Domain; however, the Applicant is looking for a short-term solution, such as an easement. The following Conditions of Approval have been changed: 1. Lot numbers in Condition No. 18 have been changed to reflect the new lot numbers introduced by the Minor Adjustment Application, and now reads: "Dwelling units in excess of 21 feet (one-story in height) shall not be permitted on Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 97, 98, 110, 111, 147, 148, 149, and 150. Dwelling units with building heights of up to 28 feet (two stories) may be permitted along north, east, and south tract boundaries, subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission." 2. Condition No. 27 has been eliminated because current State law requires the payment of these fees. 3. Condition No. 16 was modified, consistent with the clean-up of other conditions. 4. Condition No. 30 has been replaced by the following condition which deals with the issue of landscaping maintenance more adequately: "Subdivider shall consent to the formation of a maintenance district under Chapter 26 of the Improvement Act of 1911 (Streets & Highways Code, Section 5820 et seq.), or the Lighting and Landscaping Act of 1972 (Streets & Highway Code 22600 et seq.), to implement MR/STAFFRPT.047 - 2 - maintenance of all improved landscape buffer and storm water retention areas. It is understood and agreed -that the Developer/Applicant shall pay all costs of maintenance for said improved areas until such time as tax revenues are received from assessment of the real property. "The Applicant. shall submit to the Planning and Development Department a Management and Maintenance Agreement, to be entered into with the unit/lot owners of this land division, in order to insure common areas and facilities will be maintained. A homeowner's association shall be created with the unqualified right to assess the owners of the individual units for reasonable maintenance costs. The association shall have the right to lien the property of any owners who default in the payment of their assessments. "The common facilities to be maintained are as follows: (1) Storm water retention system. (2) Twenty -foot perimeter parkway lot along Washington Street." 5. Existing Condition No. 41 has been eliminated because the current infrastructure program only allows a credit if the project is revenue producing. 6. Sunline Transit has previously indicated the need for a bus turnout alongside Washington Street, north of the tract entrance. The following additional condition addresses this issue: "The Applicant shall coordinate with Sunline Transit and the City to provide a future bus turnout and shelter location on Washington Street. A bus turnout shall be provided for in the approved street improvement plans, and shall either be constructed with those improvements or a bond shall be provided. Appropriate bonding shall be provided in lieu of a completed bus stop shelter, until such time as service is provided by Sunline." RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 88-014, recommending -to the City Council a one-year time extension for Tentative Tract No. 21555, subject to conditions. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Approved Tentative 3. Planning Commission Tract No. 21555, "Exhibit A" Resolution with Conditions MR/STAFFRPT.047 - 3 - AT-TACHMI=N A NO. VICINITY MAP CASE MAP CASE No. TT 2 15 5 5 SCALE: NTS A6TACHMENT No. 2 W H Q z w Q C L2 � z � cti gn ©� ,a a i N C1 N d N c n e �Rss u i` r� CV N ¢ ~ a6 ��5 C 'f s ¢q6i 71i lij N o 9 11 ~~,,- i. �i a 1 3 ' S `R Y�►f a _ N H R R z z H w�Z f �y1 j� rr yy ns N m 0 0 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 88-014 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATING A ONE-YEAR TIME EXTENSION. CASE NO. TT 21555 - FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 26th day of August, 1986, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing of the Environmental Analysis and the request to subdivide 40.33 acres into a 150-lot single-family residential subdivision, generally located on the northeast corner of Washington Street and Sagebrush Avenue, more particularly described as follows: THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 31, TSS, R7E, S.B.B.& M.; AND THE SOUTH HALF OF 'THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 31, TSS, R7E, S.B.B.& M. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 16th day of September, 1986, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the Applicant's request and recommendation of the Planning Commission concerning the Environmental Analysis and Tentative Tract Map No. 21555; and decided to continue this Hearing until October 7, 1986; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, at the continued Public Hearing of the 7th day of October, 1986, considered the Environmental Analysis and Tentative Tract Map No. 21555, and continued the same to special Council meeting of the 27th day of October; and, WHEREAS, said Tentative Map complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (County of Riverside, Resolution No. 82-213, adopted by reference in City of La Quinta Ordinance No. 5), in that the Planning Director, after initial study (Environmental Assessment No. 86-052) determined that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and that a Negative Declaration should be filed; and, MR/RESO88.014 -1- 0 i WHEREAS, at the Public Hearing held on October 27, 1986, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of alw interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did make findings to justify the approval of said Tentative Tract map; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, said Tentative Tract Map No. 21555 was approved by the La Quinta City Council based on said findings and subject to certain conditions; and, WHEREAS, the new owner, Dennis Freeman/Freeman Realty and Development, has applied for this first Extension of Time for Tentative Tract 21555, in accordance with Section 13.16.230 of the La Quinta Municipal Code relating to time extensions on tentative maps; and, WHEREAS, the La Quinta Planning Commission, on July 12, 1988, did find the following facts to justify in recommending approval of said extension of time: 1. That Tentative Tract No. 21555, as conditionally approved, is generally consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan, and the standards of the Municipal Land Division and Land Use Ordinances. 2. The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed subdivision. 3. Adherence to the will ensure that the cause substantial impacts on wildlife the extent feasible. current conditions of approval project will not be likely to environmental damage and that habitat will be mitigated to 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 Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the above -described First Extension of Time for. Tentative Tract Map No. 21555 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the conditions of City Council Resolution No. 86-89, dated October 27, 1986. MR/RES088.014 -2- 0 0 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 12th day of July, 1988, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CHAIRMAN ATTEST: PLANNING DIRECTOR MR/RESO88.014 -3- cu'APPROVED ( ) DEM I i ) CONTINUED TO.,,��,,.a.. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 86-89 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS AND APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO SUBDIVIDE 40.33 GROSS ACRES INTO 151 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS, PLUS STORMWATER RETENTION LOTS. CASE NO. TTM 21555 (DREW WRIGHT ASSOC.) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 12th and 26th days of August, 1986, hold a duly noticed public hearing and continued hearing to consider the request of Drew Wright and Associates, Inc., to subdivide 40.33 gross acres into 151, single-family lots plus two (2) stormwater retention/common recreation lots to allow construction of a single-family home project in the (proposed) R-1 Zone located on the northeast corner of Washington Street and Sagebrush Avenue, more particularly described as: N1/2, NWI/4, SE1/4, SEC 31, T5S, R7E, S.B.B.& M. and S1/2, NWI/4, SE1/4, SEC 31, T5S, R7E, S.B.B.& M. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, upon receiving the report and recommendation of the Planning Commission did fix the date for public hearing to consider said map and environmental determination, along with related Change of Zone and Specific Plan Amendment applications. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 16th day of September and the 7th day of October, 1986, hold a duly noticed public hearing and continued hearing to consider the applicant's request and recommendation of the Planning Commissior concerning Tentative Tract Map No. 21555. WHEREAS, said tentative map has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (County of Riverside, Resolution No. 82-213, adopted by reference in City of La Quinta Ordinance No. 5), in that the Planninc Director has determined after initial study (Environmental Assessment No. 86-052) that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and that a negative declaration should be filed. WHEREAS, at said continued public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts to exist to justify the approval of said tentative tract map. I. That the proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 21555 is consistent with the goals, policies, and intent of the La Quinta General Plan. L:1 • RESOLUTION NO. 8E-89 2. That the design and improvement of Tentative Tract Map No. 21555 is consistent with the goals, policies, and intent of the La Quinta General Plan. 3. That the proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 21555 is consistent with provisions of Specific Plan No. 86-007, knendment 01, as approved. 4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed project at a net density of 3.94 units per acre. 5. The project is consistent with the standards of the Municipal Zoning and Land Division Ordinance, as modified by conditions of approval. 6. That the design of the subdivision, as conditionally approved, is not likely to cause serious public health problems. 7. That potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the development will be adequately mitigated through the conditions of approval. B. That the design and improvements applicable to Tentative Tract Map No. 21555 may cause substantial environmental damage or injury to wildlife habitat of the Coachella valley Fringe -Toed Lizard, but mitigation measures in the form of fees for a new habitat area will mitigate this impact. 9. That the design of Tentative not conflict with easements, at large, for access through easements for access and for are substantially equivalent by the public. Tract Map No. 21555 will acquired by the public the project since alternate use have been provided that to those previously acquired 10. That siting and design of the lots, along with conditions of apprcval requiring energy efficient construction, will minimize the consumption of energy. 11. That provision of potential on -site recreation areas, totalling approximately 1.67 acres, will offset impact to existing recreational opportunities. 12. That design of the units is consistent with City standards for single-family dwellings as modified through conditions of approval. := RESOLUTION NO. 86-89 WHEREAS, in the review of this tentative tract map, the City Council has considered the effect of the contemplated action on 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 City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Council in this case; 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of Environmental Assessment No. 86-052, in that the approval of this tentative tract map will not result in a significant adverse impact on the environment, and that a Negative Declaration is appropriate for filing; 3. That it does hereby approve the above described Tentative Tract Map No. 21555, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a (regular/special) meeting of the La Quinta City Council, held on this 27th day of October , 1986, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Allen, B;�inenberger and Wolff. NOES: Council Member Cox and Mayor Pena. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ad too CITY MANAGER/CLERK CITY ATTOMY - 3 - r 1 a - `• •re ut r.....� C..� : N I C,�Jr- o�, lQ�� i� t •� ! � � � � t �s ee4 � •y � fl� y� t s'sg a..= a c �r-ac.ros ® n 10 j _ a� e s ! e 41 all it, t uO tt" aag mn -e oc'o;c �—kl �1 Ali FI 7 to o IF cc`a It.tieQ�IIIn % a y J a •--�L7i:i �i i _ - cl d `i GGpNNNII y2jl 9 ^ I ; It h pi W f I� WIC ZI fp It MF- z. + !1 >a F {..�. N 6QVMNI U W!O�� P� Q1g�5N� QUNN G==m�Om N; V - 0 �y I e�iaa to -alluz 2_G ry X�Ml 13 a¢n QanN>lm-o� a- ue G_ u = j I — •/=^ FOO•9 ONy� 42a oNJ -Wua trj SyayC `�Wi°iF�� I�F,� '•I [t� ��ga ' w x 2u ra W E J s iF _Nn� �d0.. I psall i pAW r t7 U 1 0003I-I.8 OSO.OZ£•LIS NdV l=N -yBe . .Itm.1. ,`r � ��-- // F, - -• __ •i c � l R�♦ ram' S' _' 1 olf- dr ux C Wmd it r�8 �1. - Wit' a1 0'�.�?/•//r ��R a 'R� <��. //®��,' l l W o r lK > r� L-Ii 3a �T' Ir�� n. •'� St Alf- I I - �(i "t�- n r�.rwg . t. �'� .m v � � � sR � N ` •� �' 1 a'`p $ E C �'j "�' 11��d� sr• t.+; ,a � ii 4'i`'� i° � A / ��'6 � 0 tl � a N �N''J QN gg s OINI It cr ul WIK o _cc • A o ws,l -ov r , ' p • �I+r�'�� �`s-�_.A1 �`'� {({(t m :i' w ji! 1mp11101� 4r f!O.Oit -llf IMf se qqq1t11 I£•0£/t4 f'R 11 SNIVIs3110000•2-11 ££vS 1Ovol ® 0 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 86-89 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENNTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 21555 General 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 21555 shall comply with the requirements and standards of the State Subdivision Map Act and the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance, unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. 2. This tentative tract map approval shall expire two years after the original date of approval by the La Quinta City Council unle approved for extension pursuant to the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance. 3. Tract phasing plans, including phasing of public improvements, shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer and the Planning Department. 4. Prior to approval of a final tract map, the Applicant shall havE submitted for review and received approval from the Planning Commission, for the following items: a. Dwelling unit floor plans, elevation designs, and color and materials - detailed in final form. b. Tract grading and final building pad elevations - showing ar east -west and north -south cross section through the tract, extended to the center line of adjacent streets and a minimL of 100 feet beyond interior boundaries. c. Individual unit setback detailing along with lot fencing/wa] enclosures and landscaping initially to be provided on indi- vidual lots (typical and/or required landscape criteria). d. Tract boundarY wall and landscape details (berming to perimeter walls is not to exceed a slope of 33%). e. Revised map to provide for a minimum of one emergency accesa point along eastern tract boundary; or through street acces¢ to eastern property, as may be arranged by private agreement If street opening is to be provided, the temporary method ol barricade shall be submitted along with tract boundary treat ment ,. f. A final siting plan delineating all setbacks, unit mix and other applicable information. 5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of building or use contemplated by this approval, the Applicant shi obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: 0 • CITY COUNCIL CONDITIONS O Page 2. F RESOLUTION NO. 86-89 APPROVAL - TTM 21555 - City Fire Marshal - City Engineer - City Planning Department - Riverside County Environmental Health Dept. - Desert Sands Unified School District Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above mentioned agencies shall be presented to the Building & Safety Division at the time of the application for a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. Grading and Drainage 6. The Applicant shall utilize dust control measures in accordance with the Municipal Code and Uniform Building Code and subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 7. The Applicant shall have prepared a grading plan that is prepare by a Registered Civil Engineer, who will be required to supervis the grading and drainage improvement construction; and certify that the constructed conditions at the rough grade stage are as per the approved plans and grading permit. This is required pri to issuance of building permits. Certification at the final gra stage and verification of pad elevations is also required prior final approval of grading construction. 8. A thorough preliminary engineering geological and soils engineer ing investigation shall be done and the report submitted for review along with the grading plan. The report's recommendation shall be incorporated into the grading plan design prior to grading plan approval. The soils engineer and/or the engineerin geologist must certify to the adequacy of the grading plan. Pursuant to Section 11568 of the Business and Professions Code, the soils report certification shall be indicated on the final subdivision map. 9. Applicant shall comply with provisions of the Master Plan of Drainage, including payment of any fees required therewith, as i effect at time of recordation. Drainage disposal facilities sha be provided as required by the City Engineer. This may include off --site drainage conduit to the La Quinta Stormwater Evacuation Channel. Traffic and Circulation 10. Applicant shall comply with the following requirements of the Ci Engineer: a. The Applicant shall dedicate all necessary public street and utility easements as required by the City Engineer. 0 • CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 86-89 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TTM 21555 Page 3. Dedication of Washington Street shall be based upon 60-foot from the centerline to be established by the current precist alignment study. b. That the Applicant shall construct street improvements to tt requirements of the City Engineer and the La Quinta Municipi Code (LQMC). Washington Street and Sagebrush shall be half - width improvements. c. That the Applicant shall have prepared street improvement plans (for public and private streets) that are prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer. Street improvements, includin( traffic signs and markings, and raised median islands (if required by the City General Plan) shall conform to City Standards as determined by the City Engineer and adopted by the LQMC (3" AC over 4" Class 2 Base minimum for residentia: streets). Street design shall take into account the subgrac soil strength, the anticipated traffic loading, and street design life. d. All utilities will be installed and trenches compacted to C: standards prior to construction of any streets. The soils engineer shall provide the necessary compaction test report; for review by the City Engineer. e. The Applicant shall undertake a traffic/signalization study when 50% of the homes within the development are occupied. The developer shall participate financially in the construe tion of improvements indicated by the traffic study results in an amount proportionate to the development as determined by the City. 11. A median break shall not be permitted at the northerly tract entry, but rather shall be allowed at Sagebrush Avenue. 12. The City shall acquire the privately held parcel of land betwee. the subject tract and the current Washington Street right-of-wa The cost of such acquisition shall be proportionately shared among the subject tract and the property to the north ("The Grove") based on frontage. Prior to final map approval, the Developer/Subdivider shall deposit with the City the estimated or actual acquisition cost or enter into an agreement to reimburse the City for this tract's assigned share of the acquisition cost, as required by the City. Such payment may be credited to Infrastructure Fees. 13. Applicant shall dedicate with recordation of the tract map acce rights to Washington Street for all individual parcels which ba up to it. 0 11 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 86-89 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TTM 21555 Page 4. 14. Perimeter "Desert Club" easements shall be vacated or otherwise legally removed prior to recordation of the Final Map. Tract and Building Design 15. Development of the project site shall comply with Exhibits A, B, 1-B, through 5-B, and 1-C through 5-C, as contained in the Planning Department's file for Tentative Tract Map No. 21555 and the following conditions, which conditions shall take precedence in the event of any conflict with the provisions of the Tentative Tract Map. 16. A minimum 20' landscaped setback shall be required along Washington Street. Design of these setbacks shall be approved by the Planning Commission. a. The minimum setback may be modified to an "average01 if a meandering or curvilinear wall design is used. b. The setback area shall be established as a separate common lot and be maintained as set forth in Condition No. 30. 17. Building setbacks shall conform to the requirements of the R-1 Zone, except where a greater setback is required herein. Rear yard setbacks for ]Lots backing up to Washington Street shall provide an average setback of 20 feet with no point of a home closer than 10 feet, measured from the easterly line of the landscaped perimeter setback. 18. Dwelling units in excess of 21 feet (one story in height) shall not be permitted on Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 97, 98, 110, 111, 147, 148, 149, and 150. Dwelling units with building heights of up to 28 feet (two stories) may be permitted along north, east, and souti tract boundaries, subject to review and approval by the Planninc Commission. 19. The following floor plan standards shall be observed: a. Garages shall be a minimum 20' x 20' (clear) with no encroac] by appliances, mechanical equipment, storage areas, etc. b. Bedrooms shall have no dimension less than 10 feet. 0 0 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 66-89 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TTM 21555 Page 5. 20. If any Plan V units incorporate three -car garages, the siting of these units may need to be adjusted to meet setback requirements 21. All roof -mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from vie on all sides by the roof design. Any ground -mounted equipment shall be screened in an approved manner and shall be located outside of required setbacks. 22. Any minor changes in unit mix, building colors and materials, 1c lines or shapes, street alignments shall be approved by the Planning Department. Public Services and Utilities 23. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City Fix Marshal: a. Schedule "A" fire protection approved Super fire hydrants, (61, x 4" x 2-1/2" x 2-1/211) shall be located one at each street intersection and spaced not more than 330 feet apart in any direction with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a fire hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1500 GPM for 2-hours duration at 20 PSI. b. Cul-de-sacs longer than 150 feet shall have a minimum turning diameter of 90 feet. c. Applicant/Developer shall furnish one (1) copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and, tl system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall I signed/approved by a Registered Civil Engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with tt requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." 24. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Coachel] Valley Water District as follows: a. The water and sewage disposal system for the project shall I installed in accordance with the requirements of the City ar CVWD . b. Tentative Tract No. 21555 shall be annexed to Improvement District No. 55 of the Coachella Valley Water District for Sanitation Service. 0 0 CITY COUNCIL RIESOLUTION NO. 86-89 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TTN 21555 Page 6. r.. Where there are identified conflicts with existing Coachella Valley Water District facilities, the City shall withhold permits until satisfactory arrangements have been made with the District. 25. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Imperial Irrigation District prior to issuance of any building permits within the tract. Applicant shall provide written clearance that Imperial Irrigation District can provide service to this tract. 26. All utility improvements shall be installed underground. 27. In order to mitigate impacts on public schools, the Applicant shall comply with the following: a. Prior to recordation of the final map, the Applicant shall enter into an agreement to pay School Mitigation Developer Fees with the Desert Sands Unified School District (DSUSD). Walls, Fencing, Screening, and Landscaping 28. The approved landscaping for individual lot front and corner side yards, and fencing improvements shall be installed within 90 days after the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The Developer/Subdivider shall provide a $10,000 guarantee bond, per 10 units requested for occupancy, releasable only to the City, to insure said landscaping and improvements are installed within the 90-day time limit. The Developer/Subdivider shall maintain a $10,000 bond until all unit landscaping is completed. 29. Desert or native plant species and drought resistant planting materials shall be encouraged to be incorporated into the landscaping plans for the site. 30. Subdivider shall consent to the formation of a maintenance district under Chapter 26 of the Improvement Act of 1911 (Streets & Highways Code, Section 5820 et seg.), or the Lighting and Landscaping Act of 1972 (Streets & Highway Code 22600 et seq.), to implement maintenance of all improved landscape buffer and storm water retention areas. It is understood and agreed that the Developer/Applicant shall pay all costs of maintenance for said improved areas until such time as tax revenues are received from assessment of the real property. The Applicant shall submit to the Planning and Development Department a Management and Maintenance Agreement, to be entered into with the unit/lot owners of this land division, in order to insure common areas and facilities will be maintained. A homeowner's association shall be created with the unqualified right to assess the owners of the individual units for reasonable maintenance costs. The association shall have the right to lien the property of any owners who default in the payment of their assessments. The common facilities to be maintained are as follows: (1) Storm water retention system. (2) Twenty --foot perimeter parkway lot along Washington Street." 31. All lighting facilities shall be designed to minimize light and glare impacts to surrounding property and shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Department. 0 • CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 86-89 CONDITIONS OF ,APPROVAL - TTM 21555 Page 7. Miscellaneous 32. Plot Plan approval shall be secured prior to establishing any construction facilities, sales facilities, and signs on the subject property. 33. The Applicant acknowledges that the City is considering a City-wide Landscape and Lighting District and by recording a subdivision map agrees to be included in the district. Any assessments will be done on a benefit basis as required by law. 34. The developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist immediately and take appropriate mitigation measures when any archaeological remains or artifacts are encountered during project development. 35. Prior to recordation of a final map, the Applicant shall pay the required mitigation fees for the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Program, as adopted by the City. 36. Provisions shall be ,made to comply with the provisions and requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee Program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 37. The Applicant shall pay the required processing, plan checking and inspection fees as are current at the time the work is being accomplished by City personnel or subcontractors for the Plannin Department, Building or Engineering Divisions. 38. Applicant shall submit plans for street lighting along roads, if any, for review and approval by the Planning Department. 39. Prior to issuance of building permits, building setbacks, engineering design, orientation of buildings, and noise barriers shall be used to reduce noise impacts from existing and future nearby streets to within State standards. A noise study shall k prepared by a licensed Acoustical Engineer and submitted to the Planning Department for review prior to recordation of a final map. The study should concentrate on noise impacts from perimet arterial traffic on the development and alternative mitigation techniques. Design of perimeter street parkway areas shall incorporate to the fullest extent the use of berming and land- scaping techniques so as to avoid the closed or isolated impression given by walled -in developments. 40. The Developer of this subdivision of land shall cause no easeme:r to be granted or recorded over any portion of this property between the date of approval by the City Council and the date of recording of the final map without the approval of the City Engineer. E • CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 86-69 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TTM 21555 Page 8. 41. The Applicant shall coordinate with Sunline Transit to provide a future bus turnout and shelter location Washington Street. A bus turnout shall be provided approved street improvement plans, and shall either constructed with those improvements or a bond shall provided. Appropriate bonding shall be provided in completed bus stop shelter, until such time as servi provided by Sunline. and the City on for in the be be lieu of a ce is DATE: APPLICANT: OWNER: PROJECT: STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 6, 1988 RICK JOHNSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ROBERT C. MONROE PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM FOR THE MONROE BUILDING APPROVED UNDER PLOT PLAN NO. 87-380. CURRENT REGULATIONS Secticn 9.212.110 SIGN REGULATIONS (B) permits attached identification signs at a ratio of one square foot of sign area per lineal foot of tenant space frontage along the street, and a directional sign of up to 20 square feet for the second -story office. Freestanding signs are only permitted for commercial complexes containing more than one building, or for individual commercial uses having property frontage of 200 feet or more on a public street. REQUEST: The Applicant is seeking the following signage: Type/ ------------ Colors ---------- Use Sign Area Location Background Border Lette 1. Library 9 sq. ft. Over entrance Light Orange Yello Attached Brown 2. Rick Johnson Construction 3. Future Tenant Signs 4. Building Sign 12 sq. ft. Middle of bldg. Light Redwood White Attached Blue 2nd Floor 4 sq. ft. Over entrance Light Redwood White 2nd Floor Blue Attached 1.5 By stairs Light Redwood White 1st Floor Blue (Directional) 4.5 sq. ft. Over entrance No Color Identified 1st Floor 4.5 sq. ft. Over entrance 1st Floor 3.3 sq. ft.Pedestal Sign at Estado entrance No Color Identified Dark Redwood Sands Brown MR/STAFFRPTT.048 -1- 0 • The building lighting will be used to illuminate all signs. ANALYSIS: 1. The intent of the Planned Sign Program is to provide a complete review of proposed signs as they relate to the building and surrounding buildings. 2. A sign adjustment is needed to permit a freestanding sign. The building does not warrant the sign. However, it would be permissible if the predominant feature of the pedestal be the building address, with smaller letters identifying the Village building. This feature should be in a tile or other durable material, such as brass. The Applicant may, in the future, want to consider a building identification wall sign. An amendment to the sign program could be applied for and processed by Staff. 3. The proposed signs do not provide for total design continuity (i.e., -the colors and sign shapes are not consistent), nor are they different enough to represent an alternate imaginative approach to signs/sign graphics. 4. In this particular instance, a common background and border color should be provided. Suggested colors for the background are beige or natural redwood. The lettering and logo of each use can be different colors as selected by the tenant. A common color for the sign borders is not suggested, but the color must be supplied to the Planning and Development Department. 5. More than one tenant sign for a given use appears to be excessive. However, small directional signs are permitted, such as a one -square -foot sign with tenant name and entrance indicated on the sign and installed adjacent to the tenant's entrance. 6. The proposed location of the signs on the first floor should be recessed so as not to be a detracting element or appear as an afterthought. The second -story signs should be mounted on the building wall, rather than hung from the rafters. RECOMMENDATION: The Commission may attach appropriate conditions in order to achieve the intent of the sign regulations. It is recommended that the Commission approve by Minute Motion, the Planned Sign Program, subject to the following findings and conditions. MR/STAFFRPT.048 -2- 0 • 1. The Planned Sign Program, as conditioned, provides visual harmony and satisfies •the intent of the sign regulations. 2. The Planned Sign Program, as conditioned, is compatible with the surrounding developments. 3. The proposed freestanding pedestal building sign is not permitted. A building address sign located on the pedestal is permitted, provided the complete address is added. The address sign is to be constructed of tile or brass. CONDITIONS• 1. Each tenant is limited to one sign (i.e., Rick Johnson Construction Company may have one, but not both, of the proposed signs). 2. All signs shall have either a tan, beige, white, or neutral color, or natural redwood background. The border color is also to be uniform among all building signs, and the color supplied to the Planning and Development Department. 3. Any future direct illumination of the signs (other than existing building lighting) shall be subject to Planning Commission review and approval. 4. The one second -story business identification sign must be attached to the wall (as opposed to being hung from rafters). 5. The location of the first -floor signs must be further identified and submitted to the Planning and Development Department for review and approval. The signs cannot be hung so as to appear flush with the front building wall. 6. No substantial revisions to the adopted sign program (except incidental directional signs) are permitted without approval of the Planning Commission. MR/STAFFRPT.048 -3- 0 0 1H 3 UPSTAIRS lZ I back 7Y Itv'l L"j ' t.� �✓�u�P ��1 �s 17�iS IS AiJ ouGINAL JNFUBLISHcL QK`'iLC� 5; dr•'�ii Ild� F' '� !. PERSONAL USc IN CONNC-CTION WITH A K)R YOU 8Y C;'.''_f SK:P! CRAFTS 11 IS `,'M TO FE T ' COPIED ,R FJ:'s;.!°!i-D IN ANY FAS IOiv W! IQUT Ti :L \.,.�. IISSIQ;V L. F Chl1:# 5I4iN CRAFTS Cali#. Lk No. 4? C:h.cri � c� 3984313 FVI 'H, I I I rA 9,27,1• 0 e IN LL lv� 7. C, A, U, E 'ru WR 0 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: JULY 12, 1988 CASE: PLOT PLAN 88-394/SIGN APPLICATION 88-067 APPLICANT/ OWNER: ROLAND J. MITLOLINA AND WILLIAM H. WOLLSON LOCATION: 78-085 AVENIDA LA FONDA PROJECT/ REQUEST: THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ESTABLISH A RESTAURANT, WHICH REQUIRES ADDITIONAL PARKING, AND ALSO ADD A CANOPY AND SIGN TO THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING CURRENT REGULATIONS: THE PARKING REGULATIONS ARE: RESTAURANTS -- ONE PARKING SPACE FOR EACH 45 SQUARE FEET OF SERVING AREA. THE SERVING AREA SHALL INCLUDE THE ENTIRE ROOM OR ROOMS IN WHICH SERVING IS CONDUCTED. OFFICES -- ONE PARKING SPACE FOR EACH 250 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA, EXCLUDING PUBLIC CORRIDORS AND STAIRWAYS. SIGNAGE: THE PROPOSED CANOPY/SIGN IS CONSIDERED AN EXTERIOR ALTERATION AND, THEREFORE, MUST BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THE REGULATIONS PERMIT ATTACHED IDENTIFICATION SIGNS AT A RATIO OF ONE SQUARE FOOT OF SIGN AREA PER LINEAL FOOT OF TENANT SPACE FRONTAGE ALONG THE STREET. REQUEST: PARKING -- The current and proposed uses require six parking spaces. Currently four parking spaces exist in front of the building; three additional parking spaces are identified along the rear of the building. The public alley provides the maneuvering area for these spaces, and therefore must be paved to C-ty standards (this also includes the parking spaces) for the entire 75 feet of alley frontage. A handicap parking space was not identified, but is required. MR/STAFFRPT.046 -1- CANOPY -- The Applicant proposes to install a 12-foot-wide by 4-foot-deep canopy. The canopy color will be the same as the building, sandstone. The canopy will have the restaurant name, "Robil" F on the front in dark brown letters (same as building trim). The canopy will have backlighting. The "Maddick Building" sign will be removed. ANALYSIS: 1. The proposed use and current uses require six parking spaces (one of which must be handicap). The Applicant is providing the required improved parking spaces. The project is conditioned to provide the handicap space. 2. The existing parking spaces in front of the building are part of the original building design approved by the County. 3. The change of use is not significant enough to require compliance with the Village Specific Plan. However, should the use(s) intensify in the future, consistency with the Village Plan design standards would be required. However, the property owners could, at their option, when the parking district is created, eliminate the front spaces and redesign it into a pedestrian area more consistent with the Village Plan.. 4. One handicap parking space is required by the change of use. The handicap parking space must be located next to the main entrance. The most appropriate location is in place of the two front western parking spaces. The reduction to six parking spaces still complies with minimum requirements. 5. Small commercial parking areas in conjunction with an established commercial use and on -site signage are exempt from CEQA RECOMMENDATION: By Minute Motion, that the Commission approve the plot plan/sign application request, subject to the following findings and conditions. FINDINGS: 1. The proposed change of use, at this time, does not evoke the nessity for full compliance with the design standards of the Village Specific Plan. However, any future intensification of use will require compliance. 2. The parking lot and canopy/sign are exempt from CEQA. MR/STAFFRPT.046 -2- 3. The canopy, parking spaces (including the handicap space), and landscaping comply with the C-P-S zoning district and General Plan policies. CONDITIONS: 1. The entire 20--foot width by 75-foot length of the public alley shall be paved per City standards. Plans for paving must be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. 2. Paved. parking spaces and landscaping shall be provided as modified and indicated on the plot plan (Exhibit "A"). MR/STAFFRPT.046 -3- ! rI L e �I 29 a 'Ld�Q1N�W����U'�UblhNtlld '�` . VAR v! 3o Allo P9b'. JS t� Sy. � .L- 1 s ii 111111111111111V 11111111111K �iiii� L.(.?,;aigiu? cO'California Cities -14COKSTREET o SA,CRAMENT0,1CA95814 9 (916)444-5790 oil loll =k,- 4 ATTENTION: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING STAFF Just because the League's Planning Commissioner's Institute is over for another year doesn't mean you can't benefit, from the educational opportunities of the Institute. If you were unable to attend this year's Institute, or if you had to choose between two or more sessions offered at orie time, you don't ' have to miss out. The League offers you two ways to enhance your knowledge of planning without leaving your city: Planning Video Tapes Two video tapes on 137: ann-irig are now available from the League as part of the Municipal Vide_. Pr-,Ject, The first tape, Why Plan'? A Primer for the Concerned Citizen, provides an overview of the planning process-, It a—clel—'resses the value and importance of planning, who and what is involved, a. br-lef hisbry of planning in the United States, and the consequences of not T110s 21-minute video is an excellent introduction to community developi-ro-oft -11-r, new commissioners and council members, local service organizations, stadents and other groups or individuals interested in learning more about city plann-ing. The second tape, - Frie Role and jespo'nsibilities; of the Planning Commissioner, is a 40-minute instructional video providing an overview of the legal authority to plan, duties, powers and responsibilities of the planning commissioner, the content and purpose of a gener-a-1 plan, methods of implementing the general plan, and the role of public input in the planning process. Both tapes are ideal for presentation on cable access channels, )-2rhaps followed with city officials discussing local issues, applications and examples. To obtain your copies of these videos, please fill out the order form below and return to: League of California Cities, 1400 K Street, Sacramento, CA 95814, 916J44,11-579CO. Each tape is accompa,med by a,, users guide and a discussion guide which can be very I helpful in the most from the program. Use form or, revers,, to order k, �,our planning videos today. Audio Cassette, Tape; Most sessions at the 11188 Plannini.1 Commissioners Institute were audio taped and available for purchase. Contl,.icl. ki�iu'u'," at 916/444-5790 or Convention Recorders at 619/281-9772 For an `Dil- ® i� c g uof C'R i r iCities ® 1► OMMIEL Caldomel ( lh(I, Work dune, 1988 Sacramento, CA T19„ Planning Directors and Planning Commission Chairs PILAN_ NOW TO ATTENID THE 1989 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS INSTITUTE The ;i989 Planning Commissioners Institute will be held April 5-7, 1989 in Monterey. Pro( ram sessions will take place in the Monterey Convention Center, and the Doubletree and Sheraton Hotels. Sleeping rooms for the Institute will be available at the Monterey Doubletree and Sheraton Hotells at $90.00/niight; and at the Pacific Hotel at $95.00/night. It's not too early to plan your, i 11C 1 u(i i rig the fol 1 o,ai ng in your Conference Registration„ (includes programmed meal program materials) Hotel Accommodations Plus travel and incidental attendance at this valuable meeting by 1988-89 budget plans: $140.00 functions and expenses. $90-95/night The �)Opular "Principles of Planning" sessions, covering the basics of planning, will be offered at, 'the 1989 Institute. In addition, sessions dealing with topics relevant. to both commissioners and planning staff will be offered during the three-day conference. A Conference announcement, containing conference and hotel registration information and a preliminary Conference agenda, will be mailed to all cities in January, 1989. Be sure to mark your calendar now for April 5-7, 1989, and put this meeting in your budget. NFERENCE REGISTRATION OFFICE HEADQUARTERS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA OFFICE 3OX 7005, LAFAYET1-E, CA 945,19 1400 K STREET, SACRAMIENTO, CA 95814 404 HILTON CENTER OFFICE BLDG (415( 283-2113 (916) 444-5790 900 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES, CA 90017 (213) 629-1422