Loading...
1989 09 26 PC4 A N ® A PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA PI:,ANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La. Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California September 26, 1989 - 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - Flag Salute ROLL CALL **NOTE** ALL AGENDA ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. MAY BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING Beginning Resolution No. 89-056 HEARINGS 1. Item ............ CONTINUED HEARING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89-028 PREANNEXATION ZONING CZ 89-048 i?OR ANNEXATION NO. 5 Applicant ....... CITY OF LA QUINTA Location ........ EAST OF JEFFERSON STREET, SOUTH OF 50TH AVENUE, WEST AND EAST OF MADISON STREET, AND NORTH AND SOUTH OF 54TH AVENUE Request ......... DESIGNATE THE PROPERTY WITH CITY OF LA QUINTA ZONING AND LAND USES CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT COUNTY DESIGNATIONS Action .......... Resolution No. 89- 2. Item ............ SPECIAL RESIDENTIAL ADJUSTMENT 89-003 Applicant ....... Lott L. Kilmer Location ........ 54-575 Avenida Vallejo Request ......... Replace stucco siding with masonite lap siding Action Minute Motion MR/AGENDA.926 -1- 3. Item ..„......... PLOT PLAN 89-422 Applicant ....... Landmark Land Company Location ........ West side of Jefferson Street, one -quarter mile south of 50th Avenue Request ......... Construction of a +40,000-square-foot golf clubhouse facility for the existing Citrus Course, part of the overall Specific Plan approval for Oak Tree West. Amendment No. 1 to this Specific Plan is also being considered Action .......... Minute Motion 4. Item ..„......... TENTATIVE TRACT 24801 Applicant ....... Sunrise Desert Partners Location ........ Within the PGA West Specific Plan area, along the easterly right-of-way of Lake Cahuilla and the All -American Canal Request ......... Subdivide 31+ acres into eight condominium lots, with a total of 105 condominium units Action ........... Resolution No. 89- `�. Item ............ TENTATIVE TRACT 21846 (REVISION NO. 2) Applicant ....... Sunrise Company Location:: ........ In PGA West, in area generally bounded by Riveria, Tanglewood, and Arnold Palmer Request ......... Revision to Tentative Tract Map to modify dwelling unit product locations and increase total number of dwelling units within tract from 367 to 434 on 56.51 acres in the R-2 zone Action ......n... Continue to October 10, 1989 PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for citizens to address the Planning Commissicn 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 na.me and address. The proceedings of the Planning Commission meeting are recorded on tape and comments of each pet -son shall be limited. PTR/AGENDA.926 -2- CONSENT CALENDAR - None BUSINESS SESSION 1. Item ............ Park Proposal Applicant ....... ESCO/Deane Homes Location ........ Tentative Tract 23971; located on the northeast corner of Washington Street and Miles Avenue Request ......... Approval of parkland proposal for Tentative Tract 23971 Action .......... Minute Motion :?. Item ............ Tentative Tract 24950 Applicant ....... Chong Lee Locatior. ........ At the northeast intersection of Miles Avenue and Dune Palms Road Request ......... Review of proposed single-family dwelling architectural elevations Action .......... Minute Motion 3. Item ............ General Plan Consistency Applicant ....... Coachella Valley Water District Locatiorl.. ........ City -Wide Request ......... Review of proposed Coachella Valley Water District capital improvement program for the next three to five years Action .......... Minute Motion OTHER - None ADJOURNMENT ITEMS FOR SEPTEMBER 25, 1989, 4:00 P.M. STUDY SESSION "DISCUSSION ONLY" 1. All Agenda items. :?. Identification of future Commission Agenda items. ITEMS IDENTIFIED FOR FUTURE AGENDAS a. Park Land Locations 1). Utilities - Tract 21555 C. Downtown. Parking District d. Street Address Illumination MR/AGENDA.926 -3- PH-1 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 :STEM: PREANNEXATION ZONING 89-048 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89-028 FOR ANNEXATION NO. 5 ,APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA, STEVEN BRUMMEL, BERNARD DEBONNE, BETINA COFFEY HOYT, AND OTHERS PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PREANNEXATION ZONING AND AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN TO COVER THE AREA IDENTIFIED IN ANNEXATION NO. 5 LOCATION: GENERALLY THE AREA EAST OF JEFFERSON STREET, SOUTH OF 50TH AVENUE, WEST AND EAST OF MADISON STREET, AND NORTH AND SOUTH OF 54TH AVENUE :3ACKGROUND: 'The proposed annexation area (approximately 1,400 acres) is within the Sphere of Influence of La Quinta. The area west of Madison Street is currently designated on the General Plan Land Use Map as Low Density Residential (2-4 du/ac). The areas east of Madison Street are not designated on the City's Land Use Map. The City has received requests to annex this area. A subsequent survey was conducted which identified the majority of land owners in support of the annexation. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The property has scattered development. The major portion of the area south of 52nd Avenue is vacant or in agricultural production. A desert nursery, and two single-family homes also exist in the area. The area north of Avenue 52 also consists of agricultural, single-family homes, and vacant land. This area has the Green Valley Ranches development which consists of 2+ acre lots. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: An environmental assessment has been prepared. Based upon the existing uses, the prior environmental review conducted by the County, the county's General Plan Land Use Designations, and MR/STAFFRPT.089 -1- the recommended consistency of the proposed City land uses with the County land uses, a Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption. PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS: The area is flat to rolling with no major constraints. The All -American Canal traverses through the site. EXISTING PROJECTS: Two tentative tracts have been reviewed and recommended for Council approval. Other property owners have indicated potential residential developments in the area. EXISTING COUNTY LAND USE DESIGNATIONS: "he land use designations consist of intersections of 50th Avenue and 52nd Avenue); Residential 2-B (2-5 and Residential 3-A (.4-2 dwelling Map 2 ) EXISTING COUNTY ZONING: Commercial (located at the Jefferson, and Jefferson and dwelling units per acre); units per acre). (Refer to The area has numerous zoning designations. The categories include C-P-S, RA-2-1/4, R-2-9,000, A-1-2, A-1-4-1/2, A-1-5, A-1-10, and A-1-20. ]EXISTING CITY GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: The area west of Madison Street is currently designated Low :1.ensity Residential on the La Quinta Land Use Map. The area east of Madison Street is not designated. PROPOSED LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: The proposed land use designations have been identified to take into consideration the existing land uses and the County General Plan Land Use Designations. Therefore, only three designations are recommended: Very Low Density Residential (0-2 du/ac), Low Density Residential (2-4 du/ac), and Special Commercial. (See Map 4) PROPOSED ZONING: The proposed zoning is consistent with the proposed land use designations. The areas designated Very Low Density Residential will be zoned R-1-20,000; the Low Density Residential areas will be zoned R-1; and the areas designated Special Commercial will be zoned C-P-S. MR/STAFFRPT.089 -2- COMMERCIAL LAND USES: 1. The proposed annexation consists of 1,400 acres (2.2 square miles); of this acreage, 39.26 acres will be designated/zoned for commercial uses (2.8 percent). 2. The County has designated the southeast corner of 50th .Avenue and Jefferson Street as commercial, and the northeast and southeast corners of 52nd Avenue and Jefferson Street as commercial. :�. The current land use designations by acreage for the City of La Quinta are illustrated below. The amount of commercial land uses remains constant with the annexation, 4. Types of commercial uses anticipated along Jefferson Street are more neighborhood -oriented. The types of land uses will be determined and approved at the time of project review. 5. The commercial uses should not be in conflict with uses anticipated in the Village. A different market area along Jefferson Street will be served.. 6. Based upon the La Quinta Commercial Absorption Study, the Jefferson Street Corridor sub -area is projected to absorb between 489,000 square feet and 1,239,000 square feet of commercial development by the year 2020. The study did not go beyond the year 2020. CITY OF LA QUINTA LAND USE TABULATION (+10% to compensate for water courses) -----=-----------=----------- o - Category Current AC o Annex. AC % Total AC % ----------------------------------------------------------- 'VLDR 260 1.6 326 23.3 586 3.3 LDR 6,236 39.2 1,035 73.9 7,271 42.0 MDR 1,571 9.9 1,571 g.1 MHDR 18 .1 18 .1 HDR 51 .3 51 .3 HWY 111 CORRIDOR 425 2.7 425 2.5 COMMERCIAL 593 3.7 39 2.8 632 .7 HILLSIDE 6,743 42.5 6,743 39.0 15,897 1,400 17,297 MR/STAFFRPT.089 -3- PLAN FOR THE PROVISION OF SERVICES: The City of La Quinta presently provides the following services: o City Administration o .Public Works and Engineering (Roads and Drainage, and Park Maintenance) o Planning and Development (Development Guidance and :Building Code Plan Checks and Inspection) o Community Safety (Code Enforcement, Animal Control, Contracts with Riverside County for Fire and Police Services) o Community Services (Senior Citizens Center, Contract for Library) Water and sewer are provided by the Coachella Valley Water District. Parks are provided primarily by the Coachella Valley Parks an Recreation District, except for Lake Cahuilla County Park. Solid waste, gas, electricity, telephone, and cable are available from public utilities and private companies. The services of the City of La Quinta would be made available -to the annexed area upon the effective date of the annexation. The other agency services would not be affected by annexation. FISCAL ANALYSIS: .A fiscal analysis of the annexation is being prepared by the .Applicants. This analysis will examine the fiscal consequences of the annexation and subsequent development of the properties in terms of revenues generated and expenditures by the City and all other affected jurisdictions. FINDINGS: The findings to support the General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone are contained in the attached resolution. RECOMMENDATION: Move to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 89- , approving General Plan Amendment 89-028 and Change of Zone 89-048, and recommending adoption of the Negative Declaration. MR/STAFFRPT.089 -4- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89-LL A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 89-028, AND PREANNEXATION ZONING CASE NO. 89-048; A REQUEST TO AMEND THE LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP TO ADD NEW AREA FOR AN ANNEXATION AND TO DESIGNATE THE NEW AREA AS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, AND SPECIAL COMMERCIAL; AND ZONE THE AREA R-1, R-1-20,000, AND CPS. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 89-028 PREANNEXATION ZONING CASE NO. 89-048 STEVEN BRUMMEL, BERNARD DEBONNE, BETINA COFFEY HOYT, AND THE CITY OF LA QUINTA WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 12th day of September, 1989, ].gold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of various property owners and the City of La Quinta to amend the !,a Quinta General Plan La:n.d Use Map and Zoning Map to include an additional 1,400 acres, located south of Avenue 50, west and east of Madison, and east of Jefferson, and to designate the additional area as Low Density Residential (2-4 du/ac), Very Low Density Residential (0-2 du/ac), and Special Commercial, and zone the area as R-1, R-1-20,000, and CPS; and, WHEREAS, the Commission continued said Hearing to the 26th day of September, 1989; and, WHEREAS, said preannexation zoning and the General Plan Amendment complies 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 has determined, after reviewing the General Plan, the area to be annexed, the proposed residential densities, the commercial designations, the adjacent land uses, the planned capacities of the adjacent roads, and related matters, that the preannexation zoning and the Amendment to the General Plan are consistent with the General Plan and with the Master Environmental Assessment, the County General Plan, and Countv Environmental Impact Report, and that no significant environmental adverse impact will result from the proposed Amendments; and, IgR,IRES089.041 -1- WHEREAS, at said continued Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the approval of said preannexation zoning and General Plan Amendment: ].. a. The properties to be designated Low Density Residential are suitable for development under that designation and R-1 zoning. b. The portions of the properties to be designated Very Low Density Residential are suitable for development under that designation and R-1-20,000 zoning. C. The portions of the properties to be designated Special Commercial are suitable for development under that designation and CPS zoning. 2. The Riverside County General Plan designates the Low Density Residential areas as 2-B, and designates the Very Low Density Residential areas as 3-A, and designates the Special Commercial areas as Commercial. 3. The proposed City zoning classifications are compatible/consistent with the existing County General Plan land use classifications. 4. The environmental review foresees no significant adverse environmental impact from the proposed preannexation zoning and General Plan Amendment designating the properties as Low Density Residential, Very Low Density Residential, and Special Commercial, and zoning the property R-1, R-1-20,000, and CPS. 5. The properties are within the La Quinta Sphere of Influence, are contiguous to La Quinta°s present corporate limits, and are a part of a logical extension of La Quinta and its General Plan. 6. The Commercial designated properties have the potential of development in the County if the area is not eventually annexed. ;. The additional Commercial designated properties are envisioned to provide neighborhood commercial land uses to serve this developing area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. The the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; MR/RESO89.041 -2- 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of 'environmental Assessment No. 89-143, in that the preannexation zoning and General Plan Land Use Map Amendment will not result in a significant adverse impact on the environment, and that a Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption; 'That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of Zoning Case No. 89-048, subject to the condition that it be annexed to the City of La Quinta, and General Plan Amendment No. 89-028, consisting of a Zoning Map Amendment and Land Use Map Amendment as described in Exhibits "A1l and "B", attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 26th day of September, 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CHAIRMAN ATTEST: PLANNING DIRECTOR I`/IRR/RESO8 9.0 41 - 3 - I 0 • PP • • TWL Verde -Mar Urr'ited Post Office Box 1508 La OuInta, California 92253 August 28, 1989 Planning Commissioner City of La Quinta Post Office 'Box 1504 La Quinta, California 92253 Dear Commissioner I am writing in support of the City of La Quinta annexation of Sections 4 and 9, T6S, R7E and portions of Sections 10 and 15, 176S, R7E SUM. In particular I support the adoption of the City Staff recommendation for a Negative Declaration along with the General Plan Amendment and Preannexation recommendations. I believe that this annexation will have a significant positive impact for the City of La Quinta and the people who live here and I, along with many other property owners in the area to be annexed that I have spoken with, strongly support the staff recommendations. We urge your adoption, after public hearing, of the Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment 89-028 and Preannexation Zoning CZ 89-048 for Annexation No. 5 suggested by the Planning Department. Sincerely, W. BRUMMEL SWB:mlm Planning and Development Department La Quinta City Hall 78-099 Calle Estado La Quinta, Ca. Re: GENERAL PALN AMENDMENT 89-028 PREANNEXATION ZONING CZ 89-048 FOR ANNEXATION NO.5 In response to the solicitation of comments regarding these changes, we offer the following: The irregular boundaries of the proposed zone change indicate several unrelated parcel are included. Why? Are the parcels included on the basis of past annexation surveys? We have held the parcels in question for many years with the intention to build a home/ranch of each parcel. We are not speculating on commercial development. We oppose any change in zoning of our land or annexation into the city of La Quinta based on our future dusty, smelly and noisy use of ranch land. If there are actions which we may take to avoid these changes please advise us. Guy D. and Charlotte R. Taylor 82-213 Bliss Avenue Indio, CA 92201 i� � TWO Planning Commission City of La Quinta 78-105 Calle Estado La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Sirs: h Sept. 7, 1989 I'm a property owner at the southeast corner of Avenue 50 and Jefferson. I've made this location my residence for the past eleven years. I'd like the commission to know I support the prcposed annexation of the area in which my property is a part. I'm also in favor of the general plan amendment and pre -annexation zoning. Reference A.P. # 769-270-001 Sincerely, Jeff Cole FIDELITY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY August 30, 1989 Mr. John Walling Chairman, Planning Commission CITY OF LA QUINTA 78105 Calle Estado La Quinta, CA 92253 re: Annexation of parcel # 767-210-004-7, 20 acres - County of Riverside Dear Mr. Walling: I am requesting to be included ir.. La Quinta's current annexation as described in the notice of Public Hearing, dated August 22, 1988. The parcel is located on 54th Street, east of and contiguous to Mr. Robert Kull's 40 acres. Thank you very much. Very truly yours, Danavon L. Horn President DLH/fm cc: Gerry Herman P.O. Box 3958 • Palm Desert, CaY. ® 92261 a (619) 568-1048 VEGETABLES KANLIAN RANCH Aucil st 21 , 1989 Mr. Jerry Herman, Planning Director P.C. Box 1504 La Quinta, Ca. 92253 Gent 1 emen i AUG 2 3 1969 CITY OF LEA°, QUATA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT. This letter is in re%ponse to your notice requesting support for annexation of our area to the city of La Quints. The arzoa lies bet:t-;een Avenue :50 to Avenue 529 from Jefferson to Madison streets. Please rote the enclosed map which covers a ;.portion of the proposed area to be annexed. Parcel #1 (St:outhw,, st corner of 50 and Jefferson) on the County General Pliiin has a commercial zoning. My five acre parcel (#2) lies to the south of this 10 acre parcel. I am requesting a gqj'rnr�rcial zoning for this parcel (42) . Two years ago, I talked with the Director of the County General plan. At that time he assured us that when Landmark stlhrted their hotel complex across the street, that my request would be feasible and reasonable and he could see no 'reason to deny this zoning. I feel that the corner of 50 and Jefferson (including my -fiver acre parcel) is an ideal location for commercial zoning in light of the recent developments. 1. Residential development around the new school at 50 and Adams 2. Residential development taking place at Groan Valley (Estates. 3. Homes in P.G.A. West. 4. Homes to be built in the Pyramid complex (formerly Grove development) 5. The adequate width of Avenue 50 from La Quinta through Indio and Coachella. This would draw -from Indian Palms CC and various mobile home complexes to this center. 6. Would allow smooth traffic flow to and from a shopping area. 50-400 JEFFERSON / INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 / (619) 564-4567 Thjtsiv two parcels would give APPI-Oximat'91Y IsOOO feitt of Jefferson street frontage with 660 feet of depth. hope you will concur with my feelings and request to gi,../e this area a cominercial zoning. Th.iink you for your time and consideration. Respectfullyt Ron- Ra n 21Tani Enclosures Map `; \ tr� \ S JI I � ,1 1'7 OA' E N V I R O N M E N T A L E V A L U A T I O N EA 89-143 A N N E X A T I O N N O. 5 PREANNEXA`I'ION ZONING 89-048 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89-028 MR/DOCJH.035 I N T R O D U C T I O N Annexation No. 5 consists of a 1,400-acre area east of the current City limits. Map 1 shows the boundaries of the area. the area is generally bounded by Jefferson Street on the east, 50th Avenue on the north, Madison Street on the west, and Avenue 54 on the south. The annexation also includes three 40-acre parcels east of and adjacent to Madison Street, south of 52nd Avenue. The area is totally within the current Sphere of Influence of the City. The area is vital to the economic future of La Quinta from the perspective of enhancing the City's goal to be a well-balanced community by providing housing markets for all income levels. The City will provide the public services necessary to this developing area. E N V I R O N M E N T A L S E T T I N G The area totals approximately 1,400 acres, or 2.2 square miles. The area is contiguous to the current City limits and within the City's Sphere of Influence. Major physical features of the area include the All -American Canal, Jefferson Street, Madison Street, 50th Avenue, 52nd Avenue, 53rd Avenue, and 54th Avenue. E X I S T I N G L A N D U S E S The area includes 24 single-family homes on 33.01 acres, four homes under construction on 8.32 acres, 572.12 acres of agricultural uses, 673.61 acres of vacant non -producing land, 27.38 acres of public utilities, and 40.91 acres of public street right-of-way. (See Table 1) Using the 1989 Department of Finance figure of 3.01 persons per household, there are approximately 72 residents in the annexation area. The majority of the area (approximately 227 acres) south of 53rd Avenue is contained within the Coachella Valley Agricultural Preserve No. 72. Any future development of the area will require its removal as provided by Government Code. MR/DOCJH.035 2 omm A veo "oot'I'me -Vb �,��xA�ioIv 0' S' ki -rl 0 0 1 0 0 -2a- TABLE 1 EXISTING LAND USE Agriculture Vacant/Undeveloped Single -Family Single -Family Under Construction ]Public Utilities (IID/Canal) :Public Streets TOTAi, ACRES: (Note: Sections 4 and 9 = Three 40-ac Parcels = ACRES 572.12 673.61 33.01 8.32 27.38 40.91 ---------------- 1,355.35 1,280 acres 120 acres 1,400 acres gross E X I S T I N G C O U N T Y L A N D U S E D E S I G N A T I O N S Riverside County has designated land uses for the area. These are depicted on Map 2. The land use designations consist of Commercial, Residential 2-B (2-5 dwelling units per acre), and Residential 3-A (.4-2 dwelling units per acre). E X I S T I N G C I T Y L A N D U S E D E S I G N A T I O N S The City currently designates Sections 4 and 9 as Low Density Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre). The parcels east of Madison Street are not designated. MR/DOCJI-i. 035 • , J��,%WA e -3a-- E X I S T I N G Z O N I N G The Riverside County zoning is depicted on Map 3. Zoning categories include C-P-S, R-A-2-1/2, R-A-2-1/4, R-2-9000, A-1-2, A-1-4-1/2, A-1-5, A-1-10, A-1-20. P R O P O S E D G E N E R A L P L A N D E S I G N A T I O N The proposed land use designation for the annexation are similar and comparable with the existing County land use designations. Comparable designations are Very Low Density Residential (0-•2 dwelling units per acre) for those properties designated by the County as 3-A (.4-2 dwelling units per acre); .Low Density Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for those properties designated 2-B (2-5 dwelling units per acre); and Special Commercial for those properties designated Commercial. The proposed land uses are identified on Map 4. P R O P O S E D Z O N I N G The proposed zoning of the area will be consistent with the proposed land use designations. The Very Low Density Residential property will be zoned R-1-20,000 (2 dwelling units per acre); the Low Density Residential property will be zoned R-1; and the Special Commercial property will be zoned C•-P-S. The proposed zoning is identified on Map 5. MR,/DOCJH.035 A Q NORTH co 014tv-rar _4a_ 4L 4 i .---------.L---- e Ap 3 �� o 0 o C T� L �a •� � l�b�,slt1 .� �� "� - • m � 0 0 o e 0 ' 0 1 0 1 0 • e � I O I a I i �--IS C/Iryo LAND try � VLO • � � VLoD VEAy LoW DCoustrY(o-zJqla�i i� Ali L D Law Sf l'il (2-4`� ,� • -0e- MAP 4 y�l 4. I1 1-*f 7,0/4/A'/ 'a, _.c- MAP 5 RESPONSES TO ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 1. EARTH - Because no new development is presently proposed, and because the proposed land use designations and zoning for the 11tc be" onnq.49� p�Q-pj�ty jj 'gig jfit�fijjj than gr CqUal to the existing county land use designations, approval of the Preannexation Zoning, General Plan Amendment, and Annexation d,;es not have the potential to result in any of the impacts identified in this category. 2. AIR - Because no new development is presently proposed, and because the proposed land use designations and zoning for the "tc� be" annexed property is less intense than or equal to the existing county land use designatlonsr qp�qvoj 9f trig Preennexation Zoning, General Plan Amendment, and Annexation does not have the potential to result in any of the impacts identified ir, this category. 3. WATER - Because no now development is presently proposed, and because the proposed land use designations and zoning for the "to De" annexed property is less intense than 9� 91jil t9 the existing county land use designations, approval of the Preannexation Zoning, General Plan Amendment, and Annexation does not have the potential to result in any of the impacts r identified in this category. 4. PLANT LIFE - Because no new development is presently proposed, and because the proposed land use designations and zoning, fcr the 'i-o be" annexed property is less intense than or equal to the existing county land use designations, approval of the Preannexation Zoning, General Plan Amendment, and Annexation does not have the potent i: §1 t9 jj&Vj� jfi Ifly 9f the impacts identified in this category. 5. AN1MAL LIFE - Because no new development is presently proposed, and because the proposed land use designations and zoning Ifor the 11to bell annexed property is less intense 11.-han or equal tc the existing county land use designations, approval of the P-Z-eannexation Zoning, General Plan Amendment, and Annexation does not have the potential to result in any of the impacts identified in this category. 6. NOISE - Because no new development is presently proposed, and because the proposed land use designations and zoning for the "to be" annexed property is less intense than or equal to the existing county land use designations, approval of the Preannexation Zoning, General Plan Amendment, and Annexation does not have the potential to result in any of the impacts idonttfteG in nip c;tnary, 7. LIGHT AND GLARE - Because no new development is presently proposed, and because the proposed land use designations and zoning for the "to be" annexed property is less intense than or ,equal to the existing county land use designations, approval of tho-i Fmnnmt-ion zoning, unorali PlAn Amendment, and AnnexEticn does not have the potential to result in any of the impacts identified in this category. 8. LAND USE - The proposed land use is generally less intense than or equal to the existing county land use designations. The environmental impacts attendant to such land use designations were addressed when the county approved the existing land use designations after certifying its Final Environmental Impact Report No. 189 (the 11EIR"). The FIR is available for public review at City Hall and is incorporated KafaiR by thlig i6E6?6E86. Th6r'e- ��aive been no substantial ^hanges to those land use designations or to the environmental setting of the areas since the EIR was certified. Likewise, no new information has become available on this topic since the EIR was certified. Approval of the Preannexation Zoning, general Plan Amendment, and Annexation does not have the potential to result in any of the impacts identified in this category. 9. NATURAL RESOURCES - Because no new development is presently proposed, and because the proposed land use designations and zoning for the "to be" annexed property is less intense than or equal to the existing sting county land use designations, approval of the Preannexation Zoning, General Plan Amendment, and Annoution does not haVQ fh@ Dotgntil;l tO ragUlt ill M 8f tM impacts identified in this category, 10. RISK OF UPSET - Secause no new development is presently proposed, and because the proposed land use designations and zoning for the "to be" annexed property is less intense than or equal to the existing county land use designations, approval of the Prearinexation Zoning, General Plan hmendment, and Annexation does not have the potential to result in any of 'Che impacts identified in this category. 11. POPULATION - Because no new development is presently proposed, and because the proposed land use designations and zoning! for the "to bell annexed property is less intense than or equal to the existing county land use designations, approval of the P-16eennexation Zoning, Genera: Plan Amendment, and Annexation does not have the potential to result in any of the impacts identified in this category. 12, HouSiNG - Because no new development is presently proposed, and because the proposed land use designations and zoning fcr the "to be" annexed property is less intense than or equal to the existing county land use designations, approval of the Preannexation Zoning, General Plan Amendment, and Annexsticrt does net have the potential to result in any cf the impacts identified in. th.'s category, 6 13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCTULATION - The proposed land use is generally less intense than or equal to the existing County Land use design.ations. The transportation/circulation imipacts attendant to such land use designations were addressed when the County approved the existing land use designations after certifying the FIR. Thz:re have been no substantial changes to those land use designations or to the environmental setting of the area since the EIR was certified. Likewise, no new information has become available on tads topic since the EIR way 9�r�ifivlt ApFivyi�l 99 the fa-hanatt3 ion Zoning) Oentrdl Plan Amendment and Annexation does not, therefore, have the potential to result in any of the impacts identified in this category. PUET 1C 14, SERVICES - the City of La Quinta currently contracts for fire and police services from Riverside County. City police services will. be responsible for the to he Annex area. To accommodate this additional need, the City may have to increase its current cont.-act for man power. Howeve-r this impact is not significant, parks and recreational facilities will be provided bv the Coachella Valley Parks and Recreation A Board, and as appropriate, by the City of La Quint. -a however, approval of the Project will not have an affect on, or re5ult in the need for new park and recreational facilities, 15. ENERGY - Because no new development is presently proposed., and, because the proposed land use designations and zoning for the "to be" annexed property is less intense than or equal to the exi5tinq county land use designations, approval of the Preannexation zoning, General Plan Amendment, and Annexatior dces riot have the potential to result in any of the impacts identified in this category. 16. UTILITIES - Because no new development is presently proposed. and because the proposed land use designations and, zoning for the "to be" annexed property is less intense thar, or equal to the existing County land use designations, approval of thQ PrOOMPY-atiOn 70nirlg, GORMI PIH AMWM814, W Annexation does not have the potential to result in any of the impacts identified in this category. 17. HUMAN HEALTH - Because no new development is presently proposed, and because the proposed land use designations and zoning for the "to be" annexed property is less intense than o: equal to the existing county land use designations, approval of the Preannexation Zoning, Genezal Plan Amendment, and Annexation do,-:,,s not have the potential to result in any of the impact,s identified in this �:ateqory. 18. AESTHETICS - Because no new development is presently proposed, and because the proposed land use designations and zoning for the "to be" annexed property is less intense than or equal to the existing county land use designations, approval of the Preannexation Zoning, General Plan Amendment, and Annex&tion does not have the potential to result in any of the impacts identified in this category. 19. RECREATION - Because no new development is presently proposed, and because the proposed land use designations and zonincr for the "to ire" annexed property is less intense than or equal to the existing county land use designations, approval of the Preannexation Zoning, General Plan .Amendment, and Annexation dues riot have the potential to result in any of the impacts identified in this category. 20. ARCHAEOLOGICALMISTORICAL - The "to be" annexed property contains no known archaeological or historical. sites. However, pursuant to standard City procedures, archaeological studies will be required, as necessary, when particular sites are I. II. "~z-- �'� CiTr OF 1A ®UIFITA 'fop OAS ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM BACKGR0 ND 1. Name of Proponent: 2. Address and.Phone Number of Proponent: - 4 -; 3. Date of Checklist: 4. Agency Requiring Checklist-' 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable:,, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of all "Yes" and "Maybe" answers la required on attached sheets.) 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: Yes Maybe No a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increases in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach, sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? A 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters': b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course of flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? — g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of Yes Maybe No water otherwise available for public water supplies? - i: Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic Plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? _ c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or result in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? _ d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? f S. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of animals? _ c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? _ 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new r fight or glare? 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of any use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any renewable natural resource? 10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an exp si oon or the release of hazardous sub- stances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? _ 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, ism ution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? _ b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? 10 Yes Maybe No c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? do Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govern- mental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? — c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services?- 15. Energy Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? _ b. Communications systems? c. Water? _ d. Sewer or septic tanks? — e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Fuman Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruct n of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recrea- tional opportunities? 20. Archeological/Historical. Will the proposal result in an alteration a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? 21. Mandatory Finding of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially re- duce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plan or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 11 Yes Maybe No b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, en- vironmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are indi- vidually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION IV. DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date: x' �� •� ;� Signature 12 PH-2 STAFF REPORT DATE: SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOTT L. & MARY LEE KILMER PROJECT: SPECIAL RESIDENTIAL STANDARD ADJUSTMENT NO. 89-003, REPLACE STUCCO SIDING WITH MASONITE LAP SIDING LOCATION: 54-575 VALLEJO GENERAL PLAN LAND USE: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DU/AC) EXISTING ZONING: SPECIAL RESIDENTIAL (SR) ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIONS: THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTED ADJUSTMENT IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970 (CEQA). PROJECT DESCRIPTION: T:he Applicant is seeking an adjustment to the exterior materials requirement contained in the Architectural Standards Manual for the SR Zone. The Applicant proposes to install a gray masonite I_ap siding. BACKGROUND: The Manual stages: "Siding shall be stucco, plaster, masonry, or a similar material. Wood, or materials of a similar appearance, may be used as trim and design accents for up to a maximum of 20 percent of the surface wall area on any one side of the house, unless an adjustment has been approved by the Planning Commission." The Applicant submitted house plans identifying a combination of stucco along the lower one-half of the exterior walls and masonite siding on the remainder. A correction note was made on the plans identifying that the percentages exceeded the minimum, and that it was to be changed. The Applicant proceeded to inspectors put said that the install masonite a stop work on the note was not picked up and on the exterior walls. The project until resolved. BL-i/STAFFRPT.013 - 1 - The Applicant now is now seeking an adjustment to permit the installation of masonite siding on the exterior walls. ANALYSTS! 1. The surrounding homes have stucco siding. The homes under construction to the south will have stucco walls. 2. The SR Zoning Standards permit the granting of an adjustment by the Planning Commission, provided the following findings are made: A. The proposed use and design conform to all applicable requirements of the City General Plan and any other applicable specific plan adopted by the City and in effect at the date of approval. B. The proposed development complies with the requirements of the zone in which it is located. C. The architectural aspects of the development will be compatible with, and not detrimental to, the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. These aspects shall include but not be limited to the structure's size, shape, width, bulk, height, materials and architectural style. D. Approval of the development shall not be a detriment to the public's health, safety and we' f are. E. The design takes into account the existing physical characteristics of the site, including topography, drainage, and trees. F. Approval of this development does not exceed the maximum limit of five unsold houses under construction by a single applicant at any one time, unless an adjustment raising this limit has been approved. 3. The home complies with all standards of the SR Zone, Architectural Manual and Landscape Manual with the exception of the exterior wall material. 4. This is the first adjustment request to deviate from the required exterior material since the Ordinance was adopted in 1986. 5. Allowing this adjustment might stimulate other similar requests. 6.. There exists older homes in the SR Zone that have masonite siding. BUJ/STAFFRPT.013 - 2 - 7. The intent of the stucco walls/tile roofs was to upgrade the area designated Special Residential. 8. The proposed exterior colors will be gray siding, white trim, dark gray roof. 9. The action of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council. SUMMARY: The Planning Commission can: 1. Permit the adjustment. 2. Modify -the request such as requesting a stucco, masonite combination. 3. Deny the request and require stucco walls. FINDINGS: 1. The adjustment request is exempt from CEQA. 2. The proposed adjustment request is not copatible with the surrounding homes. 3. The request if granted will establish a precedent permitting other buildings to make the same request. RECOMMENDATION: By minute motion deny the request and require the Applicant to stucco the exterior walls. However should the Commission chose to approve the Applicant's request, the following findings should be made. FINDINGS: 1. The adjustment request is exempt from CEQA. 2. The proposed use and design conforms to all applicable requirements of the City General Plan. 3. The proposed development as conditioned complies with the requirements of the SR Zone with the exception of the requested adjustment. 4. The architectural aspects of the development is compatible with, and not detrimental to, the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. 5. Approval of the development is not detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. BV STAFFRPT.013 - 3 - 6. The design takes into account the existing physical characteristics of the site, including topography, drainage, and trees. 7. Approval of this development does not exceed the maximum limit of five unsold houses under construction by a single applicant at any one time. BST/STAFFRPT.013 - 4 - PH-3 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 APPLICANT/ OWNER: LANDMARK LAND COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA LOCATION: WITHIN THE APPROVED OAK TREE WEST SPECIFIC PLAN AREA, GENERALLY IN THE NORTHEASTERLY PORTION OF THE PROJECT, APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE SOUTH OF AVENUE 50 AND +1000 FEET WEST OF JEFFERSON STREET (SEE ATTACHMENT W . PROPOSAL CONSIDERED: PLOT PLAN NO. 89-422, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT APPROXIMATELY 40,160 GROSS SQUARE FEET OF GOLF CLUBHOUSE FACILITY FOR THE EXISTING CITRUS GOLF COURSE, PART OF THE OAK TREE WEST SPECIFIC PLAN APPROVED ON OCTOBER 15, 1985. GROSS ACREAGE: +39.09 ACRES NET ACREAGE: LIMIT OF WORK IS +7 ACRES (ESTIMATED) LAND USE PLAN: SPECIAL COMMERCIAL (TOURIST -RELATED FACILITIES)* EXISTING ZONING: C-P-S (SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL)* PROPOSED ZONING: R-2* NOTE: AT YOUR SEPTEMBER 12, 1989, REGULAR MEETING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION MADE A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 89-026, SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 85-006, AMENDMENT #1, CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 89-045, WHICH WERE PROPOSED TO REDESIGNATE 36.5 ACRES FROM SPECIAL COMMERCIAL TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ON THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP; CHANGE THE ZONING FROM C-P-S TO R-2; AND AMEND THE SPECIFIC PLAN TO ELIMINATE THE COMMERCIAL LAND USES (EXCEPT CLUBHOUSE), AND RELOCATE A GOLF TUNNEL FROM 52ND AVENUE TO JEFFERSON STREET AND OTHER MINOR CHANGES INCLUDING AN INCREASE TO THE EXISTING APPROVED CLUBHOUSE SIZE, FROM 25,000 TO 40,160 SQUARE FEET, AS WELL AS DESIGN AND LOCATION CHANGES (SEE ATTACHMENT'S 2 THROUGH 10). BJ/STAFFRPT.011 -• 1 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 89-139 WAS PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE AFOREMENTIONED APPLICATIONS. THE ORIGINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 85-034 (SCH #85050112) ADDRESSED THE IMPACTS ASSESSED WITH THE ORIGINAL SPECIFIC PLAN. THE AREA UNDER CONSIDERATION WITH THIS APPLICATION WAS IDENTIFIED FOR COMMERCIAL USES. THE CURRENT REQUEST IS FOR RESIDENTIAL AND CLUBHOUSE USES. THEREFORE, THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN CHANGES, INCLUDING THOSE RELATED TO THE APPROVED CLUBHOUSE AREA, WERE ADDRESSED IN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 89-139, AND IDENTIFIED AS BEING REDUCED FROM THOSE IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 85-034. NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS NECESSARY, AND A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION WILL BE PREPARED. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: THE APPLICANT PROPOSED A 40,160 GROSS SQUARE FOOT CLUBHOUSE FACILITY IN LIEU OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN APPROVED SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 25,000. THIS WOULD INCLUDE APPROXIMATELY 2,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE AND 10,000 SQUARE FEET OF RENTAL USE SPACE. THIS WILL BE THE PERMANENT FACILITY TO REPLACE THE EXISTING TEMPORARY CLUBHOUSE AREA. AS PREVIOUSLY NOTED, THE OAT TREE WEST SPECIFIC PLAN IS PROPOSED FOR AMENDMENT AND CHANGE IN THE CLUBHOUSE DESIGN CONCEPT, (I.E., DELETION OF HOTEL AND MAJOR COMMERCIAL). ANALYSIS: 1. The clubhouse area is part of Tentative Tract No. 24890, which was previously recommended for approval by your body on September 12, 1989, for 564 single family lots on 404 acres. The clubhouse site is located at the extension of the main entry road into Tract No. 24890 (see Attachment #11). The current entry for the existing temporary golf clubhouse facility is located approximately 235 feet south of the tract entry off Jefferson. It is the Applicant's intent to phase construction of the parking for use while the permanent clubhouse is being built (see Attachments #12 & #13.) Interim improvements as necessary will be conditioned in lieu of permanent improvements to be established with development of Tract Map No 24890. 2. The Fire Marshal is requiring interim secondary access. Location and design of this access will be reviewed with the required grading plans. BJ/STAFFRPT.011 .. 2 - 3. The application indicates that 215 parking spaces will be provided. This is adequate for the clubhouse use. Detailed parking review for stall sizes etc., will be conducted as part of the grading plan review. 4. The preliminary landscape plan is acceptable in terms of plant species used and layout concept. Detailed landscaping and irrigation plans in conformance with the preliminary plan shall be required to be approved by Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) and the Riverside County Agricultural Commission office prior to submittal to the City for final approval. 5. No signage has been proposed with this application. The Applicant has indicated that signage requests will be made later. A condition will be placed on this approval to require that a planned sign program be approved prior to installation of any signage not otherwise permitted. 6. Approval of this application shall not be in effect until the Specific Plan Amendment for Oak Tree West has been approved (Note: that item is scheduled for City Council consideration on October 17, 1989). FINDINGS: 1. Plot Plan No. 89-422, as conditioned, is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan, the Oak Tree West Specific Plan as recommended for amendment, and the applicable provisions of the La Quinta Municipal Code. 2. Environmental Assessment No. 89-139 identified impacts associated with the Oak Tree West Specific Plan Amendment which Plot Plan No. 89-422 is proposed to implement. 3. Development of Plot Plan No. 89-422, as conditioned, shall incorporate the mitigation measures identified in Environmental Assessment No. 89-139 to the degree they apply. RECOMMENDATION: By minute motion, move to approve Plot Plan No. 89-422, subject to conditions as presented in the staff report. BJ/STAFFRPT.011 - 3 - Attachments: 11. 12. 13. 14. Location Map Existing Oak Tree West Approval Proposed Oak Tree West Amendment Existing clubhouse concept approval Proposed clubhouse amendment Plot Plan No. 89422; site plan, floor plan, elevations Clubhouse parcel (from TT #24890) Applicant's letter dated 9/15/89 Proposed interim parking phasing/operation EA #89--139 area BJ/STAFFRPT.011 - 4 - Q iz c J f Ko 5� O COMMERCIAL• .•.c.. I W CENTER .✓ ✓ ••• ► ..^.�s+' tL UJI Golf Cbll�.M'9�.tF - h i F ' _ � •� `• � H `r ilk ' �_�S on e �� i.� ��• OAK TREE WEST La Quinta, California Land UN units scree density translont residential Open Space 115 Residontlal 440 Sucre 2245 Golf 45 Was 400 Hotel Commerclal 36.a 200 offuce Corrvnercloo 3.S R.O.W. I6 total 1020 /( A 1 - %/l_i \V4� S 6`tlA't-- AVE. 50 AVE. 52 OFFICE COMMERCIAL AVE. AVE. 50 t3 .. 52 [.N. a i N W U. r i . �11� - I OAK TREE WEST La Ouinta. CaGfomia , „ °9._._ ow a. .« no �- Lane We vfu ur.. eauatr tnnacnrt reamerAW open Space tta fteldeetcec 470.$ Steen ittaa oocf 46lrobe Soo Office Co"WrArew &a ao.w. to tow loos LAND USE PLAN PLOP059-0 A"�0^ iiv7 ' 1 �I AVE AVE. OffiG@ C A' III ,I Arm 8 a 99 aao a o a i n 313 ti 9 `4", 'O:SY1lal ---- — ' 0 7ii37ti,7 f' vw Office CW e10 ee Alm TJ,MIV1 1 �✓JJ ! J J A �1 �• tea. : ;`��.� � , yl _ :.. � � 0 I ON 0 top epo �Miw %mmmet ®wn 100 .00 Landmark Land Company or Caelonnra. me. HC"TEL/COMMERCIAL CENTER Land Use acren e�ia param0 Motel .0 room. 1 00 GO" ClLbh... 0 25.0c0 art It 150 011lce r Co...—*, 200 000 ao ft 900 total 35 5 1250 typ,Ca COmmumtr cOmmerClal center uses •r. e'e�'tnH •card at prs •pool ator. •Itdee rsaar to •oar .tor• • ice cram parlor •p.a�'r .alp^ •40 •e .DeCUlir aloes •Dltnt 91ar0 •p.1 anoD .ns wear .IOr• •1a w11rY star• •lamilr shoe aloe •asp •�m.rRa •hom..tor- •pant •.porllny yooda =��� SECTION WEST ELEVATION w mr EAST ELEVATION ELEVATIONS HOTEL/GOLF CLUBHOUSE At 160 fig 30 120 Landmark La" COMP811 Of C2091— WC- HOTEL./GOLF CLUBHOUSE GROUND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN /, 0 la.l�M lrI C��� N CNlw-a MF CITRUS COURSE GOLF CLUBHOUSE aDZ< V11, amnmNXZ zoG) m C# J T m —7�� m m ;o D �* ! m o Zn C C E r» E b 8% 7 E 9 2 r !bill e4aaie � * ®O O � $� e5 eaeeE Sz c o °E �E 9, 3 o S r = •'- Z c o n e ------ ----- ---- m �k z z �•� ai»oi zziF�'rj EieEEi ae�z;� i � � �'� 4 ----------------------------- 1------------------- -- -- ----- - -- --- JEFFERSON STREET _ - i7 #5 CENTFO Ltd cl�l LA OUINTA HOTEL- CITRUS COURSE GOLF CLUBHOUSE � � tl M ♦ O • P Y Y ♦ m „ _____________ I I! s L T r g Z ----- 0--- --- - ---- ;----- --© m cn - ---------- — 0 3 :rr 3 rre•:e ::;;rE�e €n� ilT IA IIIIINTA HOTEL- COTRUS COURSE GOLF CLUBHOUSE FLOOR PLANS EO . I I � I ;A _-- ol • r- LA OUINTA HOTEL- CITRUS•COURSE GOLF CLUBHOUSE _ FLOOR - PLANS e Ln V) V r � 1 X _ 4j I V j `'Q J IQ 4II�10'06L 00"S9 10S100'9 DO'S90i 10a0'S9 009 00SasW 0Oi )00'S9 } .*� `� • � �" , � �F° ( ,l� , li 9 ., �I , , 1 ' i t (j r) 1') ) r r � el 6 F:£ € Tc I I -�, y 8£ I. 100,99 r � 00 1 109 'S9 100'S9 100'99 100'S9 100'S9 STREi \ uj on 19 i r) ta i' 100'SS 100'SS 0'SS 100'59 1911 l% 4 M o i rmr� � � v � O t ii' I `y `, � • _ LO 41 Q t Ur,, 16V 00'SS S 100 SS � _ 1i rn . I r a o r Ltd A0'1BF cr. 00'SS MIS 100'SS �'SS 00'elf 100, 91 o September 15, 1989 RECEIVED SEP 15 1989 Wally Nesbit CITII OF LA QUINTA PLANNINC t. 0EVEtOpylFNT DEPT. Planning Department CITY OF LA QUINTA 78-105 Calle Estado La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: Citrus Golf Course Clubhouse Temporary Entry/Bag Drop Dear Wally, In response to our meeting on 9--6-89, here is the information you requested The Design & Planning Staff at Landmark Land Co. of Calif., Inc., would lik, to incorporate the existing temporary entry drive with the proposed parking lot layout. This would allow for construction of both the proposed clubhouse and proposed entry drive while still maintaining golfcourse operations. Existing pavement will be integrated with proposed pavement. However, additional temporary pavement will be necessary to accommodate an adequate bag drop off area. (See attached plan). Please contact me if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Landmark Land of Calif., Inc. Dirk J. Gaudet DePJG sign & Planning lo / 6 Enclosure cc: Greg Abadie Keith Christiansen Files! LANDMARK LAND COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, INC, Land Planning, Engineering, Design & Construction 78-150 Calle Tampico, P.O. Box 1000, La Quinta, California 92253 (619) 564-4500 FAX (619) 564-8052 .133L.3 3 NOM3333f I I M/d— ————————— -� —_ — —— _ ' I I,— — — — — — — — — — — —— —— ——_ w z t i I w w t l i tUJ 03 C z r i I I < Go— I` I I z QQ w w w t# ATrAcaMi,vr */�/ : ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT #89-139 ITEMS: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT #89-026 CHANGE OF ZONE #89•-045 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT #1 (85-006 OAK TREE WEST) APPLICANT: LANDMARK LAND COMPANY LOCATION: ONE QUARTER :'BILE SOUTH OF THE JEFFERSON STREET AND 50TH AVENUE INTERSECTION, ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF JEFFERSON STREET, WITHIN THE OAK TREE WEST SPECIFIC PLAN. REQUEST. REDESIGNA�.PE 'THE 36.5 ACRE SITE FROM COMMERCIAL TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ON THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP; CHANGE THE ZONING FROM C-P-S TO R-2; AND AMEND THE SPECIFIC PLAN TO ELIMINATE THE COMMERCIAL LAND USES (EXCEPT CLUBHOUSE), RELOCATE A GOLF TUNNEL FROM 52ND AVENUE TO JEFFERSON STREET, AND OTHER MINOR CHANGES. LEGAL: A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 5 AND A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 5, T6S, R7E, SBBM. The original Specific Plan was approved for: One 27-hole and one 18-hole golf course on a total of 400 acres. 2,245 single-family, attached and detached dwellings on 449 acres. A 200-room hotel, a 200,000 square foot community commercial center with office and retail commercial uses, and a 25,000 square foot golf clubhouse on a total 36.5 acre site. - A 200,000 square foot office/commercial center on 3.5 acres. - A private golf course club facility. - 115 acres of hillside (undevelopable) remaining as natural open space. - 16 acres of rights -of -way dedications. BJ/ENVASS.001 - 1 - The current application is to eliminate the commercial uses and rezone the 36.5 acre commercial site to residential. The area will be developed with golf, golf clubhouse and residential uses. A prior Environmental Assessment #85-034 (Sch #85050112) was prepared for the original project. The environmental impacts were fully addressed in this prior environmental review. This proposal eventually will reduce those cited impacts. Mitigation measures were attached to the original Specific Plan to reduce those impacts. A 18-role golf course with temporary clubhouse has been constructed on this site. Also an archaeological study and sum,ary has been conducted. III. DISCUSSION OF CHECKLIST EVALUATION RESPONSES: 1. Earth: Soil disruption and displacement, changes in topography, and in soil erosion characteristics will occur primarily due to grading for pad; utility and street improvement; and construction of single family homes and golf course clubhouse. These impacts are not considered significant when addressed by the following mitigation measures to be incorporated into project approvals: Mitigations: a. The applicant shall submit a dust and erosion control program for review and approval prior to issuance of any grading permits, or encroachment permits for work within City rights -of -way. b. Site grading and drainage plans shall incorporate natural drainage flows to the extent feasible, as it relates to the surrounding properties adjacent to the tract boundaries. The site area is in ground -shaking zone IV, as identified by Riverside County Seismicity/Geology Information Maps. No faults exist in close proximity to the tract, and the area is not identified as subject to liquefaction. Some ground -shaking will occur due to fault activity depending upon the richter magnitude, location, etc. - of such activity. Seismic safety requirements set by the UBC will serve to mitigate any substantial impact of quake activity and also to mitigate drainage pattern changes due to site development. 2. Air: The construction equipment used for grading of the site and construction of the single family homes will impact air quality. This is a 5iwti.-Lcttu littyat;L. BJ/ENV.A,SS.001 _. 2 - 3. Water: When construction takes place, incremental increase in runoff due to site development will occur, which impacts the absorption and drainage patter. Mitigation: a. The developer shall be required to provide adequate drainage provisions on -site to retain the coefficient runoff increase. 4. :Plant Life: The current vegetation will be eliminated and replaced with typical residential landscaping. 5. animal Life: Future site grading/development will cause a reduction of the number of fringe -toed lizards, a rare and endangered species. The Hai:)itat Conservation Plan identifies reductions such as these as "acceptable losses," which are mitigated by payment of the mitigation fee required of projects within the fee area. levelopment in the fee area will cause a physical barrier to Migration of the lizard to other dune areas, possibly causing additional losses which are not directly attributable to the primary impact from actual development. mitigation: a. The applicant shall be required to mitigate these impacts to the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard (CVFTL), in accordance with the fees adopted in connection with the CVFTL Habitat Conservation Plan. Noise: Increases in existing noise levels will only result insofar as the conversion of vacant land is concerned. Surrounding properties are developed scarcely with single family homes across Jefferson Street. :Litigation: a. Construction activity will adhere to working hours as set forth by City ordinance, in order to mitigate construction noise on existing nearby residents. More severe noise levels may be created, which would be exposed to future and existing residents. Units adjacent to or near Miles and Adams will be exposed to traffic noise associated with arterial roadway designs. Additional traffic from these tracts will n i _i Zs �. .� + ^ 1 r-. —c 1 - "luw .l.11Vl�.tl{t.161. Vl .l is ,"a flV 33V i.0 �r 1V Y�+ir7 f.i .a.W66� 411V .�V streets. SJ/ENVAss.001 •. 3 - Litigations: a. The applicant shall be required to submit an acoustical analysis, concentrating on mitigation of noise impacts from perimeter arterial. The study shall incorporate specific recommendations, to be utilized in the tract design. 7. Light and Glare: In the future, incremental increases will occur with respect to light and glare impacts from within the tract. All lighting plans of the development shall be reviewed by the City prior to approval for installation. 8. Land Use The elimination of commercial development and replacement with residential will provide for more housing within La Quinta. 9. Natural Resources: When development takes place, incremental increases in natural resource consumption will occur, associated with development. Consumption/use of resources will occur incrementally, and are not significant. 10. Risk of qp eta A construction accident could involve the release of fuel/oil to a limited extent. This is a normal hazard associated with most construction activity. 11. Population The proposed tract may alter the distribution and growth rate in the north La Quinta area; however, a market must be assumed to exist. If the project is successful from a market standpoint, additional projects may be proposed. This could alter the growth rate and distribution area of the population, which may have a positive impact relative to diversification of locale (i.e., additional housing opportunities by area). This is considered to be a growth -induced impact already addressed by the (Plaster Environmental Assessment (M.E.A.) adopted for the La Quinta General Plan and is therefore not significant. 12. I3ousi.n Refer to #10 - could result in a slowdown of housing starts in the Cave area due to availability of large lot sizes. This will depend on demand in both the Cove, and in north La Quinta. BJ/ENVASS . 001 •. 4 13. Transportation: Relative to existing conditions (vacant land use), the proposal may generate substantial additional vehicular movement. Adequate capacity exists to facilitate the movement. Impacts resulting from build -out of the land use designations were identified in the La Quinta General Plan M.E.A. The circulation system, as identified in the General Plan, in this area was sufficient to handle build -out of the land use designations of the General Plan. In conjunction with this analysis and the Findings and Statement of Facts adopted for the Final MEA/EIR for the General Plan, cumulative impacts of development induced by' the General Plan adoption were found to be acceptable. Also prior traffic studies have been prepared for Avenue 50 and Jefferson Streets. Also, the prior Environmental Assessment acl.dressed traffic. Mitigation: a. Applicant shall dedicate all public street right-of-way as necessary to develop perimeter roadways to current General Plan standards. b. Turning movements in and out of the tract divisions will be restricted where warranted and feasible. C. Applicant may be required to dedicate right-of-way and construct a bus turnout. The construction improvements will be required at such time as service is provided by Sunline. Incremental increase in traffic hazards/conflicts can be anticipated due to increased vehicular activity and volume. These impacts are not considered substantial with mitigation as previously outline. 14. Public Services Impacts to public services are incremental and were addressed in the M.F.A. and I,a Quinta General plan. Mitigation: a. The developer shall comply with the City's adopted infrastructure fee as in effect at the time of building permit issuance. b. The developer shall comply with the City's Parkland requirements, as set forth in the La Quinta Municipal Code. C. The developer shall be required to comply with the school mitigation fee requirements of Desert Sands Unified School District prior to building permit lssudriQu foi 51 l.uCttires. HJ/ENVASS.001 " 5 - d. Applicant shall consent to formation of a landscape maintenance district, or form a homeowners association, in order to set up maintenance for public and private facilities. 15. Energy The construction on the site and the energy used by the occupants, may in the future .require the development of energy sources. The local electrical utility has indicated that power is available in the area. 16. Utilities: Coachella Valley Water District has commented that additional facilities may be necessary for appropriate expansion/service. Mains can be extended to provide water and sewer service, but additicnal on -site facilities may be necessary. Mitigation: a. Developer shall provide dedication to Coachella Valley Water District in order to facilitate any necessary district facilities. Written authorization shall be supplied to the City prior to final map approval. Power, natural gas, communication systems and solid waste and disposal can be provided by appropriate company. This is based upon prior coiTnents received for other projects in the area. 17. Human Health No health hazard is anticipated. 18. Aesthetics Future projects will be reviewed. 19. Recreation The development will have recreational amenities for the residents. 20. Archaeological Historical (See prior Assessment Sch #85050112.) Mitigation Monitoring Future conditions as well as the existing conditions will be attached to the Specific Plan Amendment to require monitoring of these mitigations. BVENVASS.001 - 6 - Case No. CITY OF LA QUINTA Date Received PLANNING i DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 78-105 CALLE ESTADO LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 ENPIRoiMENTAL IMR?MATION FORM 31ao. Please complete Parts I and II of this fors and provide ALL of the additional materials requested in Part III. Failure to do so may delay the review and process_of your Rrole If you are unable to provide the information, or you need assistance, please feel free contact the Environmental Quality Section of the Planning Department at (619) 564-2246. PART I. General Information 1. What is the total acreage involved? 36.5 ac 2. Is there a previous application tiled for the same site? TESN0_X_ If 'Teo', provide Case Number. Also provide the Environmental Assessment Number, if known, and Environmental Impact Report Number, if applicable. Case No. (Parcel Map, Zone Change, Etc.) EA No. (if known) EIR No, _ (if applicable) PART II. Existing Conditions 1. Project site area: 1 589�940 36.5 ac Size of property Sq.Ft. end acreage 2. Existing use of the project site: Temporary Clubhouse, Citrus & Date Palm 3. Existing use on adjacent properties: (Example: North, Shopping Center; South, Single Family Dwellings; East, Vacant, etc.) North, Citrus Groves; South, Golf Course - Vacantz� East, Citrus Groves, West, Golf Course - Vacant 4. Gite topography (describe): (If any portion of the site exceeds 5% slope, attach a topographic display of the proposal site; if less than 5% slope, please provide elevations at corners of site) Less than 59 5. Grading (Estimate number of cubic yards of dirt being moved): 42,500 CY 6. Are there any natural or man-made drainage channel areas through or adjacent to the property? No X Tee (If yes, submit a display of such drainage channel areas.) Describe the disposition of these channels/areas should the proposal be implemented. -- - - 405182 40 809 07 i 6-8 36Q 7. Are there any known archaeological finds near or on the proposed site? ac X Tea_ See Oak Tree West Study 8. Describe any cultural or scenic aspects of the project site: Date Grove and Citrus - 9. Describe existing site vegetation and their proposed disposition should the proposal be approved: Grapefruit Trees and Date Palms - the trees iiot impacted -by the site plan will remain. Date Palms impacted will be -by elsewhere on the site. _ (If any significant plant materials, e.g., mature trees, exist on the site, please prepare a site plan that illustrates their nurrler, type, size and I n r atA Mr.. ) b+ nROW—WAL INFORMATION FORM, City of La Quints 10. describe accessibility of proposal site to the following utilities; San, water and electricity. (If proposal site does not have immediate access, further describe necessary extension of services and provide a graphic display, W x 110 that indicates their Fresent location in reference to the subject site): Gas & Electricity have immediate access, water is available .on 50th from approx. al iLnment of Park & 50th - extend _site along 50th - See exhibit labeled proposed Citrus Clubhouse site. 11. Additional comments you may wish to supply regarding your project. (Attach an additional sheet if necessary) NONE FART III. Additional Materials The .following items smut be submitted with this form: 1. At least three (3) panoramic photographs (color prints) of the project site, or an aerial photo of the site. 2. A clear photocopy (Xerox or similar copy) of the appropriate portion of the O.S. Geological Survey quadrangle map, delineating the boundaries of the project site. Also, note the title of the map. I certify that I Lave investigated the questions in Parts I and II and the answers are true and correct to the best of sq knowledge. it CITY OF tai0 GjVMlA o` orb ENVIROK4ENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. BACXGM�M 1. Name of Proponent: ( __ 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 3. Date of Checklist: 4. kgency Requiring Checklist: S. Name of Proposal, if applicable: 4a II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of all "Yes" and "Maybe" answers is required on attached sheets.) Z' r fi5' 0 5 0 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: Yes Ma a Nor a. (instable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of / any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increases in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach, sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of xibient air quality? _ _ �✓ __ b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course of flow of flood waters? ✓ d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, / dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? _ S. 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 Mavhw idn h. Substantial reduction in the amosnt of water otherwise available for public water supplies? i' Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number cf any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or result in a barrier to the / normal replenishment of existing species? ✓ d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? S. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of animals? _✓ c. Lntroduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? / d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife _ / habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? ✓_ b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new . li t ox glaie? .i 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? w/ 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of any use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any renewable natural resource? 10. Risk Does the proposal involve a risk _ _,o_fpsseositt. man explon or the release of hazardous sub- stances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? _ 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, ism utxon, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, ox create a demand for additional housing? ✓ 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result ini—`�" a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d., Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or re'sul in a need for new or altered govern- mental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. Energy Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Sioux water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health. will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruct %n of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upo' ne quality or quantity of existing recrea- tional opportunities? 20. Archeolo ical/Historical. Will the proposal result In an —alters on _o_1 a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? 21. Mandatory Finding of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially re- duce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plan or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (5) A/ Yes Maybe No b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long -terse, en- vironmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are indi- vidually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is ✓ significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION IV. DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. �I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONITINTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date: �jo� %V�LeV (6) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED PLOT PLAN NO. 89-422 LANDMARK LAND COMPANY SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 GENERAL 1. The development of the project site (in concept) shall comply with approved Exhibits A, B, and C, and Color Sample Board, as contained in the Planning and Development Department's file for Plot Plan No. 89-422, and the following conditions shall take precedence in the event of any conflicts with the provisions of Specific Plan No. 85-006. 2. Plot Plan No. 89-422, shall comply with all standards and requirements of the La Quinta Land Use Ordinance unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. 3. Plot Plan No. 89-422 shall comply with the La Quinta General Plan, and development of on -site and off -site improvements shall be consistent with the La Quinta General Plan. 4. This approval shall be used within the time limits specified in Chapter 9.182 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. 5. The Applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval for Specific Plan No. 85-006, as amended. 6. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the Applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: o City Engineer o City Fire Marshal o City Planning and Development Department o Riverside County Environmental Health Department o Coachella Valley Water District o Imperial Irrigation District Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above -mentioned agencies shall be presented to the Building Division at the time of the application for a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. BJ/CONAPRVL.016 - 1 - Soils and Geology 7. Applicant shall submit appropriate soil testing/compaction date for building pad areas as required by the Building Division, prior to issuance of any development permits. 8. The Applicant shall utilize dust control measures in accordance with the Municipal Code and the Uniform Building Code. Method of dust control shall be sub-ect to review and approval of the City Engineer. Traffic, Circulation, and Parking 9. The Applicant shall develop all remaining interior roads, driveways, and parking areas applicable to Plot Plan 89-422, in conformance with the approved site plan for PP 89-422, as well as complying with City standards and the design standards specified in Specific Plan No. 85-006 (Oak Tree West) as amended and conditionally approved and subject to approval by the City Engineer. 10. The Applicant shall comply with the following requirements of the City Engineer: a. Applicant shall prepare street improvement plans and construct interim improvements at Jefferson Street, including any necessary widening for turn lanes, subject to the requirements of the City Engineer. b. Permanent access shall be in accordance with the precise development plans for Specific Plan No. 85-006, as amended, and the Final Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract No. 24889 and Tentative Tract No. 24890, and shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. C. Applicant shall prepare a grading and drainage plan(s) in accordance with the requirements of the City Engineer. Storm drainage system(s) shall be designed to retain runoff from the 100-year design level storm on-site,inclusive of the Applicant's portion of Jefferson Street frontage. d. All required street improvements, drainage and utility plans, as required by the City Engineer, shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer, and shall be subject to review and approval by Riverside County, Coachella Valley Water District, (CVWD), the City Engineer and any other agencies which may be affected. BJ/CONAPRVL.016 - 2 - e. An encroachment permit for work in the City of La Quinta and any abutting local jurisdiction shall be secured prior to constructing or joining improvements (i.e., County of Riverside). 11. A minimum of 215 parking stalls shall be provided. Up to 43 spaces may be designed to compact car standards, and a minimum of five handicapped spaces shall be provided. The Applicant shall prepare a detailed parking plan (may be part of grading plan) in accordance with the approved Exhibit A for Plot Plan No. 89-422. 12. Landscaping and striping of the parking area shall be provided in accordance with the requirements and standards of Chapter 9.160 of the Municipal Land Use Ordinance. 13. Fire protection shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Fire Marshal and in accordance with the City of La Quintals codes and ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance. The following requirements shall be met/certified to, except that the City Fire Marshal may approve alternative means of compliance deemed appropriate and equivalent to or better than these standards. a. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 3000 gpm for a 3-hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. b. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super hydrant(s) (6" X 4" X 2-1/2" X 2 1/211) located not less than 25-feet nor more than 165-feet from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways. C. Applicant/Developer shall furnish one blueline copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be 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 the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." d. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and operational prior to the start of construction. BJ/CONAPRVL.016 - 3 - e. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front, within 50-feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25-feet from the building(s). System plans must be submitted with a plan check/inspection fee to the Fire Department for review. A statement that the building(s) will be automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the building plans. f„ An access road with a minimum unobstructed width of 20-feet and a vertical clearance of 13-feet, 6-inches, shall be provided for the cart staging area. Access road and cart staging area shall be designed to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. g. Certain designated areas may be required to be maintained as fire lanes. h. An interim secondary access road to the site shall be provided and maintained until such time as tract development provides other acceptable means of access. Interim access shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer and Fire Marshal. 14. The Applicant shall comply with requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District as follows: a. The water and sewage disposal systems for the project shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the City and CVWD. b. Plans for grading, landscaping, and irrigation systems shall be submitted to CVWD for review. This review is for ensuring efficient water management. 15. All on -site utility improvements shall be installed underground. Landscaping/Walls 16. Prior to issuance of any utility release or certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning and Development Department for review and approval a detailed plan (or plans) showing the following: a. Landscaping, including plant types, sizes, spacing, locations, and irrigation system for all landscape areas. Desert or native plan species and drought resistant planting materials shall be incorporated into the landscape plan. BJ/CONAPRVL.016 - 4 - b. Location and design detail of any proposed and/or required walls. C. Exterior lighting plan, emphasizing minimization of light and glare impacts to surrounding properties. This plan shall be in conformance with the approved Exhibit A for Plot Plan No. 89-422, as to planting concept. Plans submitted shall bear the approvals from CVWD and the Riverside County Agriculture Commissioner's office. Any deviation in the field from the approved plan must be approved by the Planning and Development Department. The installed landscaping shall be inspected by the Planning and Development Department with an advance request for inspection of 48-hours minimum. Building Design 17. Any minor changes in the color scheme or building materials may be submitted for review and approval by the Planning and Development Department prior to building permit issuance. Archaeology 18. If buried remains are encountered during development, a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted immediately and appropriate mitigation measures will be taken. Miscellaneous 19. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall comply with the City's adopted requirements regarding infrastructure fees for public facilities and buildings. BJ/CONAPRVL.016 - 5 - PH-4 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 PROJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT 24801 LOCATION: SOUTH OF THE 56TH AVENUE ALIGNMENT, ALONG THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE ALL-AMERICAN CANAL (IN PGA WEST PROJECT AREA; SEE ATTACHMENT NO. 1) APPLICANT: SUNRISE COMPANY OWNER: LANDMARK LAND COMPANY, INC. REQUEST: APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE 31.4 ACRES INTO EIGHT CONDOMINIUM LOTS TO ALLOW FOR DEVELOPMENT OF 105 CONDOMINIUM UNITS ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: EXISTING ZONING: BACKGROUND: THE LA QUINTA PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS MAP IS EXEMPT FROM CEQA CINDER PROVISIONS OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65457. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WAS PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE OVERALL "PGA WEST SPECIFIC PLAN", AND WAS CERTIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON MAY 1, 1989. A SUBSEQUENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR WAS PREPARED AND ADOPTED AS PART OF AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE PGA WEST SPECIFIC PLAN, AND WAS CERTIFIED ON SEPTEMBER 20, 1989. LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-4 UNITS/ACRE) R-2 Tentative Tract 24801 is a development map proposal located within previously approved Tract 21642, which subdivided a larger area of PGA West into lots for land sales to Sunrise. Some of these lots have been sold to Sunrise and are now being proposed for development through the establishment of this tentative tract (see Attachment No. 2). MR/STAFFRPT.092 '1' PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Tentative Tract 24801 is a re -subdivision of 31.4 acres of recorded Tract 21642 (see Attachment No. 3) for the development of -105 condominium units on eight lots. The Applicant proposes to construct three unit types as part of this tract map: The Galleries 17 units The Legends 38 units The Highlands 50 units --------------------------- Total 105 units ANALYSIS: 1. The Galleries and Legends units were previously approved for development within other tracts in PGA West. The Highlands units are compatible with the architectural concepts identified within the PGA West Specific Plan, and the model unit No. H-3 was approved by the Planning Commission as part of a modification to the existing model complex for PGA West. The three variations on the Highlands unit type are shown at Attachments 4. through 11. The H-1 and H-2 unit types have side -loading garages, and could be permitted a minimum front setback of 15 feet, though this was not requested with the development of this tract. This is consistent with other previously -approved unit types with side -loading garages. :2. The northerly portion of the tract map does not have recorded access to the current private street system (refer back to Attachments 2 and 3). A condition has been proposed to require that the final map show adequate extension of street lot A-1 to the north, so as to connect with the street system in Tract 21381-1. This must be part of the tract boundary to ensure access and street Improvement requirements will be met. 3. The Sheriff's Department has its shooting range at the north end of Lake Cahuilla and west of this project. Approximately 150 Sheriff's personnel use this range for monthly practice and quarterly qualifications. The range is also used by other Coachella Valley police and governmental agencies. It is primarily used during the early morning and daytime hours, but there are various practice sessions scheduled at night. This facility was not identified as a concern by the Sheriff's Department when the Notice of Preparation for the PGA West EIR was circulated., so this facility was not addressed in the EIR (see Attachment No. 12). However, a condition is proposed which will require the CC&Rs for this tract -to disclose the existence of this facility to buyers, and a statement to be filed with the Department of Real Estate, MR/STAFFRPT.092 -2- 4. There is a need to provide secondary access to this tract due to its excessive distance from a publicly -maintained street. This is primarily due to the fact that 58th Avenue does not provide access at this time. This interim access would not be necessary once 58th Avenue is constructed and accessible ro this tract. Location and design of the interim access must meet the requirements of the City Fire Marshal and City Engineer. It should be further noted that this tract and any future development tracts within Tract 21642 should be responsible for the improvement of 58th Avenue, since Tract 21642 has its street frontage along 58th Avenue. Due to the nature of the PGA West marketing approach (land sales to developers at market pace), a condition has been proposed to require bonding for street improvements, with a reimbursement agreement based upon the cost of 58th hvenue construction, utilizing acreage as the fair share constant for each tract contribution. FINDINGS: Findings can be found in the attached Planning Commission Resolution No. 89- CONCLUSION: .Che Tentative: Tract Map is acceptable, subject to conditions. All relevant Specific Plan Conditions of Approval will need to be complied with, as well as those conditions set forth for Tentative Tract 21642 to the extent they apply. RECOMMENDATION: Move to adopt:. Planning Commission Resolution No. 89- , recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract 24801, subject to conditions. attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Tentative Tract 24801 3. Tentative Tract 24801 4-11. Highland Unit Plans 12. Sheriff's Comments: 13. Planning Commission Conditions. Relative to Tract 21642 PGA West EIR Resolution No. 89- with MR/STAFFRPT.092 -3- TEN CASE'.. MAP CASE No. 11 ■ kuG - 1 11 CIT ' I OF LA QL PLANNING & DEVELOPM1 ol X. i4, ATM Q, CN4 tj -,h "4 4 XL, Q*NER Dlv-D9 LJOAt USCR"PTION AT LA OUNTA IVACT MAP 00 24604 THE CI T I . I LA 1) U I rTA ENGINEERING SERVICE CORPORATION FE:BRUARY 19 r. p TRACT NIQ 24,381-2 MB 58/5-9 9�-9H TRACT NO 2i381-` 4t ® T 58 / 83 8' we COQ SE'-CN 20 OB. GOLF CC_�SE CONSTO JC' CN. q)rrjc REES'AB'L'SwE,D By PG ( f R S 7G T MEAS UOE YEN' CN WE5', NE TRAC2C:426 Pw 29/49-55 9 POSIT IC, OF CORNER IN A64E Of IA 11 �'�`o —9J {2ECOFtO CFSURVEY 70i 9(. .A. t7 tfi NO T �. NOT A PAIC!! d►G ArAP 20$26 :[ 90 5C — - `_ 71394' ©,2 PART, cqq ' _� ``•'�• .- 3 ."==4 \ s , ass* Q ter' ' > Sff AF t.i ; t V SEE RV �ORS r PART "OT ) ?e NOT /4 S ; L 9 , A it. s � / `ro•� PART 21 r •:i �.•.. v�i l/ IAA(.SL T ✓ / / II �1 S !L t N2008urE _ DDF�•17 vG F RSe COMSTRK�%'� �. pp$ : n0N R L ISM E D BY PROPOR'r o T MCASUREMEj� pER RL4.0 O SURVEY 7, 96-988 \✓ o ti f,9.4! a _ 6 [' n AE .71.33 %7` 11 f. . . . 19 . 1/16 COR OBLITERATED `, ) 22 BY GOLF CCuRSE CONSTROCT,Ou. - NO. .2 1642 REE5TA8L:5MED BY PROPORTION' a ' ATE MEASURE M:NT AS PER © \ +1 i RECORD OF SURVEY 70/%-98 —' - - - - - l4 • a + z T 95-98 /6 ao at 5"f PARM YAP 29 28 P Y e /9/1 1 16 - s S j7 - �.r.� L v « •q for ►� A Q7 1A /t +1' :c E 5e7M AYlNU! RSIh�E+&ffi A��� ' • }nlf;t � 7'��IY�•}r. Jn�� :I�1FI. �• •t�iTiyrn �ti •i:' I I - Y i .\ ., .'Far Ch•,�.%� j JJr SrI � w.1`', .r� fy: uj cc 10 - -- - --0io MIN. ---- IFI p 4 i li o I4r 2 a + o' LU kw I CD. �D 50 cc l;; uorpxrs �+ -L---- 41! I a � i 6 YpoYYYr• � xsxn �( m� poi I , to pMrHl O OIx 1 M/p t BOO 1 v I u llj IZE R.7 I a Ac-S 4 10 -Itf I 0 a tc\ RIVERSIDE COUNTY ff R. Scott Ferguson, Project Manager Larry Seeman Associates 500 Newport Center DrLve, Suite 525 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Sir: PHONE 787-2444 August 4, 1983 BERNARD J. CLARK, SHERIFF RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA RE: Oak Tree West Landmark Land Development La Quinta This Department responds in a general way to environmental impact reports that are forwarded to us. These requests come from other county and city acrencies and from land developers in the city. The city is develo;?ing rapidly as is the entire County of Riverside. Our Dosition is to keep abreast of the development through contact with those desiring to grow with the city. We maintain continuous day-to-day relations with the city poli:y makers. The contract for law enforcement with our Department does not change the day-to-day operations with the city and its policing agency. 'Re have a real desire to provide a secure city for the residents, hence we discuss the needs of the city constantly with the policy body. we negotiate each year Tor the manhours to be spent in the city to provide a complete law enforcement package. We! have found, over the years, to quote averages is dangerous, particularly when dealing with response time and numbers of personnel on duty at a given time of day or week. However the following points may be of assistance to you. The Riverside County Sheriff's Department contracts law enforce- ° ment with the City of La Quinta for total law enforcement, including traffic. ° The city is divided into beats and reporting districts. ° The city contracts calls for field service 24 hours per day. The city does not have a police station of its own. The service • we provide is by assigning personnel attached to our Indio Station. We use city offices for personal meetings with citizens. Calls for service in the city are handled by our telephone operators and the field personnel are dispatched by our radio dispatchers located in Indio. In this day of rapid communications this system does not present a problem. Our station is open 24 hours per day. ADDRESS ALL COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SHERIFF Page 2 R. Scott Ferguson August 4, 1983 The Department service on a contract is telephone relayed • information, response to calls, follow-up investigation, patrol, traffic investigation and crime prevention programs. People commit crime. An increase in population or develop- ° ment usually menas an increase in crime; people bring crime with them. Any new development should consider lighting, street patterns, ° security hardware, building location, visibility and planting, among other things, as a_l can aid in reducing crime. During the fiscal year 1982-83 the City of La Quinta shows a population of 4701, and we have a contract to provide 8,760 hours of service in the fiscal year. This contract provides coverage 24 hours per day. I trust this information may be helpful. Sincerely, BEN CLARK, SHERIFF vrm RESPONSE SHEET Even Cl ark Riverside County Sheriff's Department For your convenience, we have provided space on this questionnaire for your answers, to be used as an attachment to your response. If you choose' to d,nswer these questions in a letter format, please number your responses to correspond to the questions. 1.. What types of services do you provide in this area? All general law enforcement services, including but not limited to criminal investigation and traffic enforcement. 2:. Will the proposed land use adversely impact the types of services you pro- vide? No. Do you use standard factors for estimating service demands? No. we provide the level of service requested and contracted for by the City. 4. Will the project create a need for expanding existing facilities or staff or constructiig a new facility? No. 5. Are there any current plans for -expansion of your facilities? J Not at this time. 6. What are the names and locations of your facilities serving the area and the distances and response times to the project location? Riverside Cou:zty Sheriff's Department, 46057 Oasis Street, Indio, CA. The Sheriff's Department currently contracts for one car 24 hours a day in the City of La Quinta. Effective 9-1-83, this contract will increase to i. bne and one-half cars r 24,hour eri.od. o you foresee any pro Elems in servicing this project? No. 8. Can you recommend any measures for mitigating project impacts that might be incorporated into the project? Not at this true. VERSIDE COUNT' )IS BYRD, SHERIFF Sheriff 46.057 OASIS STREET • INDIO, CA 92201 • (619) 342.8800 Waettaee Nesbit City o b La Qua. nta. Pta.nning and Devetopment Department 78-105 CaUe Estado La Quinta, CA 92253 Dean. M. Nesbit: September 14, 1989 S E P 15 1959 CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT. RE: Case OTT24801 The Sheribb's DepaAtment has its shooting range at the nohth end ob Lake Cahu.i & and west o b this pro jee t. We have one concern: the noise generated by shooting wilt have a negative impact on the residents. Approx,i.matety 150 Sheni.bb's personnel use this range bon monthly practice and quahteAty qua.Pi.b.i.cati.ons. The range is atzo used by other. Coache U.a Vattey poti.ce and gove)cnmentat agencies. It .is primatiey used doming the eaAty motning and daytime hours, but theAe are various pr.acti,ce sessions scheduled at night. Thant you bon the opportunity to comment on this project. v1%m S.ineerety, COIS M. BVRD, SHERIFF M.iehae.b R. Lewis, Captain Cove Station Commander Mailing Address: P.O. Box FFFF, Indio, CA 92201 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89-/-r) d'!( A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 24801 TO ALLOW THE CREATION OF A CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION. CASE NO. TT 24801 - SUNRISE COMPANY WHEREAS, on May 1, 1984, the La Quinta City Council certified the EIR for PGA West Specific Plan No. 83-002 (Council Resolution No. 84-28) as adequate and complete, adopting "Statements of Overriding Considerations1°, adopted t10EQA Findings and Statements of Facts"; and, WHEREAS, the City Council approved the PGA West Specific Plan No. 83-002 (Council Resolution No. 84-31) on May 15, 1984, subject to conditions; and, WHEREAS, on September 20, 1988, the La Quinta City Council did hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing on Amendment No. 1 to Specific Plan 83-002 and, after so doing, did approve said Amendment subject to conditions, and did further certify a supplemental Environmental Impact Report focusing on traffic generation and circulation; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 26th day of September, 1989, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Sunrise Company to subdivide 31.4+ acres into eight residential :lots for development of 105 condominium units, generally bounded by Avenue 58 on the south, Madison street to -the east, All -American Canal on the west, and Airport Boulevard extended on the north, more particularly described as: A PORTION OF SECTIONS 20 AND 21, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST, S.B.B.& M. WHEREAS, said tentative map has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 197011 (County of Riverside, Resolution No. 82-213, adopted by reference in City of La Quinta Ordinance No. 5), in that the Planning Director has determined that the proposed tentative tract is a part of and is consistent with the overall PGA West Specific Plan, as amended, and is therefore exempt from further environmental review pursuant to California Government Code Section 65457; and, MR/RESO89.040 -1- 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 a recommendation for approval of said tentative tract map: 1. That Tentative Tract No. 24801, as conditionally approved, is consistent with the PGA West Specific Plan as amended, the goals, policies, and intent of the La Quinta General Plan and the standards of the Municipal Land Division Ordinance. 2. That the subject site is physically suitable for the proposed land division. 3. That Tentative Tract 24801, as conditioned, is consistent with the approval and conditions of Tract 21642, of which the subject tract is a part. 4. The improvements to be required for the development of Tentative Tract 24801 will insure that adequate access, circulation, and public utilities are provided for the health, safety, and welfare of its residents. 5. That the impacts associated with development of Tentative Tract 24801 can be mitigated through the approval conditions imposed upon it, as well as through adherence to those conditions of the PGA West Specific Plan which are applicable. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. T'aat the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. T:zat it does hereby confirm the conclusion that the previous Environmental Impact Reports for the PGA West Specific Plan, as amended, assessed the environmental concerns of this tentative tract; 3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the above -described Tentative Tract Map No. 24801 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. MR/RESO89.040 -2- PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 26th day of September, 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CHAIRMAN .ATTEST: PLANNING DIRECTOR MR/RESO89.040 -3- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89- e SUNRISE COMPANY - TENTATIVE TRACT 24801 RECOMMENDED SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 GENERAL 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 24801 shall comply with the requirements and standards of the State Subdivision Map Act, the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance, and all other City, County, and State applicable laws and ordinances. 2. This tentative tract map approval shall expire two years after the original date of approval by the La Quinta City Council unless approved for extension pursuant to the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance. 3. The development of the site and buildings shall comply with Exhibits A, B-H-1, B-H-2, B-H-3, C-H-1, C-H-2F, C-H-2R, C-H-3F, and C-H-3R, pursuant to the Planning and Development Department's Tentative Tract Map 24801 file as conditionally approved. The following building and site design conditions shall take precedence in the event of any conflicts with the provisions of the tentative tract map. 4.. Tentative Tract map No. 24801 shall comply with all applicable conditions and requirements of Specific Plan 83-002, "PGA West", as amended and in effect at the time of recordation. GRADING 5. The Applicant shall submit to the City Engineer a grading plan that is prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer, who will he required to certify that the constructed conditions at the rough grade stage are as per the approved plans and grading permit. This is required prior to issuance of building permits. Certification at the final grade stage and verification of pad elevations is also required prior to final approval of grading construction. 6. The developer of Tentative Tract 24801 shall submit a copy of the proposed grading, landscaping, and irrigation plans -to Coachella Valley Water District for review and comment with respect to CVWD's water management program. MR/CONAPRVL.074 -1- 7. A thorough preliminary engineering geological and soils engineering investigation shall be done and the report submitted for review along with the grading plan. The reports' recommendations shall be incorporated into the grading plan design prior to grading plan approval. The soils engineer and/or the engineering geologist must certify --,o 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. 8. The developer of Tentative Tract 24801 shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any portion of this property between the date of approval by the City Council and the date of recording of the final map without the approval of the City Engineer. R. All ut-lities will be installed and trenches compacted t City standards prior to construction of any streets. The soils engineer shall provide the necessary compaction test reports for review by the City Engineer. 10. The developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist immediately upon discovery of any archaeological remains or artifacts and employ appropriate mitigation measures during project development. :DRAINAGE 11. Drainage disposal facilities shall be provided as required by the City Engineer. The Applicant shall comply with the provisions of the City Master Plan of Drainage, including payment of any drainage fees required therewith. Runoff from the 100-year design storm rr.ust be retained on -site as required by the City Engineer and subject to his approval. Applicant is advised that the City Engineer may require drainage release(s) relative to adjacent: ownerships. ;ACCESS/CIRCULATION/STREET IMPROVEMENT 12. The Applicant shall dedicate all necessary public street and utility easements as required by the City Engineer. .13. The Applicant shall submit street improvement plans for private streets prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer. Street improvements, including required traffic signs and markings, shall conform to City standards as determined by the City Engineer and adopted by the La Quinta Municipal Code. Street design shall take into account the subgrade soil strength, the anticipated traffic loading, and street design life. All interior private streets shall be a minimum 36-foot pavement width. IAR/ CONAPRVL . 0 ' 4 - 2 - 14. The Applicant shall construct street improvements for Lots A-1 through A-8 to the requirements of the City Engineer and the La Quinta Municipal Code. Street Lot A-1 shall be extended northward to the south terminus of Tract 21381 (Riviera Drive) and be included in the boundary of the final map. 15. Applicant shall submit a tract phasing schedule for Tentative Tract 24801, which shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Appropriate bonding for design and construction of 58th Avenue shall be provided as required by the City. Construction may be deferred until required by the City, together with approved tract phasing. Applicant responsibility with regard to Tentative Tract 24801 shall be determined by the City Engineer and subject to the following: a. Ultimate design of 58th Avenue shall include design profiles for 58th Avenue between Jefferson Street and Madison Street. b. Posting of security shall be required with Tract 24801; or, may be based upon a percentage of the tract acreage relative to the net acreage (exclusive of golf course) of Tract 21642, if acceptable to the City Engineer. 16. Prior to the submittal of any future development -tracts within Tract 21642, the Applicant shall submit a phasing schedule and map for -the entire project area within Tract 21642 to the Planning Director for review and approval. 17. Applicant shall make provision for interim secondary access, in accordance with the Fire Marshal's and the City Engineer's requirements. This access may be of gravel or suitable base coarse composition. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 18. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of the Municipal Code and the City Fire Marshal, as follows: a. Schedule A fire protection approved Super fire hydrants (6"X4"X2-1/2"X2-1/2") shall be located one at each street intersection spaced not more than 330 feet apart in any direction with no portion of any frontage more than 165 feet from a fire hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 2,500 GPM for two hours duration at 20 PSI. MR / CONAPR'JL . 0 7 4 - 3 - 19. b. The water mains shall be capable of providing a potential fire flow of 2,500 GPM and an actual fire flow available from any one hydrant shall be 1,500 GPM for two hours duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure. C. Prior to recordation of the final map, applicant/developer shall furnish one blueline copy o:= the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be 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 the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." d. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on any individual lot. The Applicant shall comply with the following requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District: a. The developer shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Coachella Valley Water District prior to any construction within the right-of-way of the Coachella Canal. This includes, but is not limited to, surface improvements, drainage inlets, landscaping, and roadways. b. The Applicant shall provide and dedicate to the District any land needed for the provision of additional facilities, including, but not limited to, sites for wells, reservoirs, and booster pumping stations. These sites will be dedicated in accordance with the requirements of CVWD and the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act. C. The Applicant shall resolve any potential conflict(s) with. existing District facilities prior to any approvals for development permits being issued. Verification of CVWD authorization shall be submitted. prior to any permit issuance. d. The area is within Improvement District No. 1 of the Coachella Valley Water District for irrigation water service. Water from the Coachella Canal is available to the area. The developer shall use this water for golf course and landscape irrigation. MR/CONAPRVL.074 -4- SITE/BUILDING DESIGN 20. The following setback criteria shall be applied to site design: a. A minimum front yard setback of 20 feet shall be .required on all residential dwelling units in the project, except for the "Legend" (Plan 40), which is permitted to have a 15-foot setback to accommodate an accessory golf cart storage s1--ructure; and the "Galleries" and "Highlands" (units H-1 and H-2 type), which may have a 15-foot setback for side -entry garages. b. A minimum setback of 10 feet between any building and/or building complex shall be required on all residential units. All buildings shall maintain a minimum of five (5) feet from any interior side property line, ten (10) feet on corners. 21. The Applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the completed noise analysis for "PGA West". Interior building design measures established in the noise analysis shall be incorporated into the unit plans submitted for plan check and shall be verified by the Building Official prior to permit issuances. 22. The Applicant shall submit detailed landscaping plans for all common areas within Tentative Tract 24801. (Landscaping in individual unit courtyard or other enclosed areas may be installed at the developer's discretion, but shall conform to CVWD and Riverside County Agricultural Commission Office requirements.) Final approval of all common area landscaping shall be given by the Planning and Development Department and shall be inspected by the City prior to or at time of building final. 23. Prior to submittal of landscaping plans as required in Condition 22, the applicant/developer shall: a. Secure the Agricultural Commissioner's approval for landscaping material to be used within the development. b. Secure the CVWD review of the grading, landscaping, and irrigation systems. MISCELLANEOUS 24. 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. 14R/ CONAPRVL . 0 1' 4 - 5 - 25. The developer of Tentative Tract 24801 shall prepare CC&Rs for review and approval by the Planning and Development Department. These CC&Rs shall be consistent with those recorded for other tracts within PGA west. The CC&Rs shall contain wording similar to the following: "The Riverside County Sheriff's Department operates its shooting practice and qualifying range on the north side of Lake Cahuilla, approximately 1,300 feet from the westerly boundaries of Lots 2 and 3 of Tract 24801 (in the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 20, T6S, R7E, S.B.B.& M.). This range is used for monthly practice and quarterly qualifying sessions, and is also used by various other Coachella Valley agencies. For more specific information, contact: Riverside County Sheriff's Department, 46-057 Oasis Street, Indio, CA 92201, (619) 342-8800." This information shall be disclosed to each individual unit buyer, as well as the California Department of Real Estate. PIR/CONAPRVL.074 -6- BS--1 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 APPLICANT: ESCO/DEANE HOMES OWNER: M. W. INVESTORS PROJECT: PARK PROPOSAL FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23971 (SEE ATTACHMENT #1 AND #2) LOCATION: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23971 IS LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND MILES AVENUE. BACKGROUND: Condition of Approval No. 8 for Tentative Tract No. 23971 states the following: 118. Prior to Final Map approval by the City Council the Applicant shall submit a proposal to the Planning Commission for recommendation to the City Council, for meeting parkland dedication requirements as set forth in Section 13.24.030, La Quinta Municipal Code. The proposal for dedication, fee -in -lieu, or combination thereof shall be based upon a dedication requirement of 1.96 acres, as determined in accordance with said Section." The Staff analysis for this Tract identified the need for a neighborhood park in this general area. Based upon this the Applicant has submitted a parkland proposal (see Attachment #2). The submitted plan shows three major land uses, the park, retention basin and a Coachella Valley Water District well. site (required by CVWD during tentative tract approval). The park itself is bordered on the north by Bradford Circle, west by Via Palomino and south by Miles Avenue. Access to the park will be off Bradford Circle and Via Palomino. There will be no access to the park from Miles Avenue. A 6-foot wall is proposed on the Miles Avenue boundary of the park. The park is 1.96 acres in size with an elevated pad of +1/3 acre positioned in the northwest corner of the park. The Applicant states the following regarding use of the park as ELn emergency retention basin: BJ/STAFFRPT.014 - 1 - "As proposed, the retention basin area will accommodate the runoff expected from a ten-year design storm without encroaching onto the park site (maximum water depth of 4.0-feet). During the 100-year storm, it is proposed to allow the maximum water surface to raise to a maximum water depth of 6.0-feet (as limited by Condition No. 18) in the retention basin area and to allow encroachment of ponded runoff over the park site." NOTE: Ponded runoff should not encroach on to the elevated pad site on the park. "The maximum depth of water over the park site would vary from 1.0-feet to 2.0-feet for the 100-year event. Following the end of the 100-year storm, the water level is estimated to recede to below the 4.0-feet depth in the basin (and thereby drying out the park site) within 24 hours through percolation and evaporation." "As shown, the preliminary plan utilizes 3:1 slopes around the retention basin itself and 5:1 slopes along the street frontage of the park site to reduce the severeness of the slopes (usually 2:1) and to provide large, flat areas conducive to retention basins and recreation areas." ANALYSIS: 1. A total of 1.96 acres of parkland has been dedicated as required by Condition of Approval No. 8. 2. Approximately five -sixths of the proposed park will be flooded by a 100-year storm. A pad of approximately one-third of an acre will not be flooded. 3. The elevated pad in the park site could accommodate a shelter, benches, landscaping and other park elements that should not be subjected to flooding. 4. Playground equipment could be placed on the lower level alongside Bradford Circle, just east of the elevated pad. This area could be raised +1-foot to ensure that when the flooding occurs from a 100-year flood, this area is the first to drain off. 5. The balance of the park area could be used as a soccer field or similar activity with spectators utilizing the surrounding slopes. 6. A 6-foot wall has been proposed on the south side of the park alongside Miles Avenue. This should be a combination block and wrought iron fence to allow for security viewing from Miles Avenue into the park by the Sheriff's Department as may be provided by the Noise Study. BJ/STAFFRPT.014 - 2 - 7„ As shown, a 6-foot wall should be constructed on the south and east. side of the retention basin and around the CVWD well site. 8„ A wall should also be constructed between the park and Lot 16 on the southwest corner of the site. 91, The Engineering Department states that the park/retention area layout looks satisfactory subject to review and approval of the hydrology plans. RECOMMENDATION: By minute motion, recommend to the City Council approval of the parkland proposal submitted for Tentative Tract No. 23971 with the following changes: 1.1 This area shall be of sufficient size for playground equipment: and be raised approximately 1-foot. That an additional raised area be provided alongside the existing raised pad. 2. A 6-foot high combination block/wrought iron fence be placed along the Miles Avenue side of the proposed park; plans to be approved by the Planning and Development Department prior to recordation of Final Map. Consideration should be made of the Noise Study for Miles Avenue. 3. A 6-foot high block wall be built between the proposed park and Lot 16, along the east side of the retention basin and well site and around the CVWD well site (except for approved openings; plans to be approved by the Planning and Development Department prior to recordation of Final Map. 4. The park and retention basin be seeded with grass, accent trees and permanent irrigation system provided. A park landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department. Attachments: 1. Tract #23971 2. Park retention basin layout 3. Section view B,J/STAFFRPT.014 - 3 - ATTACHME No. 1 I[ BRADi=DRD oll - %1 _ — NA',LES ATTACHMENT NO. 2 0 �11 CIRCLE - —_v 1 511 A cCeS" ROMP ENTioN 6A5IN I oM EI-I:V-0$Co i0 rR w 5. /cc coo '00YR W.S. io4.co 6 �J 3 J T e:i -CVWD WELL �E e Y/ 20 •I -�c Scn /SC �, ens�w � � ,6•b v AvE 1.4 W ti RECEIVED SEF--.4Y, CITT OF LA QuiNTA %r a CIYL7 V!r D1r k4 { g EMGINEEAIiYG SERVICE t%ORPOAATtON ciTr of 4A CONSULTAl" IN CNR 6Ralwamad a Uma PLARams MIN ILPA4EaUffmaa P" DfSE" G "m PIRN$AW T?A!7 /1�0. 1397/ P.�.CK S/7_ .PETENT�O�� Ba3. IttJ•* _ Q.� N PARK/RETENTION BASIN PROPOSAL ATTACHMENT No. 3 PIn SS-2 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 APPLICANT: CHONG LEE REPRESENTATIVE: REZA AHMADI PROJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 24950 - REVIEW OF PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS FOR TRACT LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST INTERSECTION OF MILES AVENUE AND DUNE PALMS ROAD. BACKGROUND: The Applicant has submitted elevations and floor plans of three proposed dwelling units for Tentative Tract No. 24950 (See Attachment #1). Condition of Approval No. 13 for TT # 24950 reads as follows: 1113. The Applicant shall submit complete detailed architectural elevations for all units for Planning Commission review and approval as a Business Item. The architectural standards shall be included as part of the C C & R's." The Applicant has submitted the above required plans and color board. ANALYS-_S: 1. Drawings of three units have been submitted. All three units are two stories in height. Condition of Approval No. 32 states the following: 1132. Seventy-five percent of dwelling units within 150-feet of the ultimate right-of-way of Miles Avenue shall be limited to one story, not to exceed 20-feet in height." A further unit, one story in height therefore, needs to be submitted. 2. Unit #1 is 52-feet in width and therefore should be placed on one of the lots with a width of or wider than 62-feet. A minimum sideyard of 5-feet needs to be provided on each side of the house. The location of all the units will be shown on the unit siting plan to be submitted at a later stage. BJ/STAFFRPT.012 •- 1 - 3. The elevations submitted show some architectural detailing on the front and sides of the buildings. Some of the side elevations require additional detailing and attic vents also need to be shown. The rear and left side elevation of units 1 and 2 still need to be submitted. 4. The color scheme submitted shows a rust/red brown for the roof, a flesh/light peach for the trim and creame/white for the stucco. This color scheme is in keeping with the desert environment. However, a greater variety of colors is needed, all units should not be the same color. The Applicant needs to submit a few more alternative color schemes for the complex. In addition, the Applicant needs to show what materials (including an exact roof tile sample) are proposed. It should be noted that a tile roof is required. 5. The double canopy shown over the front door (side elevation) of Unit #2 is a bit awkward and needs some attention. 6. Units #2 and #3 show the front door positioned on the side of the house, not visible from the street. The Applicant should provide some form of security fencing around the entry area of these two units. RECOMMENDATION: By minute motion, the Planning Commission request the Applicant to resubmit the proposed elevations, floor plans and color scheme for Tentative Tract No. 24950 with the following changes. 1. "-he Applicant submit plans for an additional unit not exceeding 20-Meet in height. 2. The Applicant shall submit front, rear and both side elevations are submitted for all units. 3. The Applicant show the attic vents and more detailing on the elevations. 4. The Applicant submit some alternative color schemes for -:he proposed units, including exact the roof samples or cut sheets. 5. The Applicant resolve the awkward image created by the double canopy on the right side of Unit #2• 6. The Applicant provide some form of security fencing around the entrance areas where the entrance to the unit does not face the street. Attachments: 1. Examples of Unit Plans and Elevations BJ/STAFFRPT.012 " 2 � � ,� 8880 'sf8¢'E1t's0008 'Y� 'sl pm olnDs act3,eup tunas 929li o5 0092 �r 4 'ON 13COW 9 [9 it 1 I UI I � IL C � I I 1 Imo. n seso ISEG *nz *20004 -v3 'VI, pak&j.os AIRIU-1 rig. -,as 9901 11 os 009Z Uli� v 1.11171 ION 13aOW i �o 'eee cis .000s �r3 'n �,p,v+o(nag qeq±ua,y mmas gomi 1A•DS 009Z � w v P01-1, SESTIVID006 -0 1A os 0961 rqllsvj,7 9"S lA Z 'ON 13CON �01 E •�ea•a�c•ffi000s ors eAv,�e �,�y vs vF~�s s►se� 1� 'OS 0961 & ON 1300W a ------------------ �p.sxxefnos Mv%2."3 tunas sss jj '05 or.61 1 1 ol; SP' so *VV6 'Ell *90006 V3 •vl iA -Gs ON 13GON t KA It IT ri ru L E 'a OP w FRIJ Savo RES'tit noaoe '" •rt ipu;a�ncg rrf:�ue�� g3nrg g9f ' IA 0S 0991 £ °CAI 13GOW e� e z U a LEI w I-- z O CY_ L!_ z 0 F-- CY z O a a Q W I_00+'w STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 ITEM: GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY REVIEW OF PROPOSED COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE NEXT THREE TO FIVE YEARS APPLICANT: COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (CVWD) LOCATION: CITY-WIDE BACKGROUND: ]?ursuant to Section 654:01 of the State of California Government Code, government bodies and special districts are required to submit a 1-4st of public works projects proposed to be undertaken during the ensuing fiscal year to the appropriate governing jurisdiction for General Plan consistency review. CVWD has subm-tied a list of public works projects it proposes -to undertake within the next three to five years. The list is attached for your review, along with maps showing their general location. :PROPOSAL: ,The improvements are spread throughout the City and consist of varied water and sewer projects, such as new wells north of Highway 111 and on the Pyramid project site; a well booster station in the Cove area; replacement of main lines in the Cove, downtown area, and in La Quinta Golf Estates; and new trunk sewer lines in the downtown and Desert Club Tract No. 5 area. ANALYSIS: The plan proposes an upgrade of the City's water system in the Cove area as well as an overall improvement to the City's water distribution and sewer systems. Relative to consistency with the City's General Plan, the program complies as noted below: MR/STAFFRPT.091 -1- Hazards Element: Policy 3.3.1 - "More adequate fire protection should be assured by implementation of new facilities as soon as feasible, including water system improvements and adequate staffing." Infrastructure Element: Policy 7.1.2 - "Upgrading of the water system for the Cove area will require: • Replacement of all undersized and unlined distribution pipes and establishment of a grid system. • Replacement of the Cove area wells with new wells, with an output of approximately 1,500 GPM each. • Addition of a large -capacity elevated reservoir. FINDINGS: I. The Coachella Valley Water District's proposed list of public works projects is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan. 2. The proposed list of Coachella Valley Water District public works projects will promote the health and safety of La Quinta residents. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: :Based upon the above findings, the Planning and Development :Department recommends that the Planning Commission, by Minute Motion, determine that the proposed list of public works 'projects proposed by the Coachella Valley Water District for the City of La Quinta is consistent with the La Quinta General 'Plan. attachments: • Letter from CVWD, dated 8/31/89 MR/STAFFRPT.091 -2- W ATE/ ' ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY I �101STR,Cl COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (619) 398.2651 DVRECTORS OFFICERS TELLISCODEKAS, PRESIDENT THOMAS E. LEVY, GENERAL MANAGER -CHIEF ENGINEER RAYMOND R. RUMMONDS, VICE PRES DENT BERNARDINE SUTTON, SECRETARY JOHN P. POWELL KEITH H. AINSWORTH, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER DOROTHY M. NICHOLS REDWINE AND SHERRILL, ATTORNEYS THEODOREJ. FISH August 31, 1989 Filet 1150. 1150.011 Planning Commission City of La Quinta Post. Office Boy;. 1501 La Quinta, California 912253 Gentlemen In accordance with the provisions of Section 65401 of the Government Code, this district hereby advises your agency that is proposes the following projects in Your jurisdiction: La Quinta Lone ulell Bcostei Station. 06630 -a Quinta Surcharge Area Fain Connections La Quinta Main Replacemerts Phase 3 -La Quinta Main ReplacFments Phase 4 La Quinta Main ReplacemeT-.ts Phase 5 Tampico Main Extension La Quinta EVacuat_On Charnel Crossing La Quinta Golf Estates Mains Middle La Quinta Zone Reservoir Upper La Quinta Zone Reservoir Aea.m.s/Fred Waring Tranomission Main Calle Tampico Trunk Sewer TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY Planning Commission —2... August 31, 1989 City of La Quinta Washingl-on. Street. Sewer 1418 'Malley Force Main. No. 2 Phase 1 Jefferson Street Lift Station and Force Main Jefferson Street/' iles Avenue Gravity Sewer The projects are included J_n the budget and. the capital improvement program. The capital Improvement program reflects our proposed actilrities over the next three to five years. Enclosed are maps irid._'_cating the locations of the proposed projects. Yours very truly, Tom Levy General Manager —Chief EnFJ TEL: is Enclosures/as "Man to go Im 1E 91 IffE EFEErEEEEl ffm MR EEM - 9 0 No JQ AR_ Ew 67 'wl 6; Im - I:x _-n 4.. ma Rolm Ka - "9 'A- M iilR s ism .2—M-Un =1 A—Im. AW, ' :/.YI I� _ � �iOC_;�r. n .�i -- ------------ s" I , 11 I�IIIEI!!��111'� 11111�1!!�1►. I I T-1 I I I I I I pF'b !in t t I 1}w 1 � I I 1 ------ui•:..r 11 I I I I lZ ---r— t � I --- +-------- —�------------ I 1 j i Hit j a I 30 I� I ----y----4-----------t---�----- ---II—---------- �1 ( *dTA LA- Qui .•• , _ CAM"' I .. � � �. I I - h --- s�1 - - ---- ----- ---- -� ILA �- N I.:.• ND� •.- tom; ;: ^i Ln _' ..1. +;aka!- .,, � � .: ...',•� .T` � '"" i • • !-� I I m�!"� Y �;' •.�. �.�.. •+� � 4 0 � � � � 1 Id11CG4—.I I 1 rat' @ 1 1 I -- ---♦ +-----------+------71 +----- t 1 I 1 � i ,crc:iw I I 1 1 ' IL.A► QUINTA •:/2'��' .,,{t:: a,i.+'..:: �.<1 l`iFinl, i?�-w ° .:i w!F)T'�.\ ' �'Idt;O �'• 1 �•'" SAW CA111r/A Te' L 1 I e t3 • .'!wS xiaaitJc(sTi K.ps 7y. •,r. ?; �. �'. ALA QI 1014 Y61 I � Yello I !D -1--------------e ---} —. --. _------------_--.. —. S` •ww � w � � i I �R I x Lim "� t yll�Vl.=Rypgi• SO NIX $ , I 40TH 4v I fltl�trAUd — CD �-., I l IESERT I �+ MiI "p E ' t ' aw�isnlr t I Ct Cmmx ms 1-4 wwwoom - l�'�'�1�✓yy_��a\i6S Cp,M/.' �_•r� 18 I I SRE - + l• [[ �' , ' t� � '`(� � I i i •ail ���� I I eau. I ••Yt-'' !�`; g ��? \.�a�in��.— •' ,p ~« _� �� � � �t S _�_ -. _III Mom——.r..-•t<, }_ ' i wy! ' CARK HAN AV US OWN mw* Ul MIA ' • ffl�i.7:� 1 i — ralal iitils I —oo — -- ,'o X a oboe, -3 -vm- Momi 2HUMUMM 11mmm 7'w VON [El 8 111111gee 4WLY 0"' N MIMIMWEE in � . —'-----f— � | ----'--'----_-- | || 4 1 f-�--- --------+-- -----_-! --! - -------'T+----I !IM Y t_� �--Y-----i-------- •���',i ,Jp'LISI I I yf��� I I •I I I I 1 I ■ I 1 ' �' 1 rL.2 OR 1 TM AV AV - — q� L fit sY; ESEk !a+ - I , ' - r- a' W n r�•/1 I Ln I• WELLS rnl 1 [Dun / Aw A— LA 9 r�.. i ti I I _ � I IN 10 I ' • 1 I Af IND-- N l- -�---------- ' I I _� , 1 WELLS - -- - I I IN O +. I 'y/ -ut•-•ohs-----��{-------- _ ---..- -_--�- �--------�_---�-- - - --- --__-r - 1 LA. I Q U I TA ' ` I t I 1 �• I )r]�J � I I (( jjimY►.44 i QUI A ' •V i - �" J4 , aor,l .L '3+--------- ' + - ----� +------- m I I [ 1 •.ass `�. I I I ~1 w- , Hill I I I ----------- ---------- INDIIAN ;WELLS t II I I � i I Ia I ' -i-------------- ---*-- +-----+-----------}-------- ------ ---+------------ ------ ---I I I 1 I 1 I LA 6 QUINTA ------------ t � I ir 1 I .� ��y� i p f I •i I I I I •_MCI- 1`.Atilt6 RT'�y A w ---___----. -___ _-_-__+__--- ______________- `Fi] e AL ki (yJ_•y- ,aoe..i. E i f i P\ 1 t• q'�c, i i �; I� to !77 44 r 1, �a. • ,,r` .. - �' r,. ."`.:1 • o I , 4DIA11 VE LLS -„'•�"�:T — !DuneAn I Cr ad, urw Ll IA Q 11Of IIP TA - __�• I<=- emu, �:. � , I , � 1 I , IN 10 '�w"�jrq-F------+-- -------Y+---------- ----------+- ---- -----411 + - ----- �-' I� 1 IND N 16 __ - -�---- - ------+- t --- ---+ WELLS - - 1 a Ll��" 'ST � � 's IN d � I r I _ I 't �� I 1 1 i �rro I ,• r�►,+�>--------+------- �'�='L----- ----�-' 1 `�Y�"�@�_� ---------I�----+- rt---- ---+--- .w .ram --I - --.f3. I,A..1 0 U11�TA i I I I F I 1 i I I I �~ � f ,ten �I ---- I -- I +----------- -- - - ----------+------- �aF - I ^+r---------�---- ---- + ---- ? - ILA I IrMTN AV . --------•-rl}—— ---- —' -. ___ ~•— COL y'—' .�+ } _^-Y----- A 1 f T •am , "jj , 1 I • i j I > 1 - ARNIM I— ----.-T_---------f--i I INDIAN WWELLS I I I I l i 1 � , I i I ' ---'-------4J I 1-----�----- LA; QUINTA I ,Y I ' 1 1 1 � 1 -------r--------- ' I I IA. i 3 I ' j I 1` e• _ i � I I • I m I I I � t I q0 1 z 1 sa l i--" I • w I rai I < I I I I I I 4J Ln 1 r-i h I � � 1 I� �•j k ry . a n Nsas t o 1 trir I I H rj OIIMLi-- •Iy _ s, {S. Yr f . �I 3 �+ y31 �1 1 <' l o I a- I E r;. �.�lND1i7AYE'ti_. ,F -ro j' 5 I o I 42M N 1 ---^-�' • it � '.pop ' • •r �n• ouyes ' � (V I • '�'.—t—+t-tIr�•��„�'�— I �•�—....—;r �w— ♦ ,- .-�.— I I M! e` .� ` "•1 w k rm 1 i 'DuneMari ; 1 5 - -�_ �--- -----eras--+------ � I ----- --+--- �- --- -' " ' . LtlYO M11� 0• I I i .KMOUTH ;t�• I t 1 C t ARI G t 1 '�1 I ' cam,,,• a'��t �! I LA I QUI U16A- _11- _11baw — s , I I IN i Af I I 1 1 j t * aAOM�------- I A am~ w I e •��re I w I � i I I I I I i nevi► � w I / I r•• 0000, I eM 44 LAI Q U i NT4 I -- .n...,..1. \ Y Raw Air PROPOSED WELL 5709 LA QUINTA PALMS eAw a !*fA !At W* .40r- Awl MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California September 12, 1_989 1. CALL TO ORDER A. The meeting was called to Chairman Walling. The Commissioner Bund.. ID(IT T. rAT.T. 7:00 p.m. order at 7:00 p.m. by Flag Salute was led by A. Chairman Walling requested the roll call. Present: Commissioners Bund, Steding, Moran, Zelles, and Chairman Walling. B. Staff Present: Planning and Development Director, Jerry Herman, and Principal Planners Stan Sawa and Ted Bower. HEARINGS Chairman Walling introduced the Public Hearing items as follows: A. Continued Public Hearing - Zoning Ordinance Amendment 89-008, Change of Zone 89-043 (Hillside Conservation Ordinance), and Transfer of Development Rights; a City -initiated request -to amend Title 9 of the La Quinta Municipal Code, relating to Planning and Zoning, adding Chapter 9.145, Hillside Conservation Zone, and to re -zone those properties which meet the criteria set forth in the proposed Ordinance to HC from various residential zoning designations; affecting all h Ilside areas above the toe -of -slope of the Santa Rosa Mountains. 1, Princ_pal Planner Ted Bower 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. There being no comment, Chairman Walling MR/MIN09-12.DFT -1- closed the Hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion. 3. Following discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Steding and seconded by Commissioner Zelles to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 89-041, recommending to the City Council acceptance of the Negative Declaration based on Environmental Assessments 89-122 and 89-135, and the adoption of the Hillside Conservation Ordinance (ZOA 89-008), the Transfer of Development Rights Ordinance (ZOA 89-010), and Change of Zone 89-043. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: Commissioners Steding, Zelles, and Walling voting yes; Commissioner Bund voting no; Commissioner Moran abstaining. B. General Plan Amendment 89-028 and Preannexation Zcning CZ 89-048 for Annexation No. 5; a City -initiated request to designate with City of La Quinta zoning and land uses consistent with current Ccunty designations the property located east of Jefferson Street, south of 50th Avenue, west and east of Madison Street, and north and south of 54th Avenue. 1. Planning Director Jerry Herman presented the information contained in the Staff Report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and. Development Department, and advised the Commission that Staff was requesting a continuance of the Public Hearing to September 26, 1989, on the advise of the City Attorney. 2. Chairman Walling opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Steve Brummel and Mr. Jeff Cole addressed the Commission, speaking in favor of the proposal. Mr. Herman advised the Commission that three additional letters of comment were received, two in favor and one against. There being no further comment at this time, a motion was made by Commissioner Bund and seconded by Commissioner Steding to continue the Public Hearing to September 26, 1989. Unanimous. C. General Plan Amendment 89-026, Change of Zone 89-045, and Specific Plan Amendment 85-006, No. 1 (Oak Tree West); a request by Landmark Land Company to redesignate a 36.5-acre site from Commercial to Low Density Residential on the City's General Plan 114R/MIN09-12.DFT -2- Land Use Map; change the zoning from C-P-S to R-2; and amend the Specific Plan to eliminate the commercial land uses (except club house), relocate a golf tunnel from 52nd Avenue to Jefferson Street, and other minor changes. 1. Planning Director Jerry Herman presented the information contained in the Staff Report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Chairman Walling opened the Public Hearing. Forrest Haag, representing Landmark Land, addressed the Commission to explain -the request. There being no further comment, Chairman Walling closed the Hearing, and opened the matter for Commission discussion. 3. Commissioner Moran indicated that she would like to see the Conditions of Approval modified to restrict any maintenance buildings from being seen from the street. 4. A motion was made by Commissioner Steding and seconded by Commissioner Zelles to adopt Planning Commission Resolutions 89-043, 89-044, and 89-045, recommending to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 89-026; Change of Zone 89-045; Specific Plan Amendment 85-006, No. 1, subject to conditions modified as follows: No. 8 - All maintenance buildings and areas shall be so sited or screened by decorative block wall and/or landscaping so that they cannot be seen from public streets; No. 9 - On -the project site south of 52nd Avenue (new alignment), decorative wrought iron or steel tube fencing shall be utilized in place of a perimeter block wall, to allow views into greenbelt areas of project; No. 10 - Condition No. 23 (Conditions dated June 20, 1989) shall be amended to require that lighting plans be subject to the draft "Dark Skye' Ordinance; and also recommending to the City Council concurrence with the environmental determination for a Negative Declaration. Commissioner Moran restated that -the motion included the screening of the maintenance buildings. Commissioner Zelles then retracted his second of the motion. Commissioner Moran then seconded the motion. MR/MIN09-12.D]_T -3- Upon roll call vote, the motion was adopted with Commissioner Zelles voting against. D. General Plan Amendment 89-027, Change of Zone 89-046, and Public Use Permit 89-005; a request by Landmark Land Company to redesignate a 47.2-acre site from Low Density Residential to Commercial on the City's General Plan Land Use Map, to change the zoning from A-1-10 to C-P-S, and to construct a 140-child day care center on a one -acre site located in the southwest corner of the site; located northwest of the Jefferson Street and 50th Avenue intersection. 1. Planning Director Jerry Herman presented the information contained in the Staff Report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Chairman Walling opened the Public Hearing. Forrest Haag spoke on behalf of the Applicant, Landmark .Land Company. Mr. Campagna addressed the Commission, asking why there should be two commercial areas. There being no further comment, Chairman Walling closed the Hearing, and opened the matter for Commission discussion. 3. Commissioner Moran felt that changing to a Commercial designation would not be compatible with surrounding uses. Commissioner Steding would like to see a better analysis; needs more justification for commercial at that location. Commissioners Bund, Moran, and Chairman Walling concurred. Commissioner Zelles felt there was no need for such a delay. 4. A motion was made by Commissioner Steding and seconded by Commissioner Moran to continue the Hearing to October 10, 1989, to allow time for compilation of a more in-depth analysis on the designation of Commercial at that location.. Following roll call vote, the motion was adopted with Commissioner Zelles voting against. E. Tentative Tract 24889; a request by Landmark Land Company for approval to divide 426 acres into 108 lots (54 numbered and 54 lettered lots) for fry'nancing and conveyance purposes in the R-2 zone; located at the northwest corner of 52nd Avenue and Jefferson Street (Oak Tree West). MR/MIN09-12.DFT -4- 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. Chairman Walling opened the Public Hearing. Forrest Haag addressed the Commission on. behalf of the Applicant, Landmark Land Company, suggesting various changes to the proposed Conditions of Approval. There being no further comment, Chairman Walling closed the Hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion. 3. Following discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Zelles and seconded by Commissioner Bund to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 89-046,d recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract 24889, subject to conditions revised to add to Condition No. 22 the wording "..shall make an effort...", and to delete conditions 19 and 27. Following roll call vote, the motion was unanimously adopted. F. Tentative Tract 24890 and variance 89-010; a request by JM Peters Company for approval to divide 4C4+ acres into 562 residential lots and 99 miscellaneous lots; and for a variance to allow some lots to be 55 feet wide rather than 60 feet wide, allowing duplexes in the R-2 zone; for a location at the northwest corner of 52nd Avenue and Jefferson Street (Oak Tree West). 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. to- Chairman Walling opened the Public Hearing. Stan Morris addressed the Commission on behalf of the Applicant, JM Peters Company. Forrest Haag of Landmark Land Company addressed the Commission to request that only minimal road improvements be required. There being no further comment, Chairman Walling closed the Hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion. 3. Following discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Moran and seconded by Commissioner Steding to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 89-047, recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract MR/MIN09-12.D.FT -5- 24890, subject to conditions, with Condition 37 revised to include the phrase, "...prior to issuance of building permits to construct tunnel", and a revision to Condition 48 to add the phrase, "...decorative wrought iron or steel tube fencing shall be used to allow views into project, if in conformance with acoustical study"; and to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 89-048, approving Variance 89-010, subject to conditions. Following roll call vote, the motion was unanimously adopted. G. Tentative Tract 24950 and Change of Zone 89-047; a request by Chong B. Lee to divide a +8.9-acre po:.tion into 37 single-family lots, and to change the zoning from R-1-12,000 to R-1; for a location at the northeast corner of Miles Avenue and Dune Palms Road. 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. Chairman Walling opened the Public Hearing. 'There being no comment, the Chairman closed the Hearing and opened the matte_ for Commission discussion. 3. A motion was made by Commissioner Steding and seconded by Commissioner Zelles to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 89-049, recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract 24950, subject to conditions; to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 89-050, recommending to the City Council approval of Change of Zone 89-047; and recommending concurrence with the environmental analysis. Following roll call vote, the motion was unanimously adopted. H. Specific Plan 87-009 (Amendment No. 1), Change of Zone 89-040, and General Plan Amendment 89-025 (partial); City -initiated requests for a zone change from R-3 (General Residential) to C-V-T (Commercial Village Tampico) on +5.6 acres; a General Plan Amendment from High Density Residential to Urban Mix (part of GPA 89-025); and an amendment to the Village Specific Plan (SPA 89--009, No. 1); for an area generally bounded by Avenida Tampico to the north, Avenida Navarro to the east, Avenida Villa to the southeast, Avenida MR/MIN09-12.DrT -6- Martinez to the southwest, and Eisenhower Drive to the west. 1. Principal Planner Ted Bower 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. Ms. Kathy Mitten of Terra Nova Planning, representing Mr. Eddie Nicholson, addressed the Commission in favor of the proposals. Mr. Louis Campagna addressed the Commission in favor of the proposals. Ms. Audrey Ostrowsky addressed the Commission, saying she has mixed feelings about the matter. There being no further comment, Chairman Walling closed the Hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion. 3. Commissioner Zelles said that the proposed changes are appropriate to that area and should be done. The rest of the Commission concurred. A motion was made by Commissioner Bund and seconded by Commissioner Zelles to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 89-051, recommending to the City Council the approval of Amendment No. 1 to Specific Plan 87-009; to adopt Planning Commission Resolution Yo. 89-052, recommending to the City Council approval of Change of Zone 89-040; and to recommend concurrence with the Negative Declaration. Following roll call vote, the motion was unanimously adopted. I. General_ Plan Amendment 89-025; city -initiated .requests as follows: Text Amendments 1. Redesignating the area north of La Quinta back to "Urban Mix", allowing both commercial uses and high density residential uses. 2. Adding as Primary Street Image Corridors Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street. 3. Adding as Secondary Street Image Corridors Miles Avenue, 48th Avenue, and Adams Street between 48th Avenue and Highway 111. Striking Jefferson as a Secondary Image Corridor. 4.a. Allowing Cadiz, Barcelona, and Amigo to remain as 50-foot rights -of -way to preserve IqR/MIN09-12.DFT -7- the pedestrian emphasis of the Village and to protect long-established landscaping material. h. Redesignating Avenida Bermudas from a Secondary Arterial to a Collector between 'the new alignment of 52nd Avenue to Tampico, to protect the pedestrian emphasis of the Village. 5. The revision of the recently adopted 1989 Housing Element to incorporate improvement suggestions from the State office of Housing and Community Development. Maxi P.inendments A. Redesignating the following as Major Community Facilities: La Quinta Park, Fritz Burns Park, the U.S. Post Office, Riverside County Fire Station No. 70 at PGA West, and Station No. 32 on 52nd Avenue. B. Creating in the Land Use Map Legend a new ca-cegory of "Urban Mix" and redesignating the area north of the Park to 11Urban Mix". C. Revising the Circulation Plan with respect to right-of-way widths and cross-section through coordination with adjacent jurisdictions: Jefferson, 52nd Avenue, 54th Avenue, Airport Boulevard, 58th Avenue, 60th Avenue, Monroe Street, and the redesignation of Avenida Bermudas to a Collector. Specific Plan Amendments (87-009, 41)_ Amending the Village at La Quinta Specific Plan to redesignate the area north of the Park to Urban Mix as a fifth commercial/residential segment of the Village Plan, and presenting development standards for that area. Title 9 of the Municipal Code Amending Chapter 9.90, "Commercial Village (C-V) Zone", to incorporate the area north of the Park as an "Urban Mix" area, to specify permitted uses, and to specify development standards for that area. (ZOA 89-007) Change of Zone 89-040 Rezoning the area north of the Park bounded by Calle Tampico, Eisenhower Drive, Avenida Villa, and IAR/MIN09-12.DI{T -8- 3. Commissioner Moran suggested that the condition prohibiting the use of searchlights be modified to read, "...unless allowed by Special Advertising Device Permit approved by the City Council." A motion was made by Commissioner Moran and seconded by Commissioner Steding to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 89-055, recommending to the City Council concurrence with the Negative Declaration and approval of the "Dark Sky Ordinance", including the change regarding the use of searchlights. Following roll call vote, the motion was unanimously adopted. IV. PUBLIC COMMENT No one wished to address the Commission. V. CONSENT CALENDAR A motion was made by Commissioner Zelles and seconded by Comffnissioner Moran to approve the minutes of the August 22 and August 29, 1989, Planning Commission meetings. Unanimous. VT_. BUSINESS - None VII. OTHER - None VIII. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Moran and seconded by Commissioner Steding to adjourn to a regular meeting on September 26, 1989, 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 10:25 p.m., September 12, 1989. MR/MIN09-12.DFT -10-