Loading...
1989 10 10 PCA G E N D A OF��� PLANNING COMMISSION -- CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California October 10, 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. 89-058 HEARINGS 1. Item ............ CONTINUED HEARING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89-027 CHANGE OF ZONE 89-046 PUBLIC USE PERMIT 89-005 Applicant ....... LANDMARK LAND COMPANY Location ........ NORTHWEST OF THE JEFFERSON STREET AND 50TH AVENUE INTERSECTION Request ......... REDESIGNATE THE 47.2-ACRE SITE FROM LOW .DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL ON THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP; CHANGE THE ZONING FROM A-1-10 TO C-P-S; AND CONSTRUCT A 140-CHILD DAY CARE CENTER ON A ONE -ACRE SITE LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SITE Action .......... resolution No. 89- _r_. ____ 89- MR/AGENDA10.10 -1- 2. Item ............ TENTATIVE TRACT 21846 (REVISION NO. 2) Applicant ....... SUNRISE COMPANY Location <.... IN PGA WEST, IN AREA GENERALLY BOUNDED BY RIVIERA, TANGLEWOOD, AND ARNOLD PALMER Request .......... REVISION TO TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO MODIFY UNIT TYPES, THEIR LOCATIONS AND :CNCREASE TOTAL NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS WITHIN TRACT FROM 367 TO 434 ON 56.51 ACRES (INCLUDING LAKES) IN THE fit.-2 ZONE Action .......... Resolution No. 89- 3. Item ............ SPECIFIC PLAN 121-E, AMENDMENT NO. 2; PLOT PLAN 89-041 Applicant ....... LANDMARK LAND COMPANY Location ......... WEST SIDE OF AVENIDA OBREGON, APPROXIMATELY MIDWAY BETWEEN AVENIDA FERNANDO AND CALLS MAZATLAN (CHAMPIONSHIP TENNIS COURT SITE) Request ......... APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO ALLOW ELIMINATION OF TENNIS COURT AND CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL HOTEL UNITS AND PLOT PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF 77 HOTEL UNITS IN A TWO-STORY STRUCTURE ON THE SITE. WHERE CHAMPIONSHIP TENNIS COURT PRESENTLY EXISTS, IN THE R-3 ZONE ON 1.7+ ACRES .Action .......... Resolution No. 89- PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for citizens to address the Planning Commission on matters relating to City planning and zoning which are not Agenda items. Persons wishing to address the Planning Commission under Public Comment and. scheduled Agenda items should use the form provided. Please complete one form for each item you intend to address and submit the form, to the Planning :Director_ prior to the beginning of the meeting. Your name will he called at the appropriate time. When addressing the Planning Commission, please state your name and address. The proceedings of the Planning Coiimission meeting are recorded on tape and comments of each person shall be limited. MR/.AGENDA10.10 -2- CONSENT CALENDAR Minutes of the regular Planning Commission Meetings held September 12 and September 26, 1989. BUSINESS SESSION 1. Item ............ Parr Proposal Applicant ....... ESCO/Deane Homes Location ........ Tentative Tract 23971; northeast corner of and Miles Avenue Request ......... Approval of parkland Tentative Tract 23971 Action .......... Minute Motion OTHER - None ADJOURNMENT located on the Washington Street proposal for TTEMS FOR OCTOBER 9, 1989, 4:00 P.M. STUDY SESSION "DISCUSSION ONLY** 1. kll Agenda items. 2. Identification of future Commission Agenda items. ITEMS IDENTIFIED FOR FUTURE AGENDAS a. Park Land Locations b. Utilities - Tract 21555 C. ]Downtown Parking District d. Street Address Illumination e. Format of Minutes MR/.AGENDA10.10 -3- PH-1 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 10, 1989 (CONTINUED HEARING) ITEMS: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 89-027 CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 89-046 APPLICANT: LANDMARK LAND COMPANY, INC. LOCATION: NORTHWEST OF THE JEFFERSON STREET AND 50TH AVENUE INTERSECTIONS REQUEST: REDESIGNATE THE 47.2-ACRE FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL ON THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP AND CHANGE THE ZONING FROM A-1-10 TO C-P-S. NOTE: THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A CONTINUANCE ON THE PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. 89-005 UNTIL THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND CHANGE OF ZONE CASES HAVE BEEN RESOLVED. THEREFORE, THE MATTER SHOULD BE TABLED. RENOTIFICATION OF THE CASE WILL BE REQUIRED. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 89-140 HAS BEEN PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THESE APPLICATIONS. THE INITIAL STUDY INDICATED THAT POSSIBLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT MAY OCCUR. MITIGATION MEASURES HAVE BEEN PREPARED WHICH WILL REDUCE THE IMPACT TO AN INSIGNIFICANT LEVEL AND WILL BE NOTED ON FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS. THEREFORE, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. ANALYSIS: 1. 7he Applicant is seeking approval to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from low density residential to General Commercial and a change of zone from A-1-10 to Scenic Highway Commercial (C-P-S). 2. The proposed site contains approximately 47.2 acres. No specific development is proposed at this time. A future child care facility is anticipated for this site. 3. Approximately two thirds of the site is presently covered with citrus trees, with the northern portion covered with natural desert vegetation. One residential structure is located in the middle of the site. BJ/STAL FRPT. 009 - 1 4. Surrounding land uses to the south include a citrus tree orchard; to the north undeveloped property (part of the Pyramids development); to the west are vacant land and a single family home; and to the east are agriculture uses with assorted residences. 5. The area south of the site is designated as tourist commercial, to the east and southeast (within the County) as commercial. Therefore, three of the corners at the 50th Avenue and Jefferson Street are currently designated for commercial land uses. This request would designate the fourth corner of this intersection as commercial. 6. Under a separate application, the Applicant has applied to eliminate the 36.5 commercially designated property from within the Oak Tree West Specific Plan. The Applicant, then applied to designate this site as commercial, basically relocating the commercial found midblock between Avenue 50 and Avenue 52 to the northwest corner of Jefferson and Avenue 50. 7. This proposed request in conjunction with General Plan Amendment No. 89-026 does not create an oversupply of commercially designated property, but rather a transfer from one location to a more suitable location. 8. 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 as part of the Specific Plan proposal. 9. The commercial uses should not be in conflict with uses anticipated in the Village. A different market area along Jefferson Street will be served. 10. 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. 11. The current land use designations by acreage for the City of La Quinta's proposed Annexation #5, and the proposed application are illustrated below. BJ/STAFFRPT.009 - 2 - CITY OF LA QUINTA LAND USE TABULATION (+10% to compensate for water courses) CURRENT & ATEGORY CURRENT AC % GENERAL PLAN ANNEXATION TOTAL NO. 89-027 % #5 ACREAGE % GDR 260 1.6 260 1.6 326 586 3.3 DR 6,236 39.2 6,188.8 38.9 1,035 7,223.8 41.8 DR 1,571 9.9 1,571 9.9 1,571 9.1 HDR 18 .1 18 .1 18 .1 DR 51 .3 51 .3 51 .3 wy 111 Corridor 425 2.7 425 2.7 425 2.5 ommercial 593 3.7 640.2 4.0 39 679.2 3.9 illside 6,743 42.5 6,743 42.5 6,743 39.0 15,897 15,897 1,400 17,297 12. The Applicant has provided information as to the market and economic considerations (attached). RECOMMENDATION• Move to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 89- and 89- recommending approval to the City Council for General Plan Amendment No. 89-027, Change of Zone 89-046, and concurring with the environmental determination. Also, table Public Use Permit No. 89-005. The application will be readvertised. BJ/STAFFRPT.009 -- 3 - PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89-t;)_l A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL CONCURRENCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 89-140 AND APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM A-1-10 TO C-P-S, ON A 47.5-ACRE SITE. CASE NO. CZ 89-046, LANDMARK LAND COMPANY, INC. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 12th day of September, 1989, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the request for a Change of Zone from A-1-10 to C-P-S,on a 47.5-acre site, located northwest of the intersection of Avenue 50 and Jefferson Street, more particularly described as: THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission continued said hearing to October 10, 1989; and, 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 Change of Zone application: 1. The proposed Change of Zone is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan. 2. This Change of Zone application complies with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Quality Act of 1970" (County of Riverside, Resolution No. 82-213, adopted by reference in City of La Quinta Ordinance No. 5). a. Mitigation measures can be generated to reduce the impact of a commercial land use on the subject property. b. Mitigation measures can be generated to reduce the impact on the transportation and circulation systems of this area by the introduction of a commercial use on the subject property. BJ/RESOPC.017 - 1 - NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the above described Change of Zone request, and as illustrated on the map labeled Exhibit "A", attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 10th day of October, 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JOHN WALLING, Chairman ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director BJ/RESOPC.017 - 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89-` A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL CONCURRENCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO.89-140 AND APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 89-027, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL. CASE NO. GPA 89-027 - LANDMARK LAND COMPANY, INC. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 12th day of September, 1989, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Landmark Land Company, Inc. to amend the La Quinta General Plan Land Use Map from Low Residential to General Commercial for a site totaling 47.5 gross acres, located northwest of the intersection of Avenue 50 and Jefferson Street, more particularly described as: THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER QUARTER OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission continued said hearing to October 10, 1989; and 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 General Plan Amendment: 1. Traffic impacts caused by the implementation of GPA 88-021 can be mitigated to a large degree. 2. The request for commercial land use is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan. 3. The commercial designated site is envisioned to provide neighorhood commercial land uses. 4. Development of the commercial uses will be reviewed for compatibility as they relate to the existing commercial designated properties in the City, and in particular the Village area. BJ/RESOPC.016 - 1 - 5. This General Plan Amendment application 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). Mitigation measures can be generated to reduce the impact of General Commercial land uses on the subject property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 89-027 consisting of a Land Use Map Amendment as described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this loth day of October, 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: TOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JOHN WALLING, Chairman ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director BJ/RESOPC.016 - 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 89-140 Project Description The Applicant is requesting to rezone 47.2 acres from A-1-10 to C-P-S and a General Plan Amendment to designate the property from low density residential to general commercial. The property is generally located northwest of the Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 intersection. III. Discussion of Checklist Evaluation Responses The proposed applications are non -project specific, future review will take place when a development is proposed. Mitigation measures are noted and will be required at time of development. 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 commercial uses. These impacts are not considered significant when addressed by the :following mitigation measures to be incorporated into project approvals: Mitigations: 1. The applicant will be required to 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. 2. Site grading and drainage plans will be 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 BJ/ENVASS.002 - 1 - substantial impact of quake activity and also to mitigate drainage pattern changes due to site development. 2. Air Future construction equipment used for grading of the site and construction will impact air quality. This is a short-term impact. 3. Water: When construction takes place incremental increase in runoff due to site development will occur, which impacts the absorption and drainage patter. Also, refer to the attached study. Mitigation: 1. The developer will 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 development landscaping. S. Animal Life: Future site grading/development will cause a reduction of the number of fringe -toed lizards, a rare and endangered species. The Habitat 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. Development 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: 1. The applicant will 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. BJ/ENVASS.002 - 2 - 6. Noise: Increases in existing noise levels will only result insofar as the conversion of vacant land is concerned. Surrounding properties are mostly vacant except for the single family home to the west. Mitigation: 1. Construction activity will adhere to working hours as set forth by City ordinance, in order to mitigate construction noise on existing nearby residents. Mitigations: 1. The applicant will 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 site development. 7. Light and Glare: In the future incremental increases will occur with respect to light and glare impacts from within the development. All lighting plans of the development shall be reviewed by the City prior to approval for installation. 8. Land Use: See attached report. 9. Natural Resources: When the 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. '0. Risk of Upset: A construction accident could involve the release of fuel/oil to a limited extent. This is a normal hazard associated with most construction activity. BJ/ENVASS.002 - 3 - 11. Population: The development of the site will be commercial in nature rather than residential. The proposed development may alter the distribution and growth rate in the 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 (Master Environmental Assessment (M.E.A.) adopted for the La Quinta General Plan and is therefore not significant. 12. Housing: Refer to #10 - could result in loss of land designated for residential developments. Ample vacant residentially designated property exist in La Quinta. 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. The recent redesignation of commercial designated property and the designation of this site from residential to commercial makes the net impact close to even. 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. Mitigation: 1. Applicant will be requested to dedicate all public street right-of-way as necessary to develop perimeter roadways to current General Plan standards. HJ/ENVASS.0O2 - 4 - 2. Turning movements in and out of the development divisions will be restricted where warranted and feasible. 3. Applicant may be required to dedicate right-of-way and construct a bus turnout for Sunline Transit. 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.E.A. and La Quinta General Plan. Mitigation: 1. The developer will comply with the City's adopted infrastructure fee as in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 2. The developer will be required to comply with the school mitigation fee requirements of Desert Sands Unified School District prior to building permit issuance for structures. 3. Applicant shall consent to formation of a landscape maintenance district, 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 mains can be extended to provide water and sewer service. BVENVASS.002 - 5 - Mitigation: 1. Developer will comply with the requirements of the dedication to Coachella Valley Water District. Power, natural gas, communication systems and solid waste and disposal can be provided by appropriate company. This is based upon prior comments received for other developments in the area. 17. Human Health: No health hazard will be created. 18. Aesthetics: Further projects will be reviewed. 19. Recreation; Future commercial development will not impact recreational needs. 20. Archaeological/History; See attached report. MITIGATION MONITORING Future conditions will be attached to development proposals to assure compliance with these noted mitigation measures at the time a specific development proposal is made. BJ/ENVASS.002 - 6 - October 3, 1989 Mr. Jerry Herman Planning Director City of La Quinta 78105 Calle Estado La Quinta, California 92253 Re: NW Corner, Jefferson and 50th Dear Jerry: As requested, what {Follows is a brief rationale for your consideration regarding why this property can justifiably be zoned commercial (notwithstanding the swap), particularly as it relates to its differentiation from Village Commercial. If you'll indulge me for a second, let me run past you some planning (at least in my mind) reasons for commercial zoning on this corner: PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 1. Commercial zoning in La Quinta keeps jobs in La Quinta and reduces traffic and keeps air quality from becoming worse. I would think a good job/housing balance would be a City goal, particularly given the number of new residential units coming on stream. 2. Corners should be commercial to serve as noise and light barriers to residential. MARKET AND ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS 1. Our intended uses are, as the market will attest, not the same as those for which you have planned and which will be attracted to the Village. The recommendation for -the Village is entirely appropriate. A real downtown with a myriad of specialty, destination shops is the best and perhaps the only logical commercial use downtown. Certa--nly the lack of direct access and the fact that there are so many small, improperly sized parcels would argue against development of any use other than neighborhood support uses unless there is some special reason for buyers to come, such as an "arts" or an "indigenous" flavor. We propose uses that are not appropriate in the Village environment and don't compete for supermarket/drug locations, yet serve as support for residential and help attract jobs to La Quinta. Of the 47 acres, roughly six would be street, twelve would be showroom commercial, sixteen would be garden office, eight would be 2 - 4 story office and only four would be retail. LANDMARK LAND COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, INC. COIVMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL DIVISION 78-140 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA. 92253 (619) 564-8125 Page Two Jefferson & 50th The showroom commercial (design center, home improvement, furniture, electronics, office furniture) would be inappropriate downtown, but is needed in a growing residential community, particularly on a high -traffic volume street. Twenty-four acres dedicated to low rise office allows for job creation in a self-contained park -like atmosphere, unavailable downtown. The four acres dedicated to retail is realistic, given that other locations (Jefferson and 111; Jefferson and 52nd) are more appropriate for supermarket/drug uses. However, a small specialty retail use is appropriate, given its proximity to high -traffic counts on Jefferson. 2. �. site this size allows for: a) Spreading the fixed costs of development over a larger base, thereby translating into realistic, market -based rents; not artificially high rents resultant from the high cost of property accumulation, street re -alignment and utility upgrading downtown. b) h, self-contained environment, with uses that feed off one another; such as child care and restaurants for office workers. c) A campus -like setting, with the potential for amenities like jogging and bike trails, waterscaping and plenty of open space. Jerry, if you have any questions, please don't hesitate to cal]_. Hope this helps. Sincerely, Chris von Gohren vice President Commercial/Industrial Division CvG/cz ptember 13, 1989 rry Herman TY OF LA QUINTA 0. Boi: 1504 Quinta, CA 92253 Plot Plan No. PUP n?v Care C�r,tpr,, -WLe No. 9u 990 ar Jerry, 89005 50th and Jefferson .ndmar7c Land Co. of Calif., Inc. staff requests a continuance of the Plot an apprproval for the proposed Day Care Center until the La Quinta City iuncil has been able to make a decision on General Plan Amendment iP5-027 Ld Change of Zone #89-046 (47.2 ac. at 50th & Jefferson). -nk you for your consideration. ncere:ty� � % indmark r Dlanning ,/v io LANDMARK LAND COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, INC., Land Planning, Engineering, Design & Construction 78-150 Colle Tampico, P.O. Box 1000, La Quinta, California 92253 (619) 564-4500 FAX (619) 564-8052 CITY OF U QUIRTA oP �S ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I. B.ACKGROVD / 1. Name of Proponent: �l_ 2. Add s d Phone Number of Proponent: �C r3Qk J C� J p �— Q-A-� 3. Date of Checklist: A. Agency Requiring Checklist: �, 4 Y� S. Name of Proposal, if applicable: -p__ � C 2 S9-o'�(� ". II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of all "Yes" and "Maybe" answers to required on attached sheets.) 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: Yes Mee 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? r 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 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? y 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? 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? e f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? (3) Yes Maybe No h. Substantial reduction in the amount of 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. Charge 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 p".ants? 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: e 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? j 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? i 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? / 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 explosion 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, s istr2 utaon, 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? (4) Yes Na a No 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, os 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. En rgY. 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 Tor new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? _ c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? _ 0 Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human F'ealth. Will the proposal result in: r 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 o sttruction 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 of 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) Yes vaybe No b. Dces the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of :ong-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. DE,'ERMINATION (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: % �✓ e (b) ►ugust 25, 1989 RECEIVED Ferry Reran AUG 2 5 1989 ;ity of La Quint& CITY OF LA QUINTA 1.0. Box 1504 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT. �a Quinta, CA 92253 iB: Plot Plan no. PUP 89005 Day Care Center, 50th and Jefferson File no. 90990 )ear Jerry, Tn retrospect of the Development Review meeting August 24, 1989 :he Landmark Land Company of California, Inc. staff has chosen the tvenue of asking for a continuance of the Plot Plan approval for the )ay Care Center. As noted in the meeting, many varied aspects must ie taken into consideration prior to generating a Plot Plan that is iuitable for approval. If possible, Landmark Land Company of California, Inc. would Ake a one month continuance. All design aspects of the Day Care :enter Plot Plan should be addressed by that time. Thank you very much for your consideration. sincerely, .ANDMARK LAyPANY OF CALIFORNIA, INC. ;e_ Keith Christiansen engineering X: zz LANDMARK LAND COMPANY, INC., P.O. BOX 4000, La Quinta, California 92253 (619) 564-2805 345-2703 31 \ ��lC•; .t�+ �n.l — ..,i�.a, �- � `y, ..� ,.-e_- to :i::e�r:�: +.e Simi O Q ,'.��. -�—"�� ( .tar•.. ri J •. .•. N�J .,. rtf•. •�- �.. w t. at •ea•• \ t •..oat•..• ., •, Pas WeTI � •• :� i• r . We w4 19 32 - ..a......a..... >._. �% NNE 33•';,;�; ..a tt..� c • ; i a °° ' 5,3 00 LF 18' s WATER LINE TO SITE ::: •, • ::ir;,:`:� a. -'sue- • 1 �— r I f • �t:•. • li � � rJ: .1• s.��, _ a.-�-.•<�._�,-�."°�I.f3y3�1df�.E:1l�d-33#=i�± 1�. )a :w• /VENUEi •~J � marm�mra �. .••a •.,a••. ,. eo,,,r a•.to t•• ::: ems:.-...-•N•"'•�'::`i:r:a ••• �o -•.o••• •atrat°aeea�o••�-�'�a•• ::. :a•. o O m•.''••••. .:.. • •• ��•,e,a••s• •. era. •.. •..•� �r .t•ty:. I JEFFERSON &_50th ST. SITE SCALE= 10= U.S.G.S. MAP: LA QUINTA �-. — ( t.* l;J UUN.Ut AMiLC N3337.5 — W11615/7.5 NORTH Y l I1 1 1 n� I i � O p U V �• . V J W O e< t r i 1 1 l' � < u t u � 4 •t 1 U _ r i A qA' ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (619) 398-2651 DiPECTORS OFFICERS 'E_L'SCODEKAS PRESDENT THOMASE LEVY GENERAL MANAGER CHEF ENGINEER RAIMCNOR RUM"NONOS VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE S'J^ON S;CRETARY JOIN P POWELL KEiTH H AiNSWORTH ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER DORO'HY M NICHOLS REDWINE AND SHERRILL ATTORNEYS THEODOREJ FISH August 25, i989 File: 0163.1 Planning Commission City of La Quinta Post Office Box 1504 La Quinta, California 92253 Gentlemen: Subject: Public Use Permit 89-005, Change of Zone 89 04Er;'General Plan Amendment 89-027, Portion of SoutheaEt Quarter, Section 32, Township 5 South, Range 7 East, San Bernardino Meridian This area is protected from stormwater flows by a system of channels and dikes, and may be considered safe from stormwater flows except in rare instances. This area is designated Zone C on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which are in effect at this time. The district will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with the current regulations of this district. These regulations provide for the payment of certain fees and charges by the subdivider and said fees and charges are subject to change. This area shall be annexed to Improvement District No. 55 of Coachella Valley Water District for sanitation service. Plans for grading, landscaping, and irrigation systems shall be submitted to Coachella Valley Water District for review. This review is for ensuring efficient water management. If you have any questions please call Bob Meleg, stormwater engineer, extension 264. Y rs very truly, Tom Levy General Manager-Chie Engineer RF: lmf cc: Don Park Riverside County Department of Public Health 46-209 Oasis Street inaio, i:aiziornia ytiui -` �" •""•••"" USE WATER WISELY W NO COMMIT TEE REQUEST �.WA FOR COMMENT i,► PLANNING 'D! Y•��O1r 'HONE: (6 1®) 554-2246 TO: IC City Manager x_ Public works/Engineering x Fire Marshal Conyn,unity Safety Department Building Division _ak Chamber haDr of Ccci erce Imperial Irrigation So°,ithern California Gas SUSD CVUSD tj1k'(.: 7Y '��"LOP"A.FN7 rj�Fr �_ Property O.+ner`s Assoria,tion X Coachella Valley DATE: &-5- 'f�__a x Palm Desert Disposal k General Telephone Palmer Cable Vision Sunline Transit Caltrans (District 11) Agricultural Commission City of Indian Wells City of Indio Riverside County: _ Planning Department P-nvironmental Health Sheriff's Department Road Department e.. DdV* of P Ub) wn. scn 5cnrs�� ('9H-700 Pajw,, , ca 4 concerning subject project. LA QUINTA CJ►.SE NO(S). Gr,� �-+-oa-� 7 L.a e^d Wavv- PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Archaeological Society k SUBJECT: Coroents, Findings and Conditions PROJECT LOCATION: he City of La Quinta Development Review Committee is conducting an initial environmental study pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the above referenced project(s). Attached is the information tubmitted by the project proponent. Your ccensents are requested with regpect to: 1. Physical impacts the proj4lct presents on public resources, facilities, and/or services; 2. Recormended conditions: a.) that you or your agency believe would mitigate any potential adverse effects; b.) or should apply to the project design; c.) or improvements to satisfy other regulations and concerns which your agency is responsible; and 3. If you find that the identified impacts will have significant adverse effects on the environment which cannot be avoided through conditions, Please recommend the scope and focus of additional study(tes) which may be helpful. Please send your response by _ � Q_ jq,$Q You are invited to attend the DEVELOP REVZEfi CAIi�Eg meeting -at the La Quint& City hall scheduled for: Date: s �¢�G�g4 1 Time: 7, Contact Person: ��P,F. tE•r�. [J► �_ _ -,� �"� aan aas an a� tea an asr aca aaat a® as sr arcs aa� n� :471 ai a� ®a® e4 a� a®s mn ans .as aoi M Mom am Im "m moon some ! is returh 7z2p----- 14' � Y1e� �. Co=ents made by: Date Title _ Phone ,~ .ar�77��r Y® Agency/Div1e;.,n v � —�--- --�-- /.��'tii-�e 9�hq�iQ s/ R /r��..•syes' W Ar sat �i.a IN �CCr ' UUMMITTE-E REQUEST �.Q. IVA F*OR COMMENT Lot N2,44h. CA 02M PLANNING DIVISION PHONE: (61E) 564-2246 K City Manager x Public works/engineering x� Fire Marshal x Corvnunity Safety Department X Building Division Chamber of Cc,cj7,ferce CVWD --X Imperial Irrigation _ iT- Southern California Gas _- DaUSD _ CVUSD Property �ner's Asscic�a,tion X Coachella Valleg DATE: A,Palm Desert Disposal General Telephone Palmer Cable Vision Sunline Transit Archaeological Society X SUBJECT: Comments, Findings and Conditions Caltr• ans (District 111 • Agricultural Commission • City of Indian wells City of Indio Riverside County: Planning Department Environmental Health Sheriff's Department Road Department 2i ee^ 22 Go . pa4P}. a -P u fo! soe scrvlt s (yy-:oo f'aiw, Z+lciio,Gq concerning subject project. LA QUINTA CASE No(S). PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PROJECT LOCA'PION: k o►`�!f.��i �� QVG ��t�•'5�:.,,�t _..��,� '� S�. The City of La Quint& 'Development Review Committee is conducting an initial environmental study pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the above referenced project(*). Attached is the information submitted by the project proponent. Your comments are requested with reppect to: C Physical impacts the project presents on public resources, facilities, and/or services: a "- �� Recommended conditions: a.) that you or your agency believe would mitigate an g y potential adverse effects; b.) C or should apply to the project design; c.) or improvements to satisfy other regulations and C concerns which your agency is responsible; and > 1. If you find that the identified impacts will have significant adverse effects on the environment which be cannot avoided through conditions, please recommend the Scope and focus of additional study(ie*) which may be helpful. Please send your response by _ oy ��� ja�Q You are invited to attend the DEVELOPM REVIEW COMMITTEE meeting at the La Quint& City Pall scheduled for: Date: _- Qk —Qa-�gci _ Time: �T-Y►a, Contact Person: Je1'W1c{n fl�>1t� t �G �ll'P� aa•Bassi•ratt�wwa®�eaaatsoMEamMESEE MaM11 we AM onANMEnoMEVINMEMRMEMEsEmwanoar+s®EM - ES (e}�t ✓Vl Y1/9��5 + ex tnt .%r7S 14 rk::4 . , Comments made by: �- I Date Title Phone A»gencyiDivision ,11 COMMITTEE UES FOR COMMENT LaOuvu.cA 9 A PLAN IlNG PHONE: ��NE: (919) 504-3246 To: CITY OF 1..A QU(NTA, DATE: �%NNiNG 6 DEVELOPMENT DEPT. -` — K C.�ty Manager x Public Work s/Engineering Palm Desert Disposal x General Telephone _x Fire Marshal x - Paper Cable Vision Ccxwunity Safety Department Building Division ,� Sunllne Transit .X _ Chamber of Cc�lnerce � C��D _ Caltrans (District 11) � Agricultural Commission - Y Imperial Irrigation -'i7 Southern California City of Indian wells "' City of Indio ^�'� Gas _._ DSUSD Riverside County: planning Department --- Property ®�nea's Association Environmental Health Sheriff's Department X; Coachella Valley -- -- --- - Archaeological Society Road Department _ -;K-elier%dc e..Q*-a°} - o4 giery, 1 publ r� sow, �` Csubj SUBJECT: Comments, Findings and Conditions concernin g ect pro"'" ' T' '% 'T ject, . IA QvZNTA CASE xo(s). G ` -oa? c.z $q_p¢ -vas PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PROJECT I,OCA'TION: The City of L& Quinta Development Review Committee is conducting an initial environmental study pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the above referenced project(#). Attached is the information 511himitted by the project proponent. Your comments are requested with reppect to: 1. Physical impacts the projdct presents on public resources, facilities, and/or services; 2. Recommended conditions: a.) that you or your agency believe would mitigate any potential adverse effects; b.) or should apply to the project design; c.) or improvements to satisfy other regulations and concerns which your agency is responsible; and 3. If you find that the identified impacts will have significant adverse effects on the environment which cannot be avoided through conditions, please recommend the scope and focus of additional study(ies) which may be helpful. Please send your response by _ TUQtaq .�aZ, iQ'`�Q You are invited to attend the "vEWPMEXT RE'VIEw COMI1TER meeting at the La Quint& City hall scheduled for: Date: .l � gQ Time: _� 00 pP, _ Contact Person: sign O!B4M mnHname 1wiswams!"s?mmma mows W"® ssnn N=83man'�ssM '�s11 !a Yt#s• snow �F pis re:t rv1 Vv" + ex[A c J94�s 14' ►b4 Comments made by:�-. Dates.!_ Title Phone Agency/Division .r:_t__.<� ✓fir.. _/ . x.L 'a► ..� � �>-Q��i maw August 9, 1989 Mr. `terry Herman Planning and Development Director 78105 Ca.11e Estado La Quint.a, California 92253 Re: Environmental Impact Assessment for General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone at Jefferson Street and 50th. Dear Jerry: Enclosed is a copy of the Environmental Assessment prepared by Ultrasystems Environmental Service. Please note that the Environmental Impact questionnaire was submitted earlier and should accompany this report. If you have any questions or comments, please call me. Sincerely, D. Ba ry Engelman Commercial/Industrial Division Enclosure cc: Chris von Gohren Alex Londos DBE/cZ LANDMARK LAND COMPANY OF CALIFORNI& INC. COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL DIVISION 78-140 Colle Tampico. La 9uinta. CA. 92253 (619) 564-8125 GENERAL PLAN AINAEN ENT & CHANGE OF Z(3NE COMMERCIAL DEVEL0PME:NT- JEFFERBON STREET & 50TH AVENUE i RECEIVE0 CITY Ur LA QuiNT,; ?(,ANNINJ %� pEVELCP'A`N? ^EFT. PREPARED FOR CITY OF LA QU1NTA 79-1015 Cellar Estedo Ls Guinte, California 912253 DULY 19B9 PREPARED !Y ULTRASY€3TEMS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 18845 VON KARMAN AVENUE IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 80714 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT & CHANGE OF ZONE FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT- JEFFERSON STREET & 50TH AVENUE by LANDMARK LAND COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA Prepared For: CITY OF LA QUINTA 18-105 Calle Estado La Quinta, California 92253 Prepared By: ULTRASYSTEMS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 16845 Von Karman Avenue Irvine, California 92714 4491/49 JULY 1989 Plate I Top and Bottom: View of overgrown citrus groves which made access difficult and rendered surface visibilltv virtually nil. �SySf TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2.0 SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1 Project location and Boundaries . . . . . . . 7 3.2 Project Goals and Objectives. . . . . . . . . 7 3.3 Project Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACT ANALYSIS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.1 Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.2 Drainage. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.3 Archaeological Resources. . . . . . . . . . . 19 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM. . . . 24 6.0 FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 APPENDIX A Chapter 9.88 of City Zoning Ordinance (Scenic Highway Commercial) APPENDIX B Archaeological Survey Report LIST OF FIGURES Figure pave 1 Project Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2 Project Site and Zoning Map. . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3 Existing Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 T'• r^- t5j5 1.0 INTRODUCTION This Environmental Assessment (EA) addresses the potential impacts associated with a proposed General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone for a 47.5 acre site at the intersection of Jefferson Street and'50th Avenue in the City of La Quinta. The proposal would change the land use designation on the site from Low Density Residential to General Commercial and the zoning designation from Agricultural (A-1- 10) to Scenic Highway Commercial (C-P-S). This document will serve as the environmental basis upon which the City's decision -makers can evaluate the merits of the applicant's request for approval of the amendments, and will also serve as the environmental basis for reaching decisions on subsequent entitlement requests for development of the project site. Pursuant to Section 15063 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City is required to prepare an Initial Study to determine if the proposed action will have a significant environmental impact. This Environmental Assessment will provide the environmental analysis necessary to make an Initial Study determination. Presented in this document are the results of the environmental analysis, which support a finding that no significant environmental effects would occur as a result of project implementation, as mitigated herein. Accordingly, this Environmental Assessment supports the issuance of a subsequent negative declaration and presents, for public review and comment, the substantial evidence supporting this finding. Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines indicates that a negative declaration shall be prepared for a project when the initial study (substantiated by adequate environmental analysis) shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a sig- nificant effect on the environment, or the initial study identifies potentially significant effects but revisions to the project made or agreed to by the applicant before the proposed negative declaration is released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the 1 .� effects to a point where no significant effects would occur, and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment. Section 15071 of the State CEQA Guidelines identifies those minimum requirements for negative declarations necessary to meet the public participation and disclosure policies of CEQA. Pursuant to that section, a negative declaration circulated for public review shall include: A brief description of the project, including a commonly used name for the project, if any; The location of the project, preferably shown on a map, and the name of the project proponent; A proposed finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment; An attached copy of the initial study documenting reasons to support the finding; and Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects. This environmental assessment document satisfies these recuirements and thus may ultimately be utilized as the environmental basis for issuance of a negative declaration on this proposed project. 2 Persons Q_rganizations Associated with Preparation of the DocUTent Lead Agency City of La Quinta 78-105 Calle Estado La Quinta, California 92253 Project _Ap p l i cant Landmark Land Company of California, Inc. P.O. Box 1000 La Quinta, California 92253 Environmental Consultant Ultrasystems Environmental Services 16845 Von Karman Avenue Irvine, California 92714 ArcFaeological_Services Ar& aeological Associates, LTD P.O. Box 180 Sun City, California 92381 3 2.0 SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES This section provides a summary of the mitigation measures recommended as a result of issue -specific analysis conducted in this document. These mitigation measures have been recommended either as means by which any significant effects could be reduced to insig- nificant levels, or to further reduce the extent of impacts which were de:ermired to be less than significant. The primary purpose in consolidating all mitigation measures into one section is to provide a convenient format for the applicant's review of all identified mitigation measures, which will require either project modifications or the fulfillment of specific condi- tions, and to provide convenience for the City of La Quinta in identifying that set of conditions which, when implemented, will minimize potential project impacts to a level which is not sig- nificant. With regard to the current project proposal, the applicant has reviewed and agreed to implement the mitigation measures contained herein. As a result, not only will these measures become conditions of approval, but since their implementation would result in the absence of any significant project -related environmental effects, these mitigation measures form the environmental basis for the City's issuance of a Negative Declaration for the proposed project. The following mitigation measures have been recommended in this document for the project as currently proposed: I. Architectural, landscape and other design features for future proposed commercial development of the site shall satisfy all relevant development standards of the C-F-S zoning designation and building code regulations of the City of La Quinta. 4 Sj 2. Subsequent entitlement requests for development of the subject property shall be subject to separate environmental review in accordance with CEQA and City of La Quinta requirements. 3. The area to be set aside for a retention basin on the site would be 2.7% to 3% of the development area (1.3 acres to 1.5 acres). This calculation is based on recent studies of other similar developments. 4. Regrading and resurfacing of perimeter streets (50th Avenue and Jefferson Street) will be accomplished as necessary to achieve the appropriate gutter gradient for drainage. Low points in the streets will be drained by catch basins, pipes and drywells for minor runoff, with overflow retention areas for stormwater flows. If local retention areas are not feasible because of site plan constraints, stormwater can be piped to the main retention basin described previously. These same pipes can then be utilized as retention basin high water relief overflow devices for storm runoff in excess of the 100-year design storm. 5. Prior to development of the project site a data recovery program shall be conducted by a qualified archaeologist according to the following specific measures: La Quinta l: A transit -controlled surface collection designed to map the location of each artifact and size of the site. Shovel test pits (STPIs) should be excavated at predetermined intervals. All sand from the STP's should be screened through 1/16th-inch mesh. La Quinta 2: LaQ-2 is similar to LaQ-1 and should be tested in the same manner. 5 } V La _Quint?._ 3: In addition to a transit -controlled surface collection and STP's, a minimum of one 1 X 1 meter unit should be excavated in the concentration of fire altered rock. All excavated sand from the units(s) should be screened through 1/16th-inch mesh. La Quint?_ 4: In addition to a transit controlled surface collection and STP's, a single 1 X 1 meter unit should be excavated in the area of the pot sherd concentration and charcoal lens. All excavated sand from the unit should be screened through 1/16th-inch mesh. Citrus Groves: A qualified archaeologist shall be present during brushing or clearing operations for future development within the citrus grove portions of the site. In the event that potentially significant cultural resources are discovered during these operations, additional investigations, including subsurface excavations if necessary, will be performed as recommended by the archaeologist. 0 IVa5y 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 Proiect Location and Boundaries The site of the proposed project is at the northwest intersection of Jefferson Street and 50th Avenue in the City of La Quinta, within the Western Coachella Valley region of the County of Riverside (see Figure 1). The site is bounded by Jefferson Street and adjacent agricultural uses on the east, 50th Avenue and adjacent orchards to the south, vacant lands and a single residence to the west, aid by vacant lands to the north. The site itself is currently it use as a citrus tree grove. Jefferson Street, which has a north- scuth alignment, serves as the boundary line between the City of QLinta on the west and unincorporated County of Riverside lands to the east. The City's designated sphere of influence, however, extends eastward along 50th Avenue and includes lands southeast of Jefferson Street and 50th Avenue diagonally adjacent to the project site. Figure 2 shows the project site and the general project vicinity. 3.2 Pro, ect Goal sand O,b jecti ves The project applicant's objective is an amendment to the site's land use designation from Low Density Residential to General Commercial and a Change of Zone from Agricultural (A-1-10) to Scenic Highway Commercial (C-P-S), in order to facilitate the ultimate development of the site as a commercial business center. 3.3 Project Characteristics The site of the proposed project is almost square in configuration and comprises approximately 41.5t acres. Although no specific development is proposed, if the current General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone requests are adopted, the project site would subsequently be developed with uses subject to the provisions o' the City's Zoning Ordinance which identifies permitted and 7 r u . 4.: - 'r' m ..r, - �..• aY�� •�. �3 -:`�' --n _-awswvv i ' $ _ ,. Y . r ., r ! ........ _ w G 1 I 1 1 TA rlff lu wo "IL Al V's 01 to 1 PI�I�1E� 1 I Q I 1 !Ii Ny7ry �e� ( I I L I I i t I I I I ' I All, , 1 I I I -- ;,ram__._ _ `.r<•a __ __------_�------__ - �-__g. _ ���--- —--- -- I I I I I i t I 1 I 1 I s i I i i nC ■," "a I IhUO Cil'7] 51a -, I zlx 11 Q -.:-mmesa' r� 1 I y.•.A I �111A �117h�i I vmoeM a. � am VONIN Ft--2 1-1-12.0m —.C— I W030 TH AVE ac a 0 4 0 A Wj 9-2 u. .1 2 '?I= A-1—to A-1-10 pp- C-T C—p—S z 0 A-1-5 CITY OF LA QUINTA 3PHERE OF INFLUENCE A-1-10 R-42 0 0 A 0 j IL son $an 101191 =Be =84046 MIN09% 0 0 C 0% % A-1-10 2 NC AVE. Source: 440 60 I —tI CITY OF LA QUINTA PROJECT SITE AND ZONING MAP 40 V" low 6 �xs} a conditionally permitted uses under the Scenic Highway Commercialzoning designation. Chapter 9.88 of the City's Zoning Ordinance is included in this document as Appendix A, and provides detailed discussions of allowable uses and development standards for the Scenic Highway Commercial designation. At this time the applicant has not specified proposed uses for the project site. However, a 1.0 acre area of the site will be allocated for a child care facility,most likely in the Southwestern corner of the property along 50th Avenue adjacent to an existing single family residence. An on -site circulation system for the project site is not currently proposed. Subdivision of the site and specific development plans will be proposed by the applicant subse- quent to approval of the currently requested entitlements (i.e., General Plan Aiiendment and Change of Zone). 10 � sjrts 4 • ENVIRONMENTAL • J MEASURES 4.1 Land Use Setting SETTING, IMPACT ANALYSIS, AND MITIGATION The majority of the project site, approximately two thirds, is presently covered with citrus tree orchards while the remainder of the site, primarily the northern portion, is characterized as a natural desert with sparse vegetation cover. One residential structure is located in the middle of the site. Surrounding land uses include a citrus tree orchard south of the project site across 50th Avenue, while an additional citrus orchard and other agricultural uses with an associated residence and stable lie across Jefferson Street adjacent to most of the easterly portion of the site. A single family residence exists adjacent to the northeast corner of the site across Jefferson Street. The northern portion of the project site is bordered by currently undeveloped land. To the west the project site is bounded by vacant lands, and one single family residence adjacent to the southwest corner of the property along 50th Avenue. Existing land uses on the project site and adjacent lands are shown on Figure 3. and Use Plan The City of La Quinta has adopted a General Plan which identifies a land use buildout scenario for coordinated development of lands within the city limits. The general plan for land use provides for an array of ultimate residential and commercial development in the City of la Quinta. The project site is currently designated by the plan for Low Density Residential land use, allowing for 2-4 dwelling units per acre. Existing agricultural uses on the site are in con- formance with this designation. 11 CITY OF LA QLIIN!A', RIVERSIDE COUNTY VACANT E VACANT 2/3 CITRUS GROVE 1/3 VACANT SINGLE RESIDENCE g 11 Q A M m It'll 93 M i AGRICULTURAL CITRUS GROVE --ao NO SCALE �i i T n 11, c 11 c Iteml — &r-jh *1.j/,.,;N0iMARK LAND CGMPANY 50 TH SINGLE RESIDENCE 0 co cc SINGLE RESIDENCE w U. U. AGRICULTURAL CITRUS GROVE AGRICULTURAL SINGLE RESIDENCE IL AVENUE AGRICULTURAL CITRUS GROVE CITY OF LA QUINTA RIVERSIDE COUNTY Tltte:® EXISTING LAND USES Adjacent lands to the west and north within the City of La Quinta are also designated for future low density residential development. The lands to the south of the site across 50th Avenue are designated as Special Commercial which will ultimately allow retail/office commercial development as well as tourist oriented commercial development. Agricultural lands to the east of the project site across Jefferson Street are within the unincorporated area of the County of R4,,verside; however, the City's designated sphere of influence includes areas to the southeast of the Jefferson Street/50th Avenue intersection diagonally adjacent to the site. These lands are designated for future low density residential development by the City's land use plan. Zon_inq The project site is currently zoned for Light Agricultural uses (A-1-10), which allows for one residential dwelling unit per ten acres. Adjacent property to the west of the site is also zoned A-1- 10. Properties to the north are zoned for multiple family dwellings (R-2). The property to the south across 50th Avenue is zoned (C-T) Commercial Tourist, which is a designation primarily for hotels, motels, and related accessory and recreational uses. The agricultural lands east of the project site across Jefferson Street are within the jurisdiction of unincorporated Riverside County and are zoned A-1-5. The City of La Quinta is presently working to annex unincorporated property southeast of the project site, currently within the City's designated sphere of influence, into the City boundaries. Figure 2 shows the existing zoning designations in the project vicinity. Impacts Implementation of the proposed project will require a redesignation of the General Plan land use for the site from Low Density Residential to General Commercial. This redesignation will constitute an amendment to the City of La Quinta General Plan. The 13 General Plan broadly defines land uses permitted under the General Commercial designation for both general commercial centers (ap- proximately 100,000 to 300,000 square feet of gross leasable area) and neighborhood commercial centers (approximately 30,000 to 100,C00 square feet of gross leasable area). These uses include retail sales, administrative and professional offices, medical services, financial insurance and real estate services, eating and drinking establish- ments, food and beverage retail sales and general personal services. The following is a discussion of the relationship between the proposed project and each of the stated General Plan land use policies associated with the proposed General Commercial designation. Policy No. 6.3.1 (Page VI-7) "Development of Commercial uses shall be encouraged." The current project entitlement requests would redesignate the subject property to allow for future commercial development. Policy No. 6.3.2 (Page VI-8) "Commercial and neighborhood centers shall be located on arterial highways." The proposed project site is located at the intersection of 50th Avenue and Jefferson Street. Jefferson Street is considered by the General Plan as a major arterial highway. Additionally, the General Plan states that "some limited commercial opportunities are appropriate for the Jefferson Street corridor (Page VI-6). Policy No. 6.3.3 (Page VI-8) "Developers of shopping centers shall demonstrate through appropriate studies that adequate market support exists within one mile of the project site." 14 0 A shopping center is not being proposed for the site. Since specific uses of the project site are not currently proposed the preparation of a market feasibility study is neither practical nor wa'-ra.nted at this time. However, it is the applicant's contention that due to recent growth trends in the project vicinity and the potertial for substantial future development along the Jefferson Street corridor the provision of various commercial goods and services at this particular site will be appropriate to meet the growing needs of the City. A zone change from A-1-10 (Light Agricultural) to C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) is also requested in order to allow commercial land uses on the project site and to bring the site's zoning designation into conformance with the proposed General Plan Amendment. The C-P-S designation is intended to provide for the development of an array of business, service, and professional uses. The C-P-S zoning code (see Appendix A) identifies 91 permitted uses and 21 conditionally permitted uses of a corrmiercial nature. Specific development of the project site, once proposed, must show consistency with these allowable uses under the proposed zoning designation. Land Use Comoat_i b,i l %ty If developed pursuant to the requested General Commercial land use designation and C-P-S zoning designation, the proposed project would represent an establishment of commercially oriented uses in an otherwise agricultural and rural residential area. In terms of compatibility of land use, commercial uses can be considered ap- propriate for location adjacent to agricultural uses unless the commercial operations produce on -site emissions or wastes that may have a deleterious effect on the adjacent agricultural production. Based on the identified allowable uses within the C-P-S zone, it does not appear that any potential uses of the site, consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, would create an incompatible land use relationship with existing adjacent agricultural uses. IS The City's zoning map allows for future development of lands to the south of the site across 50th Avenue with commercial uses under the Commercial Tourist (C-T) designation. Commercial uses on the subject proposed project site under the C-P-S designation are expected to be compatible with such potential future corraercial development on this adjacent site. The zoning map currently designates lands to the west of the site for agricultural uses (A-1-10), which are expected to be compatible with probable commercial uses of the subject project site, and lands to the north of the site for multiple family residen- tial developffient (R-2). Multiple family residential developments (a)artments, condo;riiniurns) are typically suited for location adjacent to commercial uses because they are characterized by higher intensity uses than single family residential areas and also create a direct demand for various commercial goods and services. The City's land use plan, however, designates the areas both north and west of the project site for future low density residential development (2-4 units per acre). Such low density residential uses could be affected by certain adjacent commercial activities. Since a specific development plan for the site has not been proposed it would be speculative to predict any land use compatibility conflicts that could be created. However, the allowable uses under the proposed C P- S zoning designation do not appear to be of a nature that would create nuisance or interactive effects (i.e., noise, air quality, aesthetics) on future adjacent residential acres. Additionally, if necessary, design features which can be incorporated into final site plans, such as perimeter walls and landscaping, could effectively ameliorate potential effects on future adjacent residential uses. It should be noted that there are no existing residential developments directly adjacent to the project site that may create a land use incompatibil- ity with potential commercial uses of the site. 16 '�4J.3�i'rif Mitiqation_ Measures Architectural, landscape and other design features for future proposed commercial development of the site shall satisfy all relevant development standards of the C-P-S zoning designation and building code regulations of the City of La Quinta. Subsequent entitlement requests for development of the subject property shall be subject to separate environ- mental review in accordance with CEQA and City of La Quinta requirements. 4.2 Drainage Sett, ng The most recent maps published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency omit the flood hazard classifications within the La Quinta city limits. However, judging from information on the maps regarding areas adjacent to or in very close proximity to the proposed project site, it appears that the property is in an area of minimal flooding (Zone C). Topographic maps of the region indicate a general northwest to southeast slope diagonally across the site. The northerly third of the property has some considerable local mounding (16t feet high). There are also three man-made plateaus on the site of approximately an acre in size and 10 to 18 above normal ground. The remaining two- thirds of the site follows the general regional slope. These flatter areas of the proposed project site are currently devoted to citrus orchards. Offsite runoff traversing the site from areas to the northwest is diminished to insignificant volumes due to numerous 17 pockets of natural retention on the site within the flow paths of this runoff. Stormwater runoff from the subject site itself, should it exceed the volume that can be naturally stored and percolated onsite, would sheetflnw, over portions of 50th Avenue to the south and ever the portion of Jefferson Street adjacent to the southerly half of the property. Impacts Subsequent development of curru-iiercial land uses pursuant to the proposed General P'an Amendment and Change of zone will create a la,rge amount of impervious surfaces, creating the potential for surface water flows to increase several hundred percent over existing (agricultural and undeveloped) conditions. In terms of runoff compared to rainfall, agricultural property has a very low percentage runoff factor whereas commercial property has a very high percentage runoff factor. Current criteria set forth by the City of La Quinta require 100% retention of 100-year frequency stormwater runoff within the boundaries of the property. In addition, any increase in runoff attributed to pavement widening and construction of sidewalks on the perimeter streets associated with the proposed project, is required to be retained on the site. Development of the site and introduction of drainage control and retention features will also produce beneficial impacts in that the amount of silt and debris leaving the property and crossing 50th Avenue and Jefferson Street will be reduced. Stormwater drainage along these perimeter streets will also be controlled by street right- of-way improvements, reducing flood hazard on the existing traveled roadways. 18 4S Mitigation Measures The applicant will provide a drainage plan prior to issuance of grading permits for subsequent specific development of the site. The drainage plan will incorporate the following design measures: The area to be set aside for a retention basin on the site wou,d be 2.7% to 3% of the development area (1.3 acres to 1.5 acres). This calculation is based on recent studies of other similar developments. Regrading and resurfacing of perimeter streets (50th Avenue and Jefferson Street) w7ll be accomplished as necessary to achieve the appropriate gutter gradient for drainage. Low points in the streets will be drained by catch basins, pipes and drywells for minor runoff, with overflow retention areas for stormwater flows. if local retention areas are not feasible because of site plan constraints, stormwater can be piped to the main retention basin described previously. These same pipes can then be utilized as retention basin high water relief overflow devices for storm runoff in excess of the 100-year design storm. 4.3 Archaeological_Resources This section summarizes the Archaeological Survey Report, prepared by Archaeological Associates, Ltd. which is included as Appendix B of this document. The results of a records search for the site area indicated that no previously recorded historic or prehistoric sites have been recorded within the boundaries of the project site. However, twenty- 19 S"L-Y, five archaeological sites have been recorded within a one -mile radius . of the subject property. Ten of these sites consist of sherd scatters, one consists of milling features, and thirteen reportedly contain combinations of sherd scatters, flaked stone, ground stone, fire -affected rock, shell, animal bone, possible hearths and/or roasting pits. One site contains a sherd scatter and human crema- tions. The closest of the twenty-five sites lies approximately 1/8th mile to the west of the project site. It has been described as a surface scatter containing pot sherds, fire altered rock and animal bone. A field survey of the project site was conducted on June 28, 1989. The entire undeveloped dunes area of the property was surveyed by walking parallel transects. Surface visibility in the dunes was generally good, averaging 75%. However, the citrus groves on the site are extremely overgrown making access very difficult, and surface visibility in the groves was only approximately 1-2%. During the course of the field survey, four prehistoric unrecorded archaeological sites were discovered in the sand dunes portion of the project site. These sites are designated for the study as La Quinta 1 thru 4. The locations of these sites are shown on Figure 2 of the Archaeological Survey Report, Appendix B of this document. La Quinta (LaQ-1) is located in the southwest portion of the project site approximately 50 meters north of an existing residence and 30 meters east of the western property boundary. Much of this site has been carried away due to its proximity to an existing borrow pit. The site comprises a scatter of pot sherds from both thin and thick ware, shell, a flake, fire altered rock, and a fish vertebrae. This site is most likely restricted to this scatter of surface artifacts; the escarpment of the adjoining borrow pit does not indicate the presence of a subsurface deposit. 'v J La Quinta 2 (LaQ-2) is located in the northeastern corner of the site approximately 40 meters west of the eastern property boundary and 30 meters north of the citrus grove. The s�lte comprises a scatter of pot sherds, rodent bone and fire altered rock, and one core fragment. This site is also most likely restricted to a surface scatter of artifacts. La Quinta 3 (LaQ-3) is located in the north -central portion of the site immediately adjacent to the northern property boundary and extending south to the edge of a second borrow pit. Similar to LaQ-1, a good portion of this site has most likely been carried away during quarrying operations for the borrow pit. The site consists partly of a concentration of fire altered rock, as well as pot sherds, milling stone fragments, and shell. The LaQ-3 site is the largest of the four sites found within the project site area. There may be a potential for subsurface deposits at this site. La Quinta 4 (LA-4) is located in the northwest quadrant of the project site along a narrow road that winds through the dunes. It lies 100 meters south of the northern property boundary and 30 meters west of a graded house pad on the site. It comprises a scatter of approximately 100 pot sherds, a small charcoal fens, baked clay, and a nano fragment. There may also be a potential for subsurface deposits at this site. Impacts The project site lies within a regional area exhibiting a substantial amount of archaeological and cultural resources. The discovery of the four previously unrecorded surface scatters on the site was therefore not unexpected. However, such archaeological resources on the site, if left unmitigated, would be significantly impacted by the future development of commercial uses on the site. Additional resources may also be located on the project site in those 21 t�areas which currently preclude adequate field surveying (i.e., the citrus grove portions of the property). Mitigation of potential impacts to archaeological resources on the site in accordance with the provisions of Appendix K of the California Environmental Quality Act is ,necessary to avoid damage to or disturbance of the four discovered sites and any other as -of -yet undiscovered sites within the citrus grove portions of the property. Thus, implementation of mitigation measures as recommended in the ar- chaeological survey report will mitigate potential archaeological resource impacts to insignificant levels. Mitigation_ Measures Prior to devel] went of the project site a data recovery program shall be conducted by a qualified archaeologist according to the folic,=Ping specific measures: La Quint_a .1: A transit -controlled surface collection designed to map the location of each artifact and size of the site. Shovel test pits (STP's) should be excavated at predetermined intervals. All sand from the STP's should be screened through 1/16th-inch mesh. La uinta : LaQ-2 is similar to LaQ-1 and should be tested in the same manner. 10 La _Q_uinta 3: In addition to a transit -controlled surface collection and STP's, a minimum of one 1 X 1 meter unit should be excavated in the concentration of fire altered rock. All excavated sand from the units(s) should be screened through 1/16th-inch mesh. La Quinta 4: In addition to a transit controlled surface collection and STP's, a single I X 1 meter unit 22 should be excavated in the area of the pot sherd concentration and charcoal lens. All excavated sand from the unit should be screened through 1/16th ^ch mesh. ° C_i_t_r.,s Groves: A qualified archaeologist shall be present during brushing or clearing operations for future development ,within the citrus grove portions of the site. In the event that potentially significant cultural resources are discovered during tFese operations, additional investigations, including subsurfa:e excavations if necessary, will be performed as recommended by the archaeologist. 23 1 .•t )sms 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Recently enacted legislation (Assembly Bill 3180), codified as Section 21081.6 of the Public Resource code, requires public agencies to set up monitoring and reporting programs for the purpose of ansuring compliance with those mitigation measures adopted as conditions of project approval in order to avoid significant environ- mental effects identified in envirormental impact reports and negative declarations, and adopted as conditions of project approval. REferencing that stature: When making the findings required by subdivision (a) of Section 21081 or when adopting a negative declaration pursuant to paragraph (2) of sub- division (c) of Section 21080, the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. For those changes which have been required or incorporated into the project at the request of an agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by this project, that agency shall, if so requested by the lead or responsible agency, prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program. Pursuant to this requirement the City of La Quinta, as lead agency, is obligated to establish and monitor project compliance with those mitigation measures adopted as conditions of approval for the purpose of mitigating significant environmental effects. The City has, therefore, as its policy, required project applicants to submit a 24 mitigation monitoring and reporting program for review and approval prior to approval of proposed development projects. Thus, a condition of approval for the development of the proposed project site will be the preparation of such a mitigation monitoring and reporting program which identifies methods to ensure implementation of mitigation measures intended to offset potentially significant environmental impacts, as recommended in this environmental assessment and subse- quent environmental documentation for specific development of the site. 25 6.0 FINDINGS The following findings can be made in adopting this environmental analysis as the basis for a subsequent negative declaration and in approving the currently requested entitlements for the subject project: Incorporation of those mitigation measures identified herein, i'nade or agreed to by the applicant, will avoid or mitigite the potential environment effects of the project to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would occur; and The environmental assessment shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project, as amended to i n c o rp o rI-Ite those mitigation measures identified herein, may have a significant effect on the environment. W APPENDIX A Chapter 9.88 of City Zoning Ordinance (Scenic Highway Commercial) C']�apter 9.88 C...-P-S ZONE a(SCENIC HIGHWAYp CQhL ERCZAL) Sections: 9.88.010 Generally. 9.83.020 Famit7red uses. 9.88.030 Planned zsoimnercial development. 9.88.040 Ccrumei vial specific plan required. 9.88.050 Deielaoment standards. 9.88.010 Generall_X. The regulations set out in this chapter+ shall apply' in all C--P-S zones. (Ord. 5 51 (p+art) , 1982: county Ordinance 348 Art. 1Xb (part)) 9.88.020 Permitted uses. A. The following uses are pe,:mitted, Tonlyy in enclosed buildings with not more than two hundred square feet of outside storage or display of mate- rials appurtenant to such use, provided a plot plan shall have been approved pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 9.180 or 9.1820 whichever is applicable: 1. Ambulance services. 2. Antique shops. 3. Appliance stores, household. 4. Art supply shops and studios. S. Auditoriums and conference rooms. 6. Automobile parts and supply stores. 7. Bakery goods distributors. S. Bakery shops, including baking only when inci- dental to retail sales on the premises. 9. Banks and financial institutions. 10. Barter and beauty shops. 11. Bars and cocktail lounges. 12. Bicycle sales and rentals. e 08 ) �••••—'••� Ma QuiiaLa 5/ 0i 9.88.020 L, 13. Billiard and pool halls. 14. Blueprint and duplicating services. 15. Bookstores and binders. 16. Bowling alleys. 17. Catering services. Is. Cera,tnic sales and manufacturing for on --site sales, provided the total volixme of kiln space does not ex- ceed sixteen (:�ibic feet. 19. Cleaning and dyeing shops. 20. Clothing stores. 21. Confect ioniery or candy stores. 22. costume design stadios. 23. nancehalls. 24. Delicatessens. 25. Zepart.;,dent stores. 26. Drugsi.Ores. 27. Dry goods stores. 28. Electrical substations. 29. Fj­nployrent agencies. 30. Escort bureaus. 31. reed and grain sales. 32. Fishing, and casting pools. 33. Florist shops. 34. Food rG;irkets and frozen food lockers. 35. Gift sT)Ops- 36. p.)rilware stores. 37. Fousehold (loods sales and repair, including but not limited to, new and used appliances, furniture, carpets, draperies, lamps, radios, and television sets, including iepair thereof. 38. Hobby shops. 39. Ice cream shops. 40. Ice sales, not including ice plants. 41. Interior decorating shops. 42. Jewelry stores with incidental repairs. 43. Labor temples. 44. Laboratories, film, dental, medical* research or testing. 45. Laundries and laundromats. 46. Leather goods stores. 47. Liquor stores. 48. Locksmith shops. 49. Mail order businesses. 50. Manufacturer's agent. 51. Market, food, wholesale or jobber. -52. Massage parlors, turkish baths, health centers and similar personal service establishments. 53. Meat markets, not including slaughtering. 54. Mimeographing and addressograph services. 55. Mobilehomest provided they are kept mobile and licensed pursuant to state law, used for: dc 1*011 1860-74 La Qj u i a t a W f W 0 P 9.88.020 A. Construction offices and caretaker's quar- ti-Cs on cc,nstructian sites for the duration of a valid bUilding pet-mit, providing they are inconspicuously located. b. A(Iricultural worker employment offices for a T."Iximum of ninety days in any calendar year. C. Caretakers or watchmen and their families provided no rent is paid, where a permitted and existing commeecial use is astcliblished. Not more than one mobilehome shall be allowed for a parcel of land or a shopping center Complex. 56. Music stores. 57. News stores. 58. Notions or novelty stores. 59. Nurseries and garden supply stores. 60. Offices, business. - 61 . One on -site operator's residence. 62. Paint and wall paper stores, not including Paint contractors. 63. Parking lots and parking structures. 64. Pawnslhc>ps. 65. Pet shops and pet supply shops. 66. Photography shops and studios and photo engrav- ing. 67. Plus-irl.1bing shops, not including plumbing contrac- tors. 613. Poultry markets, not including slaughtering or live sales. 69. Printers or publishers. 70. Produce markets. 71. Radio and television broadcasting studios. 72. Recording stlidios. 73. Refreshment 'stands. 74. Restaurants and other eating establishments. 75. Schools, business and professional, including art, barber, beauty, dance, drama, music and swimming. 76. Shoe stores and repair shops. 77. Shoeshine stands. 78. Signs, on -site advertising. 79. Sporting goods stores. 80. Stained glass assembly. 81. Stationery stores. 82. Stations, bus, railroad and taxi. 8:3 . Taxidermist. 84. Tailor shops. 85. Telephone exchanges. 86. Theaters, not including drive-in. 87. Tobacco shops. 88. Tourist information centers. 89. Toy shops. 90. Travel agencies. 91. Typewriter sales and rental and incidental re- pairs. 186-75 (La Quinta b/87) 9.88.020 92. Watch repair shops. 93. W dding chapels. 94. 'frhole-sale businesses with samples on the prem- ises, but not to ij,)c1u(je storage. 95. Casoline service stations. 96. Golf cart sales aAd sex -vice. 97- !Tt)tels, resort hotels and motels. B. Cses Permitted by COnditional Use Permit. The fol- lowing uses are perinitted provided a conditional use permit has been granted pvirsi,-..jant to the provisions of Chapter 9.172 of this title: 1. Aiitoi,,i(-)bile repair garages, body shops, spray painting shops. 2. A'Acirlobile sales and rental agencies. 3. Boat sales, rentals and services. 4. Carwa,3i,,es. 5. Drive ­in theaters. 6- E(I'liFirient rental services, including rototillers, power mowers, sanders, power saws, cement and plaster mixers not exceeding twenty cubic feet in capacity and other si-milar Pq-taipfnent. 7. He I i p,or ts . S. Liq1jid petrolejun service stations, provided the total capacity of all tanks shall not exceed ten thousand gallons. 9. Morttiaries. 10. Sale, rental, repair, or demonstration of mo- torcycles, Scooters, or motorbikes of two horsepower or greater. 11. Animal hospitals. 12. Sports and recreational facilities, not includ- ing motor -driven vehicles and riding academies, but includ- ing archery ranges, athletic fields, beaches, golf driving ranges, gyinnasiums, miniature golf parks, playgrounds, Sports arenas, skating rinks, stadiums, and commercial swim- ming pools. 13. Tire recapping. ping. 14. Tire sales and services, not including recap- 15. Trailer and boat storage. 16. Travel trailers, mobilehomes and recreational vehicles sales and service. 17. Truck sales and services. 18. Trucks and trailers; the rental of trucks not over nineteen thousand five hundred pounds gross weight, with body not to exceed twenty-two feet in length from the back of the cab to the end of the body; and the rental of trailers not exceeding six feet in width or twenty-two feet in length. 19. Underground bulk fuel storage. 20. Mini -warehouse structures. i a Do - -10- (La Quinta 6/87) 9.88.030--9.88.040 21. All uses pe.rinitted in subsection (a) that have more than two hundred sq,jare feet of outside storage of dis- play of materials. C. Accessory (J es Permittred. An accessory use to a pe,c'mitt.ed use is allowed, provided the accessory use is as- t:alnlished on the same lot or parcel of land, and is inci- dental to, and consibst:ent with the character of the permit- ted principal use, including but not limited to: 1. Limited manufacturing, fabricating, prccyessing, packaging, treating and incidental storage related thereto, provided any such activity shall be in the same line of mer- c,.handise or service as the trade or service business con- ducted on the premises and providing any such related activ- ity does not exceed any of the following restrictions: a. The maximum gross floor area of the building pe.rmitt.ed to be devoted to such accessory use shall be twen- ty. -five peed°ent. b. The maximum total horsepower of all electric inotors used in connection with such accessory use shall be five horsepower. c. The accessory use shall be so conducted that noise, vibration, dust, odor, and all other objectionable factors shall be reduced to the extent that there will be no annoyance to persons outside the premises. Such accessory use shall be located not nearer than fifty feet to any res- idential zone. d. Accessory tises shall be conducted wholly within a co►npletely enclosed building. (Ord. 120 S4, 1988; Ord. 5 S1(part), 1982: county Ordinance 348 S9.50) 9.88.030 Planned concrnercial development. Planned com- rnercial~ devil�pmene xara'npmi2ted pravid�d a land division is approved pursuant to the previsions of county Ordinance 460. (Ord. 5 S1(part), 1982: county Ordinance 348 S9.51) 9.88.040 Commercial specific plan required. A. Not- withstanding any ot1r provisions of this chapter, no com- mercial building or use shall be constructed on a parcel that is fifteen acres in size or greater, and no permits or approvals shall be .issued by any department of the city for such construction, unless the applicant has applied for, and received final approval of, a commercial specific plan pur- suant to the provisions of Government Code Section 65450, at seq. and Section 9.16.030 et seq. of this title. A proposed commercial use shall not be broken into smaller units to avoid the requirement to file an application for a commer- cial specific plan, and an application for a plot plan may be denied on the basis that it is part of a larger com- mercial proposal that requires the applicant to file an ap- plication for a specific plan. H. A Commercial specific plan shall comply with all the standards required for approval of a commercial plot i"oo-77 (La Quinta 5i6n) 9.88.050 plan. In addition thereto, no commercial specific plan shall be approved unless it is found that there will be no adverse ef ' 'fect jjpj:)n the public health, -nex-,11 Corianunity, including such t Th e g P slfety and welfare of factors as the avail- Fbility of employees and affordable housing for such employ- ees and a d0inOnst."'ated need for a commercial center. The following additional standards of development shall apply to tlose projects subject to the cc)rnmercial specific plan re- Ti irement: 1. A miniAnj= fifteen percent of the site shall be landscaped and automatic irrigation shall be installed. 2. A miriij-mam fifty -foot building setback shall be 'required on any boundary where the cosTurnercial property abuts it residential zoned property. T"wenty feet of the setback shall be landscaped sinless a tree screen is included, where- in the landscaping may be reduced to ten feet. The balance of the setback may be used for automobile parking, driveways or landscaping. Block walls, or other appropriate fencing, may also be requited. 3. All outside storage, and all trash, loading aInd service areas, Shall be screened by structures or land- licaping and located to minimize noise or odor nuisance. C. Whenever a comprehensive commercial specific plan or phase thereof has been approved and is in effect, the requirement for a subsequent Plot Plan or conditional use Fal-Init for certain uses may be ii-,odified or waived. This deter.mination shall be made as part of the approval of a Specific plan, provided that a detailed site plan and all required development standards are included as a part of the final approval of a specific plan. D. The requirement for a commercial specific plan may be waived by the planning commission upon a finding by the coninis&ion that the proposed commercial use consists of infilling of an existing commercial area. An application to waive a commercial specific plan shall be made in writing to the planning director, prior to filing an application for a specific plan, stating fully the reasons therefor and accom- panied by a fee as set forth in Section 9.224.010 of this title. The application shall be placed on the regular agen- da of the planning commission as a discussion matter for the determination of the commission. If the commission approves the waiver, the applicant shall be permitted to file an ap- plication for any required plot plan, conditional use permit or land division. (Ord. 5 Sl(part), 1982: county Ordinance 348 S9.52) 9.88-050 Devel9pnent standards. The following shall be the standards of in the C-P-s zones: A. There is no minimum lot area requirement, unless specifically required by zone classification for a particu- lar area. I n r 1 ^ .uv- to iLa wuinta 6/8)) 9. 9 2 . 010 --- 9 .9 2 .0 20 B - TTere are lio yard requirements for buildings which do not exceed thirty-five feet in height, except as required for specific plans. Any portion of a building which exceeds thirty-five feet in height shall be set back from the front, rear and side lot lines not less than two feet for each. foot by wh%ch the height =xceeds thirty-five feet. The front setback shall be frF�&iured from the existing street line un- less a specific Plan has been adopted in which case it will be ;-raasured from the specific plan street line. The rear setback shall be meaiiired from the existing rear lot line or ft-om any recorded alley or easement; if the rear line ad- joins a sheet, the rear setback requirement shall be the seine as required for a front setback. Each side setback shall be measured fi-gym the side lot line or from an existing adjacent street line unless a specific plan has been adopted in which case it will be measured from the specific plan street line. C. All buildings and structures shall not exceed fifty feet in height, unless a height up to seventy-five feet is specifically permitted under the provisions of Chapter 9.192 of this title. D. Automobile storage space shall be provided as required by Chapter 9.160 of this title. E. A11 roof -mol)nted mechanical equipment shall be screened from the ground elevation view to a minimum sight distance of one thousand three hundred twenty feet. (Ord. 5 SI(part), 1982: couirity Ordinance 348 S9.53) NS)"3 i APPENDIX B Arc.haelogical Survey Report AN ARCHAE'OLOGJCAL INVESTIGATION OF A 50 4 ACRE PARCEL. IN T14E CITY OF LA QUINTA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY 1. 10 ?989 by Robert S. White Archaeological Associates, Ltd. P.Q. Box 180 Sun City, Ca 92381 (714) 244-1783 FAX (714) 244-0084 July 5, 1989 1. IN'rRODUCHON The following report was =smitten for UItrasystems, Inc. by Robert S. White under the sup-eMsion of Dr. David Van Horn. It describes a study conducted to ascertain whether significant cultural resources are present within the boundaries of a 50 + acre parcel in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County. The study con:slsted of: (1) a records search to determine whether any previously recorded 'historic or prehistoric material is present on the parcel and (2) a field reconnaissance intended to identify any previously unrecorded cultural resources. IL STUDY AREA LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENT The study area is located imirediately northwest of the intersection of Jef fe.-3on Street and 50th Avenue in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County. It is situated in the southeast quarter of Section 32, Township 5 South, Range 7 East, San Bernardino Base Meridian as shown on the USGS La Quinta 7.5' Topographic Quadrangle (fig. 1). The parcel is rectangular in shape with the snuthern boundary lying along 50th Avenue, and the eastern boundary adjacent to Jefferson St. The northern and western boundaries are delineated by chain link fences. Figure 1 shows the property boundaries plotted on a portion of the USGS La Quinta 7.5' Topographic Quadrangle. Topographically, the parcel originally comprised a relatively flat area of undulating dunes. However, only about half of the original dune fields remain due to the planting of citrus groves. Elevations throughout the property average 40 feet above sea level. Soils consist exclusively of sand and silts; no exposed bedrock was observed. Native vegetation on the parcel Is best characterized as Cresote Bush Scrub (i.e. creosote, mesquite, sage brush and arrowweed). Introduced vegetation consists of grapefruit trees, t angel osit angerines, sunflowers/safflowers, tamarisk trees, and date palms. Fauna observed included doves, an owl, numerous cottontail rabbits, and lizards. Coyote scat was found throughout the parcel, as were the tracks of several sidewinder rattlesnakes. Mechanical disturbance on the parcel comprises planting of citrus groves In the southeast quadrant, the grading of a house pad In the approximate center of the property, and two borrow pits. The first borrow pit lies approximately 50 meters north of an existing residence near the 0 CIO A V C N U te. U ....... M oU, Innumn: .......... a.*.:n* mit ......... ............ 5 . M::I)=***•*Otsego* 0#0 ;0 SeSSOOSBRONM I min *$teases# Sessaosee 0 a:: so 6• .—OW.Now . amweesoo a-00-00:0.0m.w: M; 4** is too .94898:0 KIM • 0:3 *04004; 38 ...... 333: 104 ......... .. .. Figure I Property boundaries plotted on a portion of the USGS La Quinta 7.5' .WPU6iUj;&lIQ Quaum-taflt-slco soUthwest cor7ier of the seedy :area. The sr -coed pit lies near the center of the property a,1jacent to the aforeinentiond house pad. Additionally, a large well tali be found near the so:cond pit. Furthermore, numerous piles of pruned citrus limbs and palm fronds lie scattered throughout the dune area. IIL RECORDS SEA1IR.CH A reco =is search was conducted by MS. Karen Swope, Assistant Information Officer, Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside. Tne results of the search Indicated that no previously recorded historic or prehistoric sites have been recorded within the boundaries of the study area. However, twenty -.five archaeological sites have been recorded within a one• -mile radius of the subject property. Ms. Swope has characterized them as follows: "Ten sites consist of sherd scatters, one consists of milling features, and thirteen reportedly contain combinations of sherd scatters, flaked stone, ground stone, fire -affected rock, shell, animal bone, passible hearths and/or roasting pits. Site Ca-Riv-1180 contains a sherd scatter and human ere n-i.atIons." (K. Swope of the ARU In a letter dated 6/19/89). The close-st of the twenty-five sites is Riv-3013 which lies approximately 1/8th mile to the west. It has been described as a surface scatter c:ont,air►ing pot sherds, fire altered rock and animal bane. IV. FIELD RECONNASSANCE A field reconnaissance of the parcel was conducted by Robert White and Jeff Linscheid on June 28, 1989. The survey started in the southwest cornea of the study area and proceeded in a northerly direction. Once the northwest corner of the property was reached, the survey turned eastward In order to avoid the citrus groves. Where possible, the surveyors walked parallel transect spaced in 5 meter intervals. It was in this manner that the entire dune area of the parcel was surveyed. Surface visibility in the dunes was generally good, averaging 75%. Numerous piles of dead limbs and fronds obscured the surface In some areas. The citrus groves proved to be a problematic area to survey. The groves were extremely overgrown making access very difficult. To compound matters, surface visibility In the groves was no better than 1-2% due to the carpet of dead leaves covering the ground. -2- a to K d .• VALLEY-- CI . v • i / 2Q \"'4 ee .: 30 a>�I • WIN j i• : - t%! .. I • -.... _.- —_ �W11{ • •well V. t ,.��«><.•ysa•:r "•. 0 1- y 1 t m�ae . • \ l � ` (~!\ /'fin\^ t r i 1 La p Q-3 31 �2` ue33'r�I1 o L,aQ.-4 .`� . Of La QN, � . aY® ENU[� 1 Well � :•s ••-�• . {a •o a.t•eeos•ss••••. •. y •• a •e •••1• • s �'! C\\ � .. . , {••o ••• as •t oeaso •a1a •••••o• t .•t•s. •a••tu.a a..,n O�'[ e•.e as1•xe1•••o..aa asww Y• •••a •o ••t•••••. VVV +a. ••a• 5.. ••aa o••ws•a•••.•• � •a•a•a1•ta•.. •. :••i•• ••e ••e •. •• •1•••••••••.. ,, r • . i•...••.s• e•o••••w•....; .•. .•.� "•• ••.. 6 ....................:: •:: m ::........ •nwa. n• ft.fwwwO • .•• e-�,. •s ••••••,•. . . :•/�•••a{1••t 4 - i••e ea•i ••e•••ataa e1 •t••••a 1• it�i 1•••. w -• •• a. •, •1.. �t1o•w••••• •tJ1••N ta• .aaH .••. a/ ••a••flf ■ •. •1••ae•1• 1 � .a al•aH Nt •ettN ltN• .a••••.••• • .N•eaY a,l aJ• 6i as le•tafa e0•Ilt t•••1 ••• ••. •••e ••/•••• • et•e••/a•1a • ut•e••..• '.::•1••••• •••1{as •aaaa • •tf e•1•a1 a• •ate tls••t• • •° •t•••••Ie/e ata/t/e••••A •••..•e • ,•w/•a •a1N t • ••1••••seta i•tt••••••!aa •eatta•1••° ••I••ettae• I {. ••a•.!•a1 •ittt•e••..!•t1•taa•t1•• •••e••1t••• et ••. •. ••t/ +t He1.1•t• N•i••a ae ••. .•••oa•atN• .•� 'M 30 •1••e••aafi ii1•aot•1• ......t•talf .•. oaa• ... !► . t11.1•I N e ••ta •a0••e• •I latt•••••. °• Hs•11�a•• �� t Aso•••• �'• •• .•••e. •ea•e •s•••w•••• .1••••s••a•• •.ea• ••• •Dace /tf •taa• e•a•a•a• .s leawu•e•••••... . (._•• •• Date ••• .o .•• te. t•s•w .. l.o •••a a1••e.••...a •. • o •»•• i -.efa•to••�. e0e•ttsa 11••etw,.• .q•at•e•/••... a•• ••.<1•t•• aoa•u aa• t iii •. • u •aa.••/1•.. •.: •.f•t• Figure 2 Site locations plotted on a portion of the USGS La Quinta 7.5' Topographic Quadrangle. During the cc Arse of the survey, four prehistoric archaeological sites Were located in the sand dune portion of the study area. These sites have been teMporartly designated I.a Quinta I thru 4, and are described below. La Quinta 1 T.EQ-1 is located in the -southwest portion of the parcel approximately 50 meters north of an existing r•esldence and 30 meters east of the western )4:)un(Iary, It is situated on the plateau which adjoins the first borrow pit described above. Tire to the proxirnity to the pit, much of this site has been carried away. Tre site comprises a scatter of pot sherds from both thin and thick ,,+are, shell, a flake, fire altered rock, and a fish vertebrae. It measures approximately 50 meters long and 10 meters wide. La Quinta 2 L&Q-2 is located in the northeastern corner of the study area approximately 40 mea:ers west of the eastern boundary and 30 meters north of the c'ltr-Jrs grove. It is situated on an elevated plateau that overlooks the citrus grove. Ttie site can be characterized as a scatter of pot sherds, rodent bone and fire altered rock. One core fragment was observed. The site measures approximately 20 meters in diameter. T-a Quinta 3 LaQ-3 is located in the north -central portion of the property Immediately adjacent to the northern boundary and extending south to the edge of the second borrow pit. This pit is approximately 30 meters due north of the graded house pad. The site consists partly of a concentration of fire altered rock which measures approximately 10 meters in diameter. Several of the clusters of fire altered rock appear to be roestings pits or hearths. Other cultural material observed Included pot sherds, milling stone fragments, and shell. Overall, the site measures 50 X 50 meters in size and is the largest of the sites found within the study area. Similar to LaQ-I, a good portion of this site has most likely been carried away during quarrying operations. -3- La Quinta 4 LaQ-4 is located in the northwest quadrant of the property along a narrow road that winds thrciigh the dunes. It lies 100 meters south of the nertt-ern property border and 30 meters west of the graded house pad. It comprises a scatter of approx1rnately 100 pot sherds, a small charcoal lens, baked clay, and a niano fragment. Most of the pot sherds can be found in a concentration that measures about 2 meters in diameter. The pot sherds are of Moth thin and thick ware and represent at least two different vessels. Since the scatter follows a meandering track through the dunes, it is fa:�rly narrow in nature, measuring approximately 5 meters wide and 20 meters long. V. RECCVIMENDA"1'1ONS Due to the close proximity of the study area to a great number of previously recorded archaeological sites, the discovery of the four surface scatters did not come as a surprise. The archaeological significance of the re,ifon is not open to question in its importance in the reconstruction of the prehistory of the I..ower Colorado Desert. Therefore, it is reasonable to �3ssurne that these four sites also offer meaningful research potential. Thus, if the portion(s) of the study area containing these sites is to undergo adverse impacts, some sort of rnItlgation program is appropriate. According to the provislons of Appendix K of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), preservation of archaeological deposits is always the preferred mitigative option. Barring preservation, a data recovery program presents the only imeans for mitigating adverse affects to the archaeological sites. The following specific recommendations for each site are as follows: La Quinta 1 LaQ-1 is most likely restricted to a scatter of surface artifacts. However, the presence of a buried deposit cannot be ruled out and should be taken into consideration. A transit -controlled surface collection designed to neap the location of each artifact and size of the site is needed. Although the escarpment of the adjoining borrow pit does not indicate the presence of a subsurface deposit, shovel test pits (STP's) should be -4- excavated at predetermined intervals. AI► sand from the STP's should be screened through 1/15th-inch rnesh. La Quinta 2 LaQ-2 Is similar to LaQ-1 and should be tested in the same manner. 1_a Quinta 3 Re largest of the four sites, LaQ--3 may also prove the most interesting. In addition to the transit --controlled surface collection and STP's, a mi Yimurn of one 1 X 1 meter should be excavated in the concentration of fire altered rock. All excavated sand from the unit(s) should be screened through .1/16th-inch mesh. La Quinta 4 Similar to LaQ-3, LaQ-•4 offers some potential for a subsurface deposit. Therefore, in addition to the transit controlled surface collection and STP's, a single 1 X 1 meter unit should be excavated in the area of the pot sherd concentration and charcoal lens. All excavated sand from the Lout .should be screened through 1/16th-Inch mesh. Citrus Groves As previously mentioned, surveying In the citrus groves was nearly Impossible clue to the density of the foliage. Furthermore, a carpet of dead leaves obsclirred the surface from view. The possibility of finding hidden cultural resources in the citrus groves Is great enough to recommenend that a qualified archaeologist be present during brushing or clearing operations. In the event that potentially significant cultural resources are Identified In the citrus groves, it may be necessary to conduct additional investigations. -5- �`Z�.f 1 `aLi`� yam( 'S�i cA� 1# • � � � p�. � Z \`�4�'��` ?` \\, •' � psi � _ � met �X bl �9�r �^{ � ��{ ��J• � •J `•R`��/}[���J�'S-� '.*I •�e. yt 99,l r �r tri .•�'i '[F� i•�.„C'i,.�f"�1 -.lw '2•. - -.,� 4 •s., � � -e �„�` .R,.r:� � tom, ; .Ai y Plate 1 • —.jam � ��� �y(.'J` ,.;,��.�'-af �,�''�" Top and Bottom: View of overgrown citrus groves which made access iGilUci Cu 6uriace visibility virtually nil. f x , Y " � A� a - r tii g, r� Plate II Top: Surveyor Jeff Linscheid standing on LaQ-3 in area of fire altered rock. Bottom: Location of LaQ-4 along abandoned road through dunes. Area of sherd concentration is immediately to the right of the sage brush In left center of photo. Graded house pad is in background adjacent to Palms. PH-2 DATE: Mob" STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 10, 1989 TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 21846 (REVISION #2 EXTENSION #2) APPLICANT: SUNRISE DESERT PARTNERS REQUEST: REVISION TO TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO MODIFY UNIT TYPES, THEIR LOCATIONS AND INCREASE TOTAL NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS WITHIN TRACT FROM 367 TO 434 UNITS ON 56.5 (INCLUDING LAKES) ACRES AND APPROVAL OF 2ND ONE YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR THE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP. LOCATION: IN PGA WEST, WITHIN THE AREA GENERALLY BOUNDED BY RIVIERA, TANGLEWOOD, AND ARNOLD PALMER. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DU/AC); PORTION OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 83-002 (PGA WEST). EXISTING ZONING: R-2 (MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT HAS BEEN PREPARED AND CERTIFIED FOR THE PGA WEST SPECIFIC PLAN WHICH THIS TRACT IS A PART. THEREFORE, NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS DEEMED NECESSARY. BACKGROUND: This ^entative Tract Map was originally approved on September 16, 1989, by the City Council. On November 1, 1988, a one year time extension was granted extending the approval period to October 7, 1989. The original map in 1986 allowed 308 units on +51.45 net acres (excluding lake areas). In addition to the extension, a minor change was allowed in November, 1988. That change increased the number of units allowed from 308 to 367 and added the "Greens" and "Fairways" models to the original "Legends" and "Champions" models. BJ/STAFFRPT.015 - 1 - To date, nine lots (Lots 1-8 and Lot 13) of the tract have been recorded with approximately 207 dwelling units constructed. Adjacent tracts on the west side of Firestone and Riviera, south side of Arnold Palmer, and on Shoal Creek also have residences constructed on them. The adjacent golf course and lakes surrounding the tract have also been constructed. PROJECT DESCRIPTION For the portions of the tract not yet recorded or constructed upon (Lots 9-12, 14-18), the Applicant is requesting approval to modify the unit types and their locations, and increase the total number of units in the tract from the approved 367 units to 434 units (additional 67 units). The existing approval and proposed modification would be as follows: LOT NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 APPROVED UNITS 10 Legends 8 Greens 24 " 21 if 48 if 16 if 40 it 32 it 24 " 24 " 24 " 32 ►� 8 Champions 9 Fairways 10 it 11 it 13 it 13 it TOTALS 367 PROPOSED UNITS 10 Legends 8 Greens 24 " 21 it 48 if 16 if 40 If 32 if 36 Medalists 36 if 36 It 36 If 8 Champions 8 Galleries 12 Legends 23 Champions 20 is 20 it 434 CHANGE IN UNIT COUNTS (+67) Constructed Approved Units(Total) 367 Proposed Units (Total)_ Legends 10 Legends 22 Champions 8 Champions 71 Greens 293 Greens 189 Fairways 56 Galleries 8 Medalists 144 Constructed 434 BJ/STAFFRPT.015 - 2 - The effect of the modification would be to add 67 new units to the tract. The majority of the units would be the new Medalists unit recently approved by the City. Gallery units would also be added to the tract. The Fairway units which were previously approved for the tract, are proposed to be deleted completely from the tract. As permitted by City Code and State requesting a second one year time extension the Final Map. This would be the last this tract. Approval of the tract would be 7, 1990, if this request is approved. ANALYSIS: Law, the Applicant is for recordation of extension allowed for valid till October 1. The basic changes proposed are as follows: A. Lots 1-8, & 13 - Residences constructed. B. Lots 9-12 - Replacing 104 Greens units with 144 Medalists units; replacing partial two story stacked 8-plexes with 5-curb cuts to garages with two story stacked 6-plexes, with 1-curb cut to garages. Narrower Medalists units will allow more views between units. Less curb cuts will allow more on street parking and increased landscaping in front setback areas. C. Lot 14 - Replacing 9 Fairway units with 8 Gallery units; replacing smaller (2280 - 2950 square feet) one story units with larger (3000 - 4000+ square feet) one story units. D. Lot 15 - Replacing 10 Fairway units with 12 Legends units; replacing one story detached units (2280 - 2940 square feet) with one story duplex through 4-plex units (2280 - 3050 square feet). E. Lots 16-18 - Replacing 37 Fairway units with 63 Champion units; replacing one story detached units (2280 - 2940 square feet) with one story (1330 - 2489+ square feet) duplex to 4-plex units. Change will increase width of structures and necessitate provision of 4 swimming pools/recreation areas. 2. Tentative Tract No. 21846 received approval on September 16, 1986 subject to conditions. On November 1, 1988, a minor change to allow modification of unit type, location, and increase from 308 to 367 units was granted. Additionally, the first of two allowed one year time extensions was granted for the Tract Map on October 25, 1988. BJ/STAFFRPT.015 - 3 - 3. The Specific Plan itself for PGA West identified a wide range of unit types to be constructed within PGA West. As a result, changes in marketing strategy and product demand can be accommodated, while also assuring design integrity through the design review process. 4. All of the unit types proposed, including the new Medalists have been approved for use in the project. Therefore, these types should be considered consistent with the provisions of the Specific Plan. 5. Condition No. 21 allows modification of the front yard setback for the Legends (15-feet), Greens (13.5-feet), and Fairways (13.5-feet) units. The Applicant has requested a modification to allow a 15-foot front setback for the 8 Gallery units and 144 Medalists units (in 24 buildings). This would be acceptable since at the front setback of these units would be side in garages. 6. Condition No. 22 allows the Planning and Development Department to grant a 10% change in the unit count, provided the change is consistent with the overall character of the project. The request is for 67 additional units or approximately 18% increase. This requires Planning Commission approval since the change exceeds 10%. This modification changes the density of the developable lot areas (excluding golf course and lake areas) from 7.9 to 9.3 units per acre. While this density may appear high, it would be lower if surrounding lakes, open space, recreation area and golf course were added to the acreage as would be done in a typical condominium project. In considering this aspect of the request, it is important to remember that varying market demand factors have a considerable impact on unit supply. The PGA West Specific Plan is really a nonspecific plan when considering density. It allows a gross density factor of 3 units per acre, but does not address density allocation through phasing or other means. Therefore, the Specific Plan for PGA West is a much more flexible plan in terms of density, primarily due to its long-range implications. In this regard, density considerations have been limited to maintaining zoning requirements and other development criteria within the context of the total number of units allowed. Because the currently approved number of units is far from the 5000 total units approved, and the requested changes to the Map generally conform to the Specific Plan approval, the La Quinta General Plan and other applicable requirements, the request of additional units could be allowed. With the next Tentative Tract Map in PGA West, Staff would like a compilation of all approved tracts and number of units so that we can verify the number of units approved to date. BJ/STAFFRPT.015 - 4 - FINDINGS: 1. The proposed modifications maintain the same building types (one story or two stories) as previously approved. 2. The units proposed have been approved for use in the project. 3. The change in unit type from Greens to Medalists will reduce necessary curb cuts from 5 to 1 per building, thus providing additional on street parking and additional landscaping in front yards. 4. The project provides excessive open space and recreational facilities. 5. The attached resolution provides additional findings for supporting approval of the requested modification and time extension. RECOMMENDATION• Move to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 89- , recommending approval of Tentative Tract No. 21846 (Revision #2) to the City Council, subject to conditions. Move to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 89- , recommending approval of a one year extension of time for Tentative Tract No. 21846, extending the approval expiration date to October 7, 1990. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Letter dated September 28, 1989, requesting extension of time. 3. Letter from Applicant showing approved and requested unit types and numbers. 4. Comments from City Departments and other 5. agencies. Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract No. 21846, adopted November 1, 1988. 6. Letter of protest. 7. Planning Commission Resolution No 89- recommending Revision #2 to City , Council. 8. Planning Commission Resolution No. 89- , recommending one year Extension of Time. 9. Tentative Tract No. 21846 (Revision #2) Exhibit. BJ/STAFFRPT.015 - 5 - CASE No. N O R T H TT 21846 (REV 2) SCALE: LOCATION MAP I NTS ATTACHMEN- national moQtqjAcjc & tAna company September 28, 1989 Mr. Jerry Herman Director of Planning and Development City of La Quinta 78-105 Calle Estado La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: Tentative Tract Map No. 21846 - Request for Time Extension Dear Mr. Her:.1nan: We respectfully request a one (1) year time extension of the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 21846. On November 1, 1988, the City Council approved a one (1) year time extension for the Tentative Tract Map. This request will extend the approval through November 1, 1990. Enclosed is a check in the amount of $75.00 for the required filing fee for a time extension. If you have any questions, or require any additional information in order to approve this request, please contact the undersigned. Thank you for your cooperation and assistance in this matter. Sincerely, SUNRISE COMP Allan Levin Vice President, Engineering AL/sl 005182 10 9158 09-29-89 10 CASH i TOTAL i 75 ATTACHMENT 42-600 COOK STREET, SUITE 200, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 • (619) 568-2828 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 21846 Subdivided 56.51 acres into 22 lots to accomodate 367 condomin- ium units and related golf course and recreational amenities. APPROVED REVISED CHANGE IN LOT NO. UNITS UNITS UNIT COUNTS 1 10 Legends 10 Legends (+ 0) 2 8 Greens 8 Greens (+ 0) 3 24 24 • (+ 0) 4 21 ' 21 " (+ 0) 5 48 48 (+ 0) 6 16 16 " (+ 0) 7 40 40 " (+ 0) 8 32 32 " (+ 0) 9 24 36 Medalists (+12) 10 24 ' 36 • (+12) 11 24 36 ' (+12) 12 32 36 (+ 4) 13 8 Champions 8 Champions (+ 0) 14 9 Fairways 8 Galleries (- 1) 15 10 12 Legends (+ 2) 16 11 23 Champions (+12) 17 13 20 (+ 7) 18 13 20 (+ 7) TOTAIjS 367 434 (+67 ) Approved Units 367 Proposed Units 434 Legends 10 Legends 22 Champions 8 Champions 71 Greens 293 Greens 189 Fairways 56 Galleries 8 Medalists 144 RECEIVED S E P 1 1989 CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT. ATTACHMENT ULVtLW4toLCd COMMITTEE iiL- VILW REQUEST FOR COMMENT PLANNING DIVISION F.D. vn LA (Nils, CA R2" PHONE: (619) 584-2246 TO: DATE: - 1 Q- - ,�5q - _ City Manager Public works/Engineering Fire Marshal C",munity Safety Department _ Building Division Chamber of Coviv*rce Cv�D _ Imperial Irrigation a.� Southern California Gas DSUSD CVUSD __Property Owner's Assor_i.ation CCa chella Valley - Palm Desert Disposal General Telephone __. Palmer Cable vision c_. Sunline Transit Caltrans (District 111 _ Agricultural Commission City of Indian Wells City of Indio Riverside County: Planning Department Environmental Health Sheriff's Department Road Department - - Archaeological Society SUBJECT: Coerents, Findings and Conditions concerning subject project. Ia► QuINTA CASE NO(s).`r��...�v(s_ =� PROJECT DESCRIPTION:'�����. PROJECT LOCATION: The City of La Qu nta opme eviear Committee is cow d sting an initial environmental study pursuant to the California Envirorucnental Quality Act (CEQA) for the above references! project(s). Attached is the information submitted by the project proponent. Your comments are requested with rappect to: R =C IV EU 1. Physical impacts the proj4ict presents on public resources, fac and/or services; t117 l �liRiaas 19% 2. Recommended conditions: a.) that you or your agency belie0tWuOU LA QUINT, mitigate any potential adverse effects; b.) or should app�y,�',,t q,`'r project design; c.) or improvements to satisfy other regoi-jtMftFdEL0FMEMT DE concerns which your agency is responsible; and 3. if you find that the identified impacts will have significant adverse effects on the environment which cannot be avoided through conditions, please recommend the scope and focus of additional study(ies) which may be helpful. Please send your response by __ You are invited to attend the DEVIjL-bp REVIIN COM IITMa- meet ng at tt-Fe La Quinta City hall scheduled fors Date: ^_asl-���...���.� Time: Contact Person: a !®F No mt/Cy�g1l�rYa M M WK i1 FA = " = VW Yt EMI 1� � tY Ils��pSR�� M�i/,�/i�®@ 04 Comiments made byr!*f' Date Tit13 Phone Ag`ncy/Division ATTACHMENT UL� V f- IL k.0I &ttt—ii I ittom. W i%- VV COMMITTEE REQUEST UPI URTA NI1" C4112 VISA ®.D. IVA PLANNING DIVISION PHONE: (itt) EE4-2246 To: DATE: ��.14 -j!5q— _�:� City Manager palm Desert Disposal P,,jblic Storks/Engineering General Telephone � � C � � y � Fire Marshal _ Palmer Cable Vision Ccmnunity Safety Department Sunline Transit Building Division Caltrans (District 11) AUG Chamber of Co:,meres a� r Agricultural Commission C`)WD - City of rndian Wells Imperial Irrigation City of Indio Southern California Gas Riverside County: _X_ DSUSD _r planning Department _V°USD Environmental Health C _w lr ��praperty 4i Sheriff's Department Owner's Association _ _p Road Department - -- - Cr. oche I la Valley -- - - Archaeological Society SUBJECT: Comments, Findings and Conditions concerning subject project. �� LA QUINTA CASE No(S).M � _� � t`d --� _f��vis o� --, 5;, 0PROJBCT DESCRIPTION: itOJECT LOCATION: ?(_GGf'- i I bzl.i p,d v , Q� +Ltcxa o -ri e.�e City of La Quinfa Uvelopment-&eview Cc���nittee'Is conducting an initial r,. N Mvironmental study pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act r^_ ■,�EQA) for the above referenced project(s). Attached is the information OC � ' sulsaitted by the project proponent. C: CO Mt a cO ur coirumnts are requested with reppect to: 1. Physical impacts the project presents on public resources, facilities, -� and/or servicesi 1. 9tecoaTended conditional a.) that you or your agency believe vauld mitigate any potential adverse effects; b.) or should apply to the project design; e.) or improvements to satisfy other regulations and concerns which your agency is responsiblsI and 3. If you find that the identified impacts will have significant adverse effects on the environment which cannot be avoided through conditions, please recommend the scope and focus of additional studylles) which may be helpful. Please send your response by.'��� You are invited to attend th*--DMLOPMF.4T RZVrZV COMMITTEE meeting at tie Wa Quinta City hall scheduled fort Date: Time: Contact Person:�� nmarswt�oat��tmar�swna�i�s�ea�wra�nterist�ap�asss�tssusa��tesmtus�esits®asps �-- No additional comments at this time. Comments made by: w JimReeder_ Date August 18, 1989 ritla Fire Protection Specialist phone Agency/Division Riverside County Fire Departmental �_ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 9aS COMPANY 1981 arONIA AVENUE, REDLANDS CALIFORNIA MAILING ADDRESS P 0 BOX 3003 REDLANDS. CALIFORNIA 92373-0306 August 18, 1989 City of La Quinta Planning Department 78-105 Calle Estrado La Quinta, California 92253 AVI'EN'I'ION: Stan Sawa RE: TT-21846 r The Southern California Gas Company has a gas main in PGA Blvd. near the project. Distribution lines could be extended from these mains to serve the proposed ;;®•„e lc,� ent w;thout any significant impact on the environment. The service would be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on iiie with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made. The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, is based public upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory po licies. As autility, the Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California :Public Utilities Commission. We can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action which affects gas supply or the conditions tinder which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised conditions. Typical demand use for: a. residential (System Area Average/Use Per Meter) Yearly Single Family 799 therms/year dwelling unit Multi -Family 4 or less units 482 therms/year dwelling unit Multi -Family 5 or more units 483 therms/year dwelling unit These averages are based on total gas consumption in residential units served by Southern California Gas Company, and it should not be implied that any particular home, apartment or tract of homes will use these amounts of energy. b. Commercial Due to the fact that construction varies so widely (a glass building vs. a heavily insulated building) and there is such a wide variation in types of materials and equipment used, a typical demand figure is not available for this type of construction. Calculations would need to be made after the building has been designed. To insure the existing facilities are adequate to accommodate the new development, an engineering study will be required. Detailed information including tract maps and plot plans must be submitted to the Gas Company Market Services Representa- tive, 1--800-624-2497, six months prior to the actual construction of the natural gas pipeline. We have developed several programs which are available, upon request, to provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy conservation techniques for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy conservation programs, please contact our Area Market Services Manager, P.O. Box 3CO3, Redlands, CA 92373-0306, phone 1-800-624-2497. Sincerely, Roger L. Ba an Technical Supervisor RLB.vjg cc: Environ Affairs - ML209B C� 0 UG L. '.„r I I t $ -4 �_. X-t °°�� ACST- CK i o -OJk;AATE -----d _ ___ EIZVIONS M SErN tCd Nth t:4v P.O. son IRK L3 Web, CA V PLANNING DiVi i� l�` le "'K� FIIE w; 6{0) 504-2246 p._.p.._W.�.,�.,.�...�.n.....,,m....,,.�....,m�, TO. DATZ: v8__j4' -c5- )C City Manager � Palm Desert Disposal Public Works/Engineering General Telephone Fire Marshal M� Palmer Cable vision m CcATunity Safety Department Sunlina Transit Z 1 �g _ Building Division Caltrans (District 11) Chamber of Coacerce Agricultural Commission p03 y��P►. _ CVW City of Indian wells LN Q OEg imperial Irrigation _ City of Indio C%-Y DLO E� Southern California Gas Riverside County: _X_ DSUSD _ .__ Planning Department HEN _ CvUSD Environmental Health _.S�_ _ m._ IA 1 ,-_ Property Sheriff's Department (a-11- VI Corner's Association _ -� Road Department - - - Archaeological Society SUBJECT: C04Tments, Findings and Conditions concerning subject project. LA QUINTA CASE�VdS1op_- Z� PROJECT DESCRIPTION: :PRWECT LOCATION: f' �!1r - cr,�c�-•cam t14 Ix_ A:i l , yx4 �,�-. The City of La, Quin"air le oxrent Review Committee". icW,%,d cting an initial environmental study pursuant to the California Enviroranental Quality Act (CEQA) for the above referenced project(a). Attached is the information rrubnitted by the projact proponent. Your c cents are requested with reppect to: 1. Physical impacts the project presents on public resources, facilities, and/or services; 2. Reccrrmended conditions: a.) that you or your agency believe would mitigate any potential adverse effectst b.) or should apply to the project designs c.) or improvements to satisfy other regulations and concerns which your agency is responsible; and 3. if you find that the identified impacts will have significant adverse effects on the environment which cannot be avoided through conditions, please recommend the scope and focus of additional study(!es) which may be helpful. Please send your response by l/l LL5 You are invited to attend the DMLO 8E eeeti st� tom' Quints City hall scheduled for: Data: GtC"w Time: Contact Person: � .A_ ASaAAYX. w"NMonMMIMM no M 1W SM = M ps ME so w®swwae.o.w..o..�s�a.,wasw.� 5EE Comments made by:;� p► •s—.�..� Date Tit13 �Cl-1-. is id-u�. �k!'S _ _ Phone 3TK-•LbS" 1 Agency/Division G •V \rj• 0 . CONDITIONS OF APPROVAI. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 21846, E?MKNSION #1 - SUNRISE COMPANY NOVFMBE:R 1, 1988 GENERAL 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 21846 shall comply with the requirements and standards of the State Subdivision Map Act and the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance, unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. 2. This tentative tract map approval shall expire as provided by Government Code Section 66452.6 or other applicable sections, unless approved for extension pursuant to the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance. j. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the Applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: o City Eire Marshal o City ;Engineer o Planning Department o Coachella Valley dater District o Riverside County Environmental Health Department o Desert Sands Unified School 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. SOILS AND GEOLOGY 4. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the Applicant shall submit a grading plan for review and approval by the City Engineer. The grading plan shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer; and adequate provision shall be made to certify that the constructed condition at the rough grade stage are as per the approved plans and grading permits. Certification at the final grade stage and verification of pad elevations is also required prior to final approval of grading construction. - 1 - Bi/CONAPRVL . 007 ATTACHMENT CONDITIONS OF " ',RUVAL e 71" 21846 Noveanber 1, 19bo Page 2 5. A thorough preliminary engineering geological and soils engineering investigation shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any building permits. Pursuant to Section 11568 of the Business and Professions Code, the soils report certification shall be indicated on the final subdivision map. HYDROLOGY WATER CONSERVATION 6. Drainage disposal facilities shall be provided as required by the City Engineer. 7. Prior to approval of any portion of the final tract map, the Applicant shall prepare a hydrological analysis for approval by the City Engineer which will indicate method and design to protect the development from the 100-year flood and any flooding caused from a breach of embankment of Lane Ca ;u"' a Or the Coachella Canal. This plan shall be consistent with the purposes of any similar plans of the Redevelopment Agency and/or the Coachella Valley Water District. (NOTE: Hydrological analysis is complete and its recommendations shall be considered with improvement plans for each subsequent tract phase. S. Prior to approval of building permits, the Applicant shall prepare a water conservation plan which will adequately indicate the following: a. Methods to minimize the consumption of water usage including, but not limited to, water saving fixtures, drought -tolerant and native landscaping, and programs to minimize landscape irrigation. b. Methods for minimizing the effects of increased on -site surface water runoff and increased groundwater recharge. 9. That surface runoff water from landscape irrigation systems shall be minimized with the installation of drip, bubbler systems and other water conservation measures. Also, that a system of catch basins shall be incorporated into the landscaped common areas of the project in order to contain on -site surface water runoff. 10. The Applicant shall utilize dust control measures in accordance with the Municipal Code and the Uniform Building Code and subject to the approval of the City Engineer. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 11. The Applicant shall develop all roads (private streets) applicable to Tentative Tract No. 21846 to the requirements of the City Engineer and the standards of - 2 - BJ/CONAPRVL.007 CONDITIONS OF 1 R10VAL - f M 21846 November 1, 198o Page 3 the La Quinta Municipal Code. The street improvement plan shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer. Street improvements including traffic signs and markings shall conform to City standards as determined by the City Engineer and as adopted by the La Quinta Municipal Code. 12. The Pipplicant shall comply with the following requirements regarding private street improvements: a. All roadways within Tentative Tract No. 21846 sha-11 be developed in accordance with the design standards specified in Specific Plan No. 83-002 (PGA west Specific Plan) as conditionally approved. b. All roadways within Tentative Tract No. 21846 shall remain private and be maintained as such. C. Temporary cul-de-sacs of at least 90 feet in diameter shall be provided at the end of Lots 14 and 15 per Exhibit A, Minor Change 41. As an alternative to cul-de-sac improvements, the Applicant may improve "Shoal Creek" and "Riviera" streets northerly to all-weather streets, per Exhibit "A", to connect. A plan for cul-de-sac and/or all-weather access shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Fire Marshal and City Engineer prior to recordation of any remaining phases of Tentative Tract No. 21846. All improvements as specified by the City Fire Marshal and City Engineer shall be made prior to issuance of building permits for Tentative Tract No. 21846. d. A plan showing proposed parking along the private road system shall be submitted for review and approval to the Planning Department. The plan shall designate "no parking" areas and indicate the method of identifying them. e. The width of all interior drives where residential units are to be located along shall be a minimum of 32-feet. 1.3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning and Development Department indicating non -automotive means of transportation within the project including, but not limited to, bicycle and pedestrian paths. PUBLIC SERVICE AND UTILI`rIES 14. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City Fire Marshal. The following conditions shall be met/certified prior to the issuance of any building permit within Tract No. 21846, except that the Fire - 3 - 'SJ/CONAPRVL.007 CONDITIONS OF I 1R©VAL - rl" 21846 ilvvember 1, 198o Page 4 Marshal approve alternate means of compliance where deemed appropriate and equivalent to these standards: a. Fire hydrants. Install super fire hydrants (6" X 4" X 2 1/2" 2 1/211) at each street intersection. In no event shall the hydrants be installed at intervals exceeding 330-feet between hydrants. b. All water ,mains shall be capable of providing a potential fire flow of 2500 GPM and an actual fird flow of 1500 GPM from any one hydrant connected to any given water main for a two hour duration at a 20 PSI residual operating pressure. C. Required fire flow must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 15. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Coachella valley Water District. a. The water and sewage disposal systems shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the City and the Coachella Valley Water District. b. When there are identified conflicts with existing cvWD facilities, the City will withhold the issuance of any building pen -nit until arrangements have been made with the District for the relocation of these facilities. 16. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Imperial Irrigation District prior to issuance of building permits. Applicant shall provide written clearance to the City Planning and Development Department that Imperial Irrigation District can provide service to this development. 17. All utility improvements to the project shall be installed underground. SCHOOLS 18. In order to mitigate impact on public school, the Applicant shall comply with the following: a. Prior to the issuance of any building permits within Tentative Tract Map No.21846, the Applicant shall provide the Building Official with written clearance form the Desert Sands Unified School District stating that the per unit impact fees have been paid. }3UILDING AND SITE DESIGN 19. The development of the site and buildings shall comply with Exhibits A, B, B-F1,B-F-2, B-F3, B-GA, B-GB, B-Ad, 4 - '8,7 / C0NAPRVL . 0 0 7 C+ NDITICANS OF V 'ROYAL - 1114 21846 November 1, 198` Page 5 B-Au, B-Be B-Cs B-Do B-E, C-F1, C-F1A, C-F2, C-F2A, C-F31 C-F'3A, C-GA, and C--GB, pursuant to the Planning and Development Department's Tentative Tract Map No. 21846 file as conditionally approved, and in accordance with the file for Tentative Tract 21846, Minor Change #1. The following building and site design conditions shall take precedence in the event of any conflicts with the provisions of the tentative tract map. 20. All roof. -mounted mechanical equipment shal r be screened from view at all sides by the roof design. Any ground. -mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from view by methods approved by the Planning Department. 21. 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 d%.•ellirg units in the project, with the following exceptions: 1.) The "Legends" (Plan 40) is permitted to have a 15-foot setback to accommodate an accessory golf cart storage structure. 2.) The "Greens" (Building "A1l) and the Fairways (Plan F1 and F2A) are permitted to have a 13.5 foot front setback at the side entry garage areas. b. A minimum sideyard setback of 5-feet (10-feet between building complexes) shall be required on all residential units. 22. Any minor changes in the tentative tract maps including, but not limited to, total number of units, unit locations, unit orientation, unit mix changes, exterior building color changes, changes in lot lines, lot shape modifications, changes in lot dimensions and street alignment alterations shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. A change in the total number of units shall not exceed ten percent (10%) of the remaining unbuilt approved units. All changes shall be deemed compatible with approved unit designs, and shall be consistent with the overall character of the project. NOISE 23. Prior to building permit approval, building setbacks, engineering design, orientation of buildings, and noise barriers shall be utilized to reduce noise impacts from nearby existing and future roadways to within the State standards. (NOTE: Noise analysis is complete and its recommendations shall be considered in building and wall plans.) - 5 - BJ%CnNAPRVL.007 CONDITIONS OF PROVAL - TTK 21846 November 1, 19Vd Page 6 24. Prior to approval of precise development plans, the Applicant will demonstrate that residential structures satisfy the State's indoor criterion. Where exposed to noise levels in excess of State standards, Applicant shall install special design features such as double -glazed windows, mechanical ventilation, special roof venting, increased insulation, weather-stripping, or combinations of these and similar measures. (NOTE: Noise analysis is complete and its recommendations shall be considered in -building and wall plan.) ARCHAEOLOGY 2:5. If buried remains are encountered during development, a gUalified archaeologist shall be contacted immediately and appropriate mitigation measures shall be taken. MISCELLANEOUS 26. No occupancy permit will be issued for any dwelling unit until the surrounding golf course and common landscaped areas have been planted and matured to mitigate localized blowing dust. 27. Prior to final map recordation, the Applicant shall submit a tentative time schedule of tract map development phasing as .it relates to the phased implementation of Specific Plan No. 83-002. This schedule shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Department. 28. Prior to issuance of building -permits, the Applicant shall submit grading, landscape and irrigation plans to Coachella Valley Water District for review and comment with respect to CVWD's Water Management Plan. Final landscape and irtigaion system approval shall be obtained from the Planning and Development Department. 29. Applicant shall submit plans for street lighting, if any, along roads for review and approval by the Planning Department. 30. All signing within PGA West including Tentative Tract No. 21846 shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Department. 31. Provision shall be made to comply with the provisions and requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee Program in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 6 '8J /CCNA,?RVL . 007 BUDOR INVESTMENTS LTD. 477 DRIVER WAY BOX 3146 INCLINE VII.LAGE. NV 89450RF-TE (702) 831-7142 o C T 2 1989 CITY OF LA QuitiTA PLANTN":, S DEVELOPiMENT DEFT. September 29, 1989 City of La Quinta Planning Commission P.O. Sox 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Att: Chairman, Public Hearing Scheduled October 10,1989 Tentative Tract 21846 (Revision No.2) Dear Sir: This letter is written in response to the notice of Public Hearing regarding the above item, and represents the concerns of all partners holding an interest in BUDOR INV LTD, the owner of property located at 55177 Firestone, La Quinta 92253. As we understand the proposed request for revision to tentative tract cap 21846, Sunrise intends to increase the density of housing to be constructed on property fronting on the lath, 12th an 13th holes of the Arnold Palmer course at PGA West. As a property owner with a view across these golf holes, we object to the proposed increase in density on the basis that, 1) such an increase in potential population will not only cause a deterioration of our view but also raise the level of traffic and noise beyond that which was expected by purchasers of property on Firestone and 2) the representatives of Sunrise failed to disclose to us at the time we purchased our property(February 1988) that there would be other than the three levels of homes on or around the Palmer course,- the Classics, Legends and Champions. In fact there was clear implication that there would be only Champion or Legend models built in the future on the undeveloped lots within the Arnold Palmer gate. Within a few weeks of closing the purchase on our home, to our surprise, Sunrise introduced "The Greens", a high density development directly across the street from our home. These models, which were approximately half the square footage of our Legend 40 model, were two story and were constructed to appeal to a totally different market than purchasers of the three model groups offered at the time we bought our home. Sunrise did not disclose to us that the "Greens" would be built on Firestone and we had no opportunity to voice our objection at a hearing such as this one. ATTACHMENT Now it appears that Sunrise is requesting a change again which by any standard is a violation of good faith and in conflict with a previous pledge that PGA homes would be of no greater density than the three models offered in early 1988. These changes or downgrading of the character and design of the PGA complex threatens to cause a significant decrease in the value of our home and the homes of our neighbors in the Arnold Palmer course complex and on behalf of BUD®R INV LTD partners, I hereby submit our objection to the proposal and plead for the Commission to deny the request to revise Tentative Tract 21846. Sinc rely, P-nerl r Partner PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89-�- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 21846 (REVISION #2) TO MODIFY UNIT TYPES, THEIR LOCATIONS AND INCREASE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS FROM 367 TO 434 UNITS AT PGA WEST. CASE NO. TT 21846 (REVISION #2) SUNRISE DESERT PARTNERS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the loth day of October, 1989, hold a duly --noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Sunrise Desert Partners to modify unit types, their locations, and increase the total number of dwelling units from 367 to 434 units on 56.5 acres (including lakes) in the R-2 Zone, more particularly described as: A PORTION OF THE EAST 1/2 OF SECTION 17, T6S, R7E, S.B.B.M. WHEREAS, said Tentative Map has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (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 part of the proposed Tentative Tract is a part of and is consistent with the PGA West Specific Plan, for which an Environmental Impact Report was certified on May 1, 1984. WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts to justify the approval of said Tentative Tract Map: 1. That Tentative Tract No. 21846, as conditionally approved, is consistent with the PGA West Specific Plan, the goals, policies, and intent of the La Quinta General Plan, and the standards of the Municipal Land Division Ordinance in that the Tract complies with the land use designation for low density residential development. 2. That the subject site is physically suitable for the proposed land division. 3. That the design of Tentative Tract Map No. 21846 will not cause substantial environmental damage or injury to fish or wildlife, or their habitat. BJ/RESOPC.018 - 1 - 4. That the design of the subdivision, as conditionally approved, will not cause serious public health problems. 5. The proposed subdivision is not development specific and will not result in any violation of existing requirements prescribed by the Coachella Valley Water District and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. 6. The proposed modifications maintain the same building types (one story or two stories) as previously approved. 7. The units proposed have been approved for use in the project. 8. The change in unit type from "Greens" to "Medalists" will reduce necessary curb cuts from 5 to 1 per building thus providing additional on street parking and additional landscaping in front yards. 9. The project provides excessive open space and recreational facilities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion that the previous Environmental Impact Report for the PGA West Specific Plan assessed the environmental concerns of this Tentative Tract Revision; 3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the above -described Tentative Tract Map No. 21846 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached revised conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 10th day of October, 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JOHN WALLING, Chairman ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director BJ/RESOPC.018 - 2 - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 21846, REVISION #2 SUNRISE DESERT PARTNERS OCTOBER 10, 1989 GENERAL 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 21846 shall comply with the requirements and standards of the State Subdivision Map Act and the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance, unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. 2. This tentative tract map approval shall expire on October 7, 1990 as provided by Government Code Section 66452.6 or other applicable sections. 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the Applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: o City Fire Marshal o City Engineer o Planning Department o Coachella Valley Water District o Riverside County Environmental Health Department o Desert Sands Unified School 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. 4. 434 units are approved for Tentative Tract No. 21846 (Revision #2) per Exhibit "C" on file in the Planning and Development Department. SOILS AND GEOLOGY 5. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the Applicant shall submit a grading plan for review and approval by the City Engineer. The grading plan shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer; and adequate provision shall be made to certify that the constructed condition at the rough grade stage are as per the approved plans and grading permits. BJ/CONAPRVL.018 - 1 - Certification at the final grade stage and verification of pad elevations is also required prior to final approval of grading construction. 6. A thorough preliminary engineering geological and soils engineering investigation shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any building permits. Pursuant to Section 11568 of the Business and Professions Code, the soils report certification shall be indicated on the final subdivision map. HYDROLOGY/WATER CONSERVATION 7. Drainage disposal facilities shall be provided as required by the City Engineer. 8. Prior to approval of any portion of the final tract map, the Applicant shall prepare a hydrological analysis for approval by the City Engineer which will indicate method and design to protect the development from the 100-year flood and any flooding caused from a breach of embankment of Lake Cahuilla or the Coachella Canal. This plan shall be consistent with the purposes of any similar plans of the Redevelopment Agency and/or the Coachella Valley Water District. (NOTE: Hydrological analysis is complete and its recommendations shall be considered with improvement plans for each subsequent tract phase. 9. Prior to approval of building permits, the Applicant shall prepare a water conservation plan which will adequately indicate the following: A. Methods to minimize the consumption of water usage including, but not limited to, water saving fixtures, drought -tolerant and native landscaping, and programs to minimize landscape irrigation. B. Methods for minimizing the effects of increased on -site surface water runoff and increased groundwater recharge. 10. That surface runoff water from landscape irrigation systems shall be minimized with the installation of drip, bubbler systems and other water conservation measures. Also, that a system of catch basins shall be incorporated into the landscaped common areas of the project in order to contain on -site surface water runoff. 11. The Applicant shall utilize dust control measures in accordance with the Municipal Code and the Uniform Building Code and subject to the approval of the City Engineer. BJ/CONAPRVL.018 - 2 - TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 12. The Applicant shall develop all roads (private streets) applicable to Tentative Tract No. 21846 to the requirements of the City Engineer and the standards of the La Quinta Municipal Code. The street improvement plan shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer. Street improvements including traffic signs and markings shall conform to City standards as determined by the City Engineer and as adopted by the La Quinta Municipal Code. 13. The Applicant shall comply with the following requirements regarding private street improvements: A. All roadways within Tentative Tract No. 21846 shall be developed in accordance with the design standards specified in Specific Plan No. 83-002 (PGA West Specific Plan) as conditionally approved. B. All roadways within Tentative Tract No. 21846 shall remain private and be maintained as such. C. Temporary cul-de-sacs of at least 90 feet in diameter shall be provided at the end of Lots 14 and 15 per Exhibit A, Minor Change #1• As an alternative to cul-de-sac improvements, the Applicant may improve "Shoal Creek" and "Riviera" streets northerly to all-weather streets, per Exhibit "A", to connect. A plan for cul-de-sac and/or all-weather access shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Fire Marshal and City Engineer prior to recordation of any remaining phases of Tentative Tract No. 21846. All improvements as specified by the City Fire Marshal and City Engineer shall be made prior to issuance of building permits for Tentative Tract No. 21846. D. A plan showing proposed parking along the private road system shall be submitted for review and approval to the Planning Department. The plan shall designate "no parking" areas and indicate the method of identifying them. E. The width of all interior drives where residential units are to be located along shall be a minimum of 32-feet. 14. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning and Development Department indicating non -automotive means of transportation within the project including, but not limited to, bicycle and pedestrian paths. BJ/CONAPRVL.018 - 3 - PUBLIC SERVICE AND UTILITIES 15. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City Fire Marshal. The following conditions shall be met/certified prior to the issuance of any building permit within Tract No. 21846, except that the Fire Marshal approve alternate means of compliance where deemed appropriate and equivalent to these standards: A. Fire Hydrants. Install super fire hydrants (6" X 411 X 2 1/2" 2 1/211) at each street intersection. In no event shall the hydrants be installed at intervals exceeding 330-feet between hydrants. B. All water mains shall be capable of providing a potential fire flow of 2500 GPM and an actual fire flow of 1500 GPM from any one hydrant connected to any given water main for a two hour duration at a 20 PSI residual operating pressure. C. Required fire flow must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 16. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Coachella Valley Water District. A. The water and sewage disposal systems shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the City and the Coachella Valley Water District. B. When there are identified conflicts with existing CVWD facilities, the City will withhold the issuance of any building permit until arrangements have been made with the District for the relocation of these facilities. 17. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Imperial Irrigation District prior to issuance of building permits. Applicant shall provide written clearance to the City Planning and Development Department that Imperial Irrigation District can provide service to this development. 18. All utility improvements to the project shall be installed underground. SCHOOLS 19. In order to mitigate impact on public school, the Applicant shall comply with the following: a. Prior to the issuance of any building permits within Tentative Tract Map No.21846, the Applicant shall provide the Building Official with written clearance form the Desert Sands Unified School District stating that the per unit impact fees have been paid. BJ/CONAPRVL.018 - 4 - BUILDING AND SITE DESIGN 20. The development of the site and buildings shall comply with Exhibits A, B, B-F1,B-F-2, B-F3, B-GA, B-GB, B-Ad, B-Au, B-B, B-C, B-D, B-E, C-F1, C-F1A, C-F2, C-F2A, C-F3, C-F3A, C-GA, and C-GB, pursuant to the Planning and Development Department's Tentative Tract Map No. 21846 file as conditionally approved, and in accordance with the file for Tentative Tract 21846, Minor Change #1 and Revision #2. The following building and site design conditions shall take precedence in the event of any conflicts with the provisions of the tentative tract map. 21. All roof -mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from view at all sides by the roof design. Any ground -mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from view by methods approved by the Planning Department. 22. 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, with the following exceptions: 1.) The "Legends" (Plan 40) is permitted to have a 15-foot setback to accommodate an accessory golf cart storage structure. 2.) The "Greens" (Building "A") and the "Fairways" (Plan F1 and F2A) are permitted to have a 13.5 foot front setback at the side entry garage areas. 3.) The "Gallaries" and "Medalists" units are permitted to have a 15-foot front setback. B. A minimum sideyard setback of 5-feet (10-feet between building complexes) shall be required on all residential units. 23. Any minor changes in the tentative tract maps including, but not limited to, total number of units, unit locations, unit orientation, unit mix changes, exterior building color changes, changes in lot lines, lot shape modifications, changes in lot dimensions and street alignment alterations shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. A change in the total number of units shall not exceed ten percent (10%) of the remaining unbuilt approved units. All changes shall be deemed compatible with approved unit designs, and shall be consistent with the overall character of the project. BJ/CONAPRVL.018 - 5 - RIQUIR10 24. Prior to building permit approval, building setbacks, engineering design, orientation of buildings, and noise barriers shall be utilized to reduce noise impacts from nearby existing and future roadways to within the State standards. (NOTE: Noise analysis is complete and its recommendations shall be considered in building and wall plans.) 25. Prior to approval of precise development plans, the Applicant will demonstrate that residential structures satisfy the State's indoor criterion. Where exposed to nose levels in excess of State standards, Applicant shall install special design features such as double -glazed windows, mechanical ventilation, special roof venting, increased insulation, weather-stripping, or combinations of these and similar measures. (NOTE: Noise analysis is complete and its recommendations shall be considered in building and wall plan.) ARCHAEOLOGY 26. If buried remains are encountered during development, a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted immediately and appropriate mitigation measures shall be taken. MISCELLANEOUS 27. No occupancy permit will be issued for any dwelling unit until the surrounding golf course and common landscaped areas have been planted and matured to mitigate localized blowing dust. 28. Prior to final map recordation, the Applicant shall submit a tentative time schedule of tract map development phasing as it relates to the phased implementation of Specific Plan No. 83--002. This schedule shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Department. 29. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall submit grading, landscape and irrigation plans to Coachella Valley Water District for review and comment with respect to CVWD's Water Management Plan. Final landscape and irrigtion system approval shall be obtained from the Planning and Development Department. 30. Applicant shall submit plans for street lighting, if any, along roads for review and approval by the Planning Department. BJ/CONAPRVL.018 - 6 - 31. All signing within PGA West including Tentative Tract No. 21846 shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Department. 32. Provision shall be made to comply with the provisions and requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee Program in effect at the time of building permit issuance. BJ/CONAPRVL.018 - 7 - PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDING A SECOND ONE-YEAR TIME EXTENSION TO OCTOBER 7, 1990. CASE NO. TT 21846 - SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the loth day of October, 1989, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by SUNRISE DESERT PARTNERS for approval of a one year extension of time for Tentative Tract No. 21846 generally located in the northwest portion of the PGA West Specific Plan, more particularly described as follows: A PORTION OF THE EAST 1/2 OF SECTION 17 T6S, R7E, S.B.B.M. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approved a one year extension of time for Tentative Tract No. 21846, in accordance with Section 13.16.230 of the La Quinta Municipal Code relating to the extension on October 25, 1988; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 26th day of August, 1988, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing on the Environmental Analysis and the request to subdivide 105.28 acres into a 22-lot residential subdivis-on; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 16th day of September, 1986, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the Applicant's request and recommendation of the Planning Commission concerning the Environmental Analysis and Tentative Tract Map No. 21846; and, WHEREAS, said Tentative Map complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (County of Riverside, Resolution No. 82-213, adopted by reference in City of La Quinta Ordinance No. 5), in that the Planning Director, determined that the EIR prepared for the overall PGA West Specific Plan addressed potential impacts of the subject tract as part of the overall development, and that the appropriate mitigation measures identified in the EIR would address the potential impacts of Tentative Tract #21846; and, WHEREAS, at the Public Hearing held on September 16, 1986, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did make findings to justify the approval of said Tentative Tract map; and, BJ/RESOPC.019 - 1 WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, said Tentative Tract Map No. 21846 was approved by the La Quinta City Council based on said findings and subject to certain conditions; and, WHEREAS, the original Applicant, the Sunrise Desert Partners, has applied for this second Extension of Time for Tentative Tract 21846, in accordance with Section 13.16.230 of the La Quinta Municipal Code relating to time extensions on tentative maps; and, WHEREAS, the La Quinta Planning Commission, on October 10, 1989, did find the following facts to justify recommending approval of said extension of time: 1. That Tentative Tract No. 21846, as conditionally approved, is generally consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan, and the standards of the Municipal Land Division and Land Use Ordinances. 2. The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed subdivision. 3. That the design. of Tentative Tract Map 21846 will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public -at -large, for access through the project since alternate easements for access and for use have been provided that are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public. 4. The environmental impacts associated with the proposed project have been adequately addressed in the certified Environmental Impact Report prepared for the entire PGA West Specific Plan. The significant impacts presented by this project will be appropriately mitigated though conditions of approval for the project to the extent feasible. S. Adherence to the current and proposed changes to conditions of approval will ensure that the project will not be likely to cause substantial environmental damage and that impacts on wildlife habitat will be mitigated to the extent feasible. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; BJ/RESOPC.019 - 2 - 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the above -described second Extension of Time for Tentative Tract Map No. 21846 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the Conditions of Approval as revised on October 10, 1989. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this loth day of October, 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JOHN WALLING, Chairman ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director BJ/RESOPC.019 - 3 - RE.E.AV ® OCT 1. 01989 CITY OF LA QUINTA PUNNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT. TO; City Council or La Quinta RE: TT 21846- Revision #2 I voice strong opposition to the 2nd In the PGA West project in the area Tangl.ewood and Arnold Palmer, based ?Rio-r0g-sT iT a -I I4(0 rev � 5unpusa October 10, 1989 revision request by Sunrise Builders generally bounded by Riveria, on the following factors: I. It Is my belief that the Planning and Development Department is wrong in allowing the EIR that was prepared based on the original PGA West Specific Plan to address the impact of increasing by 30% or more the eensity in just one zone of one tract of the original plan. Changes Lo other tracts in PGA West have been changed, but no other tract has been so Rignificantly increased in density. I find it hard to believe that further study of impacts of traffic, fire and security are not in order. 2. While not a direct cunceru to the city, the present residentu of PGA WeuL are concerned by the impact of such increase density un our future association dues. This should not be overlooked by the ciey council just because it is not the council that will be increasing; Lhoue dues. You will recall the residents of PGA West Just received a tax increase to cover the cost assumed by the city in taking over maintenance of the road medians on 52nd and Jefferson. These were medians that were projects of Landmark, approved by ,_city of LaQuinta Council, and now paid for by the residents of PGA West. You aA Council members therefore should surely understand our concern as residents regarding the "ripple effect" of such an increase in donsity In housing all being concentrated in one tract. 3. I am concerned that what was originally dersigned as a quiet and controlled growth project in a eoi=unity of the sank nature, is being allowed to grow far too rapidly. So many changes have been requested, it seems time to lout the changes back into the perspective of the overall intent. We have got to look past "sal.es volumes" and "sales market". Those of us already living in the community have got to be c.onRldered for we purchased our homes based on considerations such as density, view, and traffic as well as golf and tennis. What I see happening is the Stadium side remaining low density, quiet living, Palmer aside becoming "apartment resort" living, and at the end of PGA Boulevard we have "resort city living". Please take these concerns not :just css "HnL.i growth" statementta because theproposed changes are occuring across the fairway from my home. niece are concerns because it seems to the thaL the beautiful intent of the originaly concept of. PGA West is quickly being squandered. All I ask is further study be done by ALL parties affected so that PGA West trully stays a quality project, not just ayJau her project rae Arrants q5_17% glinal rraalr OCT 10 1989 CM Ur- LA QU NTA PLANNING' & DEYELOPMEW DEPT. U- L'A OUINIA FL.Ahdi` IOS CQI'MISSICcl1 PR011wresr TT .Q Ig/{G (4e, V a.) 5unr-iso moo. RE: FURL l C HEPR I NG ON OCTOBE R 10, 1989 89 We strongly object to the proposal submitted by Sunrise Company to increase the density on the Arnold Palmer Course, at PGA WEST. The roa=_cns for those objections include the following: 1. This represents a 20 % increase of units in the designated area on the Palmer Course. E. That represents a potential increase of an additional 134 motor vechicles„ which in turn causes: a) substantial deterioration of traffic conditions and safety b � ad "ersc environmental influences S. Wi.17 have a significant adverse impact on the ,'iUW9 ans/or promised future view of a 'substantial number of =';zstYrg homy„s. 4. The increase o" 6 7 units as proposed will overlc- ad the existing and proposed recreational facilities. Sunrise Company and the city of La Quinta entered into a moral, if not legally enforceable, contract with the ef-fectcd home owner's that: the dens iry for the area in question would not be increased. Purchasers relied upon the reprasentatiorE of Sunrise Companv as to the type and drn=_ity of r'earb,,, .hits. this proposal amounts to a blatant violation of ':hu e 1 ezresantatlons„ ks pronertv owners in the city of La l..!u i nta we rcl i uoon the city :o hold devolope=rs to those cDmmltm2intsa Wn asked that tgls proposal bf Sunri _c be rujactc:da If not relzctedq at lc -ass pos:ponod =_o that the true measure of opposition can be communicated. Many of the effected hom D4ners who would voice strong opposition are unable :.o do =_D becauso of the off-season timing of this request. We are aware that we haws, legal recourse in a number of ways, inTluding a class action against Sunrise Company, but we should not be required to incur that cvper=_e� I'n conclusion He respectfully submit that inquiry should be made of Sunrise Company as to the fact that they are not only off?r3og units In question for sale at thcir Eales office, but also have commenced conEtruction of some, creva 5-- 3 PH - STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 10, 1989 ITEM: SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 121-E (AMENDMENT #2) PLOT PLAN NO. 89-421 APPLICANT: LANDMARK LAND COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA (LA QUINTA HOTEL) REQUEST: APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO ALLOW ELIMINATION OF CHAMPIONSHIP TENNIS COURT AND CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL HOTEL UNITS AND PLOT PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF 77 HOTEL UNITS IN A TWO-STORY STRUCTURE ON THE SITE WHERE THE CHAMPIONSHIP TENNIS COURT PRESENTLY EXISTS ON 1.7+ ACRES. LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF AVENIDA OBREGON, APPROXIMATELY MIDWAY BETWEEN AVENIDA FERNANDO AND CALLE MAZATLAN ON THE LA QUINTA HOTEL SITE. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) EXISTING ZONING: R-3* (GENERAL RESIDENTIAL, 1,200 SQ. FT. MINIMUM DWELLING UNIT SIZE REQUIRED). ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 89-141 HAS BEEN PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS PROJECT. ANY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS CAN BE MITIGATED BY REVISIONS TO THE PROJECT AND IMPOSITION TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. THEREFORE, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED. BACKGROUND• The original. Specific Plan No. 121-E (La Quinta Cove Golf Club) was approved by Riverside County in 1975. The Plan authorized construction of 637 condominiums, 496 hotel rooms, golf course with clubhouse, and service facilities. The Plan was subsequently amended in 1982. The City Council authorized the addition of 279 condominiums and 146 hotel rooms (Council Resolution No. 82-54 - Specific Plan 121-E, Revised). The revised Specific Plan was approved to increase project acreage and to add additional dwelling units and hotel rooms. In December, 1987, Plot Plan No. 87-387 was approved by the City expanding the hotel by 336 rooms to 609 units of which 603 rooms were constructed. BJ/STAFFRPT.016 - 1 - 7:n September, 1988, Plot Plan No. 88-393 and Specific Plan 121-E (;Amendment #1) was granted which permitted a new maintenance facility and overflow employee parking lot just south of the site presently under consideration. In May, 1989, Plot Plan No. 89-412 was approved expanding the hotel by 38 rooms to a total of 641 rooms. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Applicant is proposing to eliminate the championship tennis court, a small Tennis Club building, and several adjacent parking spaces and replace them with a 43,065 square foot two-story, 77-room hotel addition. Additionally, a small mechanical room addition is proposed to be added to the adjacent maintenance building to the south and several tennis courts to the west will need to be relocated to the west to accommodate the new hotel units. Adjacent land uses are as follows: North: Tennis Club South: Maintenance Facility East: Hotel Units (detached) West: Tennis Courts & Vacant Land The hotel structure would be rectangular in shape with a large central courtyard reminiscent of a Spanish hacienda. The courtyard would have a pool, spa and sunning area. The typical guest room would be 495 square feet with one 2-room suite with 990 square feet. All units would have a balcony or patio. Materials for the Spanish style building would match the 1989-90 hotel expansion. 44 new parking spaces are proposed adjacent to the proposed construction. ANALYSIS: 1. The building would replace a championship tennis court that is no longer needed since major tournaments are not held there any longer. 2. The architecture and materials would be compatible with adjacent existing buildings. 3. The recently approved maintenance building and overflow parking area have been completed. A weekday morning inspection of the parking lot found it to be 78-85 percent full. It appeared to be used by employees and/or construction workers. Bk'J/STAFFRPT.016 - 2 - 41. Over the past there has been problems due to hotel employees and to an extent guests driving through the condominium area to the south. The proposed expansion may increase the concerns. This can be greatly alleviated by restricting access to the condominium area by installation of an "emergency only" vehicular gate across Avenida Obregon at or near the border between the hotel and condominium area. Additionally, relocation of the existing Avenida Fernando gate arm to the area west of Avenida Obregon will facilitate access for hotel guests and employees while maintaining security for the residential areas west of Avenida Obregon. A condition requiring this has been drafted to achieve this. 5. The 44 new spaces are proposed in front of the new hotel rooms on both sides of Avenida Obregon. This will provide convenient parking for most of the new rooms. The new 154 space lot and other nearby lots could provide additional parking. 6. Environmental Assessment No. 89-141 has been prepared in conjunction with this request. No significant affects will be created that cannot be mitigated through the recommended conditions of approval. 7. The proposed plans indicate a small landscape strip between the new parking spaces on the west side of Avenida Obregon and the patio walls of the proposed building. Staff feels this landscape strip should be increased by 10-feet as required for front yards in the R-3 Zone. This will decrease the mass of the building, provide a more attractive streetscape, and increase distance between patios and parked cars. FINDINGS: The findings necessary to approve the amended Specific Plan No. 121-E can be: supported and found in the attached Resolution. The findings necessary to approve Plot Plan No. 89-421 are as follows: 1. The proposed hotel units are consistent with revised Specific Plan No. 121-E. 2. The proposal is consistent with the standards of the R-3 Zone and Title 9 of the La Quinta Municipal Code, as conditioned. 3. Environmental impacts from the have a significant impact traffic impacts as noted are relocated gate locations. proposed project will not on the environment provided mitigated through new and B,7/ STAFFRPT . 016 - 3 - RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following action: 1.. Move to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 89- recommending to the City Council approval of Specific Plan 121-E, Amendment #2, subject to approval of Plot Plan No. 89-421. 2. By minute motion, approve Plot Plan No. 89-421, subject to the attached conditions. Attachments: 1. Location map 2. Letter from Applicant dated September 6, 1989. 3. Comments from various City Departments and other agencies. 4. Initial study for Environmental Assessment No. 89-141. 5. Plans and Exhibits for SP 121-E (Amendment #2) & PP #89-421. 6. Planning Commission Resolution No. 89- recommending SP #121-E (Amendment #2). 7. Recommended conditions of approval for PP #89-421. BJ/STAFFRPT.016 - 4 - I ,1 "op CASE No. S P 121- E PP 89-421 LOCATION MAP 0 SCALE NTS ATTACHMENT eptember 6. 19&9 :an SaYra Lannir.g Dept. CTY OF LA Q:iINTA 3-105 C'a._1F Fatado QuiJlt d, CA 92253 !ar St-n, FC jvkL) SEP F17 1989 CITY OF LA QU(NTA 'IANN�N� R DEVELOPMENT DEPT. .ndmark Iand rd,any is proposin,7 a 77 ro-)m audition to the La Quirta tei w::i.ch wi 1 i include several tenl:_5 suites, a courtyard with swimming of and spas, d additional pai-ni.lg, e ch,� P ' ; Ti 5 511 iC "tin1S C1`�b u':d ' ..^.o �u�a:^.rvp G: %anta Rosa ve rrcv:ar a r ' aasaazt and relaxed sF-ttin, f,`•,r the Spaniel urtyard. e Spanis:-• 'r,_hite:ctural motif is moceled afte tha Rtv fisting cct^1. :he courtyard allows for a variet'. - IP of the �� uses including rge gr•�ur �, ;ntimate parties, cr ..zi%,ate va(Ie=r.+:,�. The guest rooms ok down on-!:-- s landscaped courtyard featucillg z lerge p.el, spa, and anir._- itre-a. Pri,,ate guestrc,.`rip ar:^ $Uit9s `^C'.til$ c i:i terraces and ironies for entertaining while v:r- , ;g i^w. tE„r,: .r,:s and courtyard iitiCila.l parking for the aK'Jikr:_ _­ r- w•I , .,,a �c:iGll i•] &t tip new - •••• •" e,VC1tLl1C3 ces.,et.o theapdzka G,_c�r , t,,e F% i,� _ ir.te� ==1=t.. ` �..� _ _ 4 lira ._a1Ce 111 `: J V F 1 L �� :� Y � � r. - .. . :thy; -sr ,_.rner of the bui zawa✓ or tre a_ic.a Study, g.tad t ::rn;. ' La uinta .el el r � c S y, the add;.t,r.. csy ., ; h• t.., y t ,E Q -1 Li••y coulit to 1065 'r ' -zir'C` _ le total acnir.g ordinance s�acFS, X.a4l-:c- :. -•�:., -r•' w:Lth The City of ance cha �t� r _ . _60 . 0 x ondos d:uark Lane; Desigcl & Plan-ni:lcc Stephen Caplinger Paul Quill Forri3st Hoag G- ne :leaver Gary F2rney ATTACHMENT LANDMARK LAND COMPANY OF CAUFORNIA, INC., Land Planning, Engineering, Design & Construction 78-150 Calle Tampico, P.O. Box 1000, La 9uinta, California 92253 (619) 564-4500 FAX (619) 564-8052 �iATER ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY I O/$ T R1C� COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058 • COACHEL LA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (619) 398-2651 DIRECTORS T_LLISCODEKAS PRES DENT RAYMOND R RUMMONDS. VICE PRESIDENT JOHN P POWELL DOROTHY M NICHOLS THEODOR_ J. FISH Planning Commission City of La Quinta Post Office Box 1504 La Quinta, California Gentlemen: OFFICERS THOMAS E LEVY GENERAL MANAGER CHIEF ENGINEER BERNARDINESUTTON.SECRETARY KEITH H ANSWORTH ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER REDWINE AND SHERWLL, ATTORNEYS August 29, 1989 :re File: 0163.1 92253 _nor a Subject: Plot Plan 89-421, Portion of Southwest Quarter, Section 36, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Meridian This area is protected from stormwater flows by a system of channels and dikes maintained by the developer, and may be considered safe from stormwater flows except in rare: instances. The district will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with the current regulations of this district. These regulations provide for the payment of certain fees and charges by the subdivider and said fees and charges are subject to change. Plans for grading, landscaping, and irrigation systems shall be submitted to Coachella Valley Water District for review. This review is for ensuring efficient water management. If you have any questions please call Bob Meleg, stormwater engineer, extension 264. P,F : gh cc: Don Park Riverside County Department of Public Health 46-209 Oasis Street Indio, California 92201 You Is very truly, Tom Levy General Manager-Chie gineer TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY ATTACHMENT RECEIV 0 AUG ., 9 1969 CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT. CIV 0 AUG 9, 91989 CITY of LA QUINTA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 8-lo -FS Cc e11,J1F,-1fs el" /,�� ors F, 14t// J 11X'r �Cc�'r.F� 1''051ele4 I °� ChF cl� %`�u IE.lnn,S (f /J.4.$ L 5P< rev !%a J��i7 ¢/s-f Dnr 10ahliP SetvIGLC C{,�l�iOs Gl� $pri% / c, e S . --�Xpes P �Cll4 - �Jrt�tsE ,t �7��fre 1col-e411i 1i"d / ;% 4�zri e-)� "�welik".r 4t�( : Vo N ew Z,,//, * 1 /,40 (./ �// et P'vd/alocf-t f Ao 4a a4v� 7-�/1 n `s 111it etS . ,SFf/ to I/p AUG 2 2 1989 CITY OF La QUINTA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT. RIVERSIDE ODUNTY �` FIRE DEPARTMENT 'td aF CAUto4' 7 IN COOPERATION WITH THE `' , _J. -`" IN DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY • r AND FIRE PROTECTION RJVERSi��.: GLEN NEWMAN % o •� FIRE CHIEF �f Planning & Engineering Office PlaruugS & r.4ne2ring Off, 46-209 Oasis Street, Suite 405 August 21, 1989 408C Lemon Street, Suite I 'Indio, CA 92201 t Riverside, CA 92501 (619) 342-8886 C ! Y E 1) (714) 787-6606 To: City of La Quin.ta AUG 2 3 1969 Planning Division CITY 0F LA QUINTA Re: Plot Plan 89-421 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT. With respect to the condition of approval regarding the above referenced Plot Plan, the Fire Department requires the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with La Quinta Municipal Code and/or recognized fire protection standards: 1. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2500 gpm for a 2 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 2. The applicant/developer shall be responsible to submit written certification from the water company noting the location of the existing fire hydrant and that the existing water system is capable of delivering 2500 gpm fire flow for a 2 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure. If a water system currently does not exist, the applicant/developer shall be responsible to provide written certification that financial arrangements have been made to provide them. 3. A combination of on -site and off -site super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2}" x 2}") will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent two hydrants in the system. 4. 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 prescribe by the Riverside County Fire Department." 5. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and operational prior to the start of construction. 6. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13R. 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. City of La Quinta - Planning Div. Re: Plot Plan 89-42.1 11/21/89 Page 2. 7. Install a st:pervised waterflow fire alarm system as required by the Uniform Building Code. 8. Install a manual pull, smoke detection system as required by the Uniform Building Code and National Fire Protection Association. 9. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2AlOBC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 10. Occupancy separation will be required as per the Uniform Building Code, §503. 11. Comply with Title 19 of the California Administrative Code. 12. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes. 13. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers, guard houses or similar means, provision shall be made to facilitate access by emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the Fire Department. All controlled access devices that are power operated shall have a radio - controlled over -ride system capable of opening the gate when activated by a special transmitter located in emergency vehicles. Devices shall be equipped with backup power facilities to operate in the event of power failure. All controlled access devices that are not power operated shall also be approved by the Fire Department. Minimum opening width shall be 12', with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6". 14. Director), display boards will be required adjacent to each roadway access to the development. These shall be an illuminated diagramatic representation of the actual layout which shows name of complex, all streets, building designator unit numbers, and fire hydrant locations within the complex. These directorief shall be a minimum 4' x 4' in dimension. Addressing of buildings and units shall conform to the Riverside County Addressing Policy. Additional informatic and details may be obtained by contacting the Fire Department Planning and Engineering Staff. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be referred to the Fire Department Planning 6 Engineering Staff at (619) 342-8886. Sincerely, RAY REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner By lim Reeder Fire Protection Specialist to SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 9aS COMPANY 199t LUGONIA AVENUE REDLANDS. CALIFORNIA MAILING ADDRESS P 0 BOX 3003 REDLANDS CALIFC)RNIA 92373-0306 August 18, 1989 City of La Quinta 78-105 Calle Estado La Quinta, California 92253 ATTENTION: Stan Sawa IRE,': Specific Plan 121E The Southern California Gas Coripany has a gas main in Eisenhower Drive near the project. Distribution lines could be extended from these mains to serve the p.:op^,sed development without any significant impact on the environment. The service would be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made. The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, the Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. We can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action which affects gas supply or the conditions under which service is available, gas service Will be provided in accordance with revised conditions. Typical demand use for: a. Residential (System Area Average/Use Per Meter) Yearly Single Family 799 therms/year dwelling unit Multi -Family 4 or less units 482 therms/year dwelling unit Multi -Family 5 or more units 483 therms/year dwelling unit These averages are based on total gas consumption in residential units served by Southern California Gas Company, and it should not be implied that any particular home, apartment or tract of hoaxes will use these amounts of energy. b. Commercial Due to the fact that construction varies so widely (a glass building vs. a heavily insulated building) and there is such a wide variation in types of materials and equipment used, a typical demand figure is not available for this type of construction. Calculations would need to be made after the building has been designed. To insure the existing facilities are adequate to accommodate the new development, an engineering study will be required. Detailed information including tract maps and plot plans must be submitted to the Gas Company Market Services Representa- tive, 1-800-624-:2491, six months prior to the actual construction of the natural gas pipeline. We have developed several programs which are available, upon request, to provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy conservation techniques for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy conservation programs, please contact our Area Market Services Manager, P.O. Box 3003, Redlands, CA 92373-0306, phone 1-800-624-2497. Sincerely, Roger L. B an Technical Supervisor RLB:vjs cc: Environ Affairs - HU09B �- �� crrz or LA 4UIMA `Of0� ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I. BACKGR04ND 1. hame of Proponent: 2. Address d Phone Number of Proponent: 3. Date of Checklist: 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: 44 ., _ S. Same of Proposal, if applicable: II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of all "Yes" and "Maybe" answers is required an 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? J �( d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? �C 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, X inlet or lake? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? — c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? _ 1� 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 X 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? — __— ATTACHMENT (3) h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? is Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? 4. plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Charge 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? 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? b. Reduction of the n--mbers 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? b. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? 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? 7:0. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of 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, id stri u- ion, 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? Yes Maybe No L x Y k x X X - k x - -X - X (4) C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d., Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered 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. 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 obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recrea- tional opportunities? 20. Archeological/Historical. Will the proposal result in an alteration of 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? Yes Maybe No X x �� A. X. X X — X _. X (5) Yes Maybe No b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, en- vironrental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term _mpacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are indi- vidually liauted, 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. Dces the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on I uman 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. X 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 ENVIRO*IENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date: Signature RESPONSE TO "YES" AND "MAYBE" ANSWERS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 89-141 FOR PLOT PLAN NO. 89-421 6.a. Noise: During the demolition and construction phase there will be a temporary increase in noise levels. Mitigation Measure: Developer shall comply with prescribed work hours permitted by City ordinance to minimize nuisance caused by noise impacts. 7.a. Light & Glare: New building and exterior lighting will Be provided with proposed construction. Mitigation Measure: Developer shall submit exterior lighting plan in compliance with any adopted "Dark Sky" Ordinance, emphasizing minimization of light and glare impacts to surrounding properties. 8. Land Ilse: The proposed hotel use of the site will alter the existing recreational use (tennis court) of the site. Mitigation Measure: Amendment of the Specific Plan to allow the hotel use will mitigate any adverse impacts. 13.a.b.Transportation/Circulation: The proposed use will generate additional hotel and employee traffic hazards and parking demand on Avenida Obregon and surrounding streets. Mitigation Measures: Existing security gate arms on Avenida Fernando shall be relocated from existing location to Avenida Obregon. "Emergency only" vehicular security gates shall be installed on Avenida Obregon near southern boundary of recently completed overflow parking lot to separate hotel traffic from condominium traffic. Gates to be approved by City Engineer and be operational prior to final occupancy approval of new 77-room addition. 19. Recreation: The proposed construction will necessitate removal of at least two tennis courts. Mitigation Measure: The extensive number of tennis courts mitigates the loss of the two tennis courts. Additionally, they may be relocated. BJ/RSPCMT.001 - 1 - r � t�dld �d�N�l1 �'l��q't3�iJPt9l1d 141d 0661 - N0ISNVdX3 1310H ViN1R0 wi ' • A i • i • u • • • • • . ' - - - - - - - - - - - - C . i i ATTACHMENT 5 Q o ff �D 0661 - N01 SNVdX3 1310H V1N I no Vl < Q 6$ i a f¢ r o b 0661 - NOISNVdX3 1310H V1N1no V1 4 Jli Z a a Q9 L) W N o jr 0661 - NOISNVdX3 -3.0t- V4NInD VI X w Li -i F 3 Mon no S z 0 1 2; u I L 1 .�. I 1 84 - Tennis Club Qr 121---� /A ��dmer�t 2 �-�- PARTIAL SITE PLAN 9k V. _ � - �+iai`F'iIlj;Il� ;'.I ; ..;::,L•�I' 'iiP� �+ "'�� — y = r _ Proposod 77 0 Room Expansion r0 Sed C s u Ll 1 Fire Access Pedestrian Access Maintenance Facih4 Not A Part,y north9 nits PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1.21-E, REVISED. CASE SP 121-E, AMENDMENT #2 - LANDMARK LAND COMPANY WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta did adopt Specific Plan No. 121-E, Revised, as set forth in City Council Resolution No. 82-54, on October 5, 1982, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did, on the loth day of October, 1989, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Landmark Land Company, Inc. to amend the aforementioned Specific Plan to to allow 77 additional hotel units, more particularly described as follows: A portion of the east half of the southwest one -quarter of Section 36 TSS, R6E, SBBM, and; WHEREAS, said Specific Plan Amendment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (County of Riverside, Resolution No. 82-213, adopted by reference in City of La Quinta Ordinance No. 5), in that the Planning Director conducted an initial study, and has determined that the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the approval of the Specific Plan Amendment: 1. That Specific Plan No. 121-E, Amended No. 2, as conditionally approved, is consistent with the goals, policies, and intent of the La Quinta General Plan and revised Specific Plan No. 121-E. 2. The proposed Amendment is necessary to allow for the orderly development of proposed revised Specific Plan No. 121-E. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: BJ/RESOPC.020 - 1 - 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of Environmental Assessment No. 89-141, indicating that the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not result in any significant environmental impacts, and that a Negative Declaration should be filed; 3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the above -described Amendment request subject to approval of Plot Plan No. 89-421 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, and as illustrated in the map labeled Exhibit "A", on file in the Planning and Development Department. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this loth day of October, 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JOHN WALLING, Chairman ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director BJ/RESOPC.020 - 2 - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED PLOT PLAN NO. 89-421 LANDMARK LAND COMPANY OCTOBER 10, 1989 GENERAL: 1. The development of the site shall be in substantial compliance with Exhibit "A" as contained in the file for Plot Plan 89-421, unless otherwise amended by these conditions. 2. The approved Plot Plan shall be used within the one year time period set forth in Section 9.180.070 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the Applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: o City Fire Marshal o City of La Quinta Public Works Department o Planning and Development Department, Planning and Building Divisions o Coachella Valley Water District o Desert Sands Unified School 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. 4. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee Program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 5. All applicable conditions of Specific Plan No. 121-E, as amended to date, shall be complied with. 6. Prior to the issuance of any grading, building, or other development permit or final inspection, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with those conditions of approval and mitigation measures of Plot Plan No. 89-421 and Environmental Assessment 89-141, which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of any permits/final inspections. The Planning and Development Director may require inspection or other monitoring to EIJ/CONAPRVL.019 - 1 - assure such compliance. Said inspection or monitoring may be accomplished by consultant(s) at the discretion of the Planning Director, and all costs associated shall be borne by the Applicant/Developer. TRAFFIC, CIRCULATION, DRAINAGE: 7. Street improvement, parking and drainage plans shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer. A. Drainage to be retained (100-year storm) on -site. Earlier plans may have proposed drywells, and retention which may conflict with proposed plans. 8. Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, the Applicant shall document access/egress on Avenida Obregon and determine if Parcel Map is needed to satisfaction of Engineering Department. 9. Existing security gate arms on Avenida Fernando shall be relocated from existing location to Avenida Fernando west of Avenida Obregon. "Emergency only" vehicular security gates shall be installed on Avenida Obregon near southern boundary of recently completed overflow parking lot to separate hotel traffic from condominium traffic. Gates to be approved by City Engineer and be operational prior to final occupancy approval of new 77-room addition. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES: Fire Marshal: 10. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2500 gpm for a 2-hour durations at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 11. The Applicant/Developer shall be responsible to submit written certification from the water company noting the location of the existing fire hydrant and that the existing water system is capable of delivering 2500 gpm fire flow for a 2-hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure. If a water system currently does not exist, the Applicant/Developer shall be responsible to provide written certification that financial arrangements have been made to provide them. 12. A combination of on -site and off -site fire hydrants (6" X 4" X 2-1/211) will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent two hydrants in the system. BJ/CONAPRVL.019 - 2 - 13. 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." 14. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and operational prior to the start of construction. 15. Insta]_1 a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13R. 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. 16. Insta]_1 a supervised waterflow alarm system as required by the Uniform Building Code. 17. Install a manual pull, smoke detection system as required by the Uniform Building Code and National Fire Protection Association. 18. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 113. Occupancy separation will be required as per the Uniform Building Code, #503. 20. Comply with Title 19 of the California Administrative Code. 21. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes. 22. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers, guard houses or similar means, provision shall be made to facilitate access by emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the Fire Department. All controlled access devices that are power operated shall have a radio -controlled over -ride system capable of opening the gate when activated by a special transmitter located in emergency vehicles. Devices shall be equipped with backup power facilities to operate in the event of power failure. All controlled access devices that are not power operated shall also be BUJ/CONAPRVL., 019 - 3 - approved by the Fire Department. Minimum opening width shall be 12-feet, with a minimum vertical clearance of 13-feet, 6-inches. 23. Directory display boards will be required adjacent to each roadway access to the development. These shall be an illuminated diagrammatic representation of the actual layout which shows name of complex, all streets, building designators, unit numbers, and fire hydrant locations within the complex. These directories shall be a minimum 4-feet: by 4-feet in dimension. Addressing of buildings and units shall conform to the Riverside County Addressing Policy. Additional information and details may be obtained by contacting the Fire Department Planning and Engineering Staff. 24. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted. Coachella Vallev Water District: 25. Plans for grading, landscaping, and irrigation systems shall be submitted to Coachella Valley Water District for review. This review is for ensuring efficient water management. SITE DESIGN: 26. All on -site utilities shall be installed underground in accordance with City standards and requirements. 27. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning Division for review and approval a plan (or plans) showing the following: A. Landscaping, including plant types, sizes, spacing, locations, and irrigation system for all landscape areas. Desert or native plant species and drought resistant planting materials shall be incorporated into the landscape plan. The plan shall also indicate methods for shading of the parking and pedestrian areas, including tall canopy trees. B. Location and design detail of any proposed and/or required walls. C. Exterior lighting plan, in compliance with any adopted t°Dark Sky" Ordinance emphasizing minimization of light and glare impacts to surrounding properties. B,J/CONAPRVL.019 - 4 - Preparation of the detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan (Exhibit "A") on file with the Planning and Development Department. The plans submitted shall include the acceptance stamps/signatures from the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner's office and CVWD. All plant materials to be used shall be consistent with those species -dentified in the VSP. 213. A minimum of 44 new parking spaces per City requirements shall be provided in conjunction with proposed construction. 29. Any removed tennis courts may be relocated subject to approval of the Planning and Development Department. BJ/CONAPRVL.019 - 5 - October 10, 1989 As a permanent resident of Santa Rosa Cove since February 1986, I am deeply concerned about Landmark's intention to build a further 77-8C hotel units on Avenida Cbregon. As a concerned homeowner, I would like to call your attention zo the following facts and comments: 1) Property owners were given minimal notice of this project. 2) This meeting was scheduled at a time when very few property owners are able to attend. 3) Inspite of Landmarks considerable political "clout," as property owners we have rights that need to be respected and addressed and action taken to implement BEFORE this project is allowed to commence. The issues that need to be dealt with in order to protect our rights are: 1) Parking 80 units/14 parking spaces? Please clarify. 2) Traffic Santa Rosa Cove should not be subjected to hotel traffic --either employee or guest. 3) Density The project description states "Medium density residential 4-8 dwellings per acre. Net acreage 1.7." Please clarify. Between Landmark and La Quinta Joint Venture, Santa Rosa Cove is beginning to look more like a city than a beautiful desert community. This "progress" undoubtedly brings in dollars, but over -developing a unique area does not enhance the City of La Quinta longterm. 4) Security It is imperative, if Landmark goes ahead with this project, that they first ensure our security by removing the existing "joke of a guard-gate01 on Avenida Fernando and building ( and landscaping) a new guard -gate on Fernando beyond Avenida Obregon, and another gate at the other end of Obregon. That way their staff, their guests, and anyone visiting their tennis club would not jeopardize our security. 5) Drainage We have existing drainage problems which are being checked and which may be due at least in part to Landmarks tennis courts. It is therefore necessary that their drainage plans for this project and for any further tennis courts they plan to build be carefully studied and implemented so they do not create drainage problems on our streets. I would like to add that I feel like I am being steam -rolled, and I would like to feel that the City of La Quinta is truly concerned about protecting my rights as a homeowner and permanent resident here. I love my home. And I don't want it spoiled. Judy Blum 76-941 Calle Mazatlan _ La Quinta, Ca. 92253 Tel. 564-1921 BS-1 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 10, 1989 APPLICANT: ESCO/DEANE HOMES OWNER: M. W. INVESTORS PROJECT: PARK PROPOSAL FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23971 (SEE ATTACHMENTS #1 AND #2) LOCATION: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23971 IS LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND MILES AVENUE. This park proposal was originally submitted to the Planning Commission on September 26, 1989. At that meeting (see Staff Report Attachment #3), the Planning Commission took action to continue the above matter and requested a resubmittal of plans with the following revisions: 1. That an additional raised park area be provided alongside the existing raised pad. This area shall be of sufficient size for playground equipment and be raised approximately 1-foot. 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 given to 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. Slope areas of 3:1 around the perimeter of the retention basins should be planted with groundcover. A park landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department. 5. The 3:1 slope between the park and the retention basin should be redesigned to follow a more curvilinear pattern. If possible this should follow the street curve and knuckle of Via Palomino. BJ/STAFFRPT.014 - 1 - ANALYSIS OF THE RESUBMITTED PARK PROPOSAL: 1. An additional raised pad area has not been provided alongside the existing raised pad. However, it is shown that the water from a 100-year flood will drain first from the area alongside the elevated pad area. 2. A 6-foot high wall has been shown along Miles Avenue. 3. A 6-foot high wall has been shown between the proposed park and Lot 16, along the east side of the retention basin and well site and around the Coachella Valley Water Distract well site. 4. A condition of approval will be provided covering the landscaping of the park. 5. The 3:1 slope between the park and the retention basin has been designated to follow a more curvilinear pattern. RECOMMENDATION: Determine whether acceptable; if acceptable by minute motion, recommend to the City Council approval of the parkland proposal submitted for Tentative Tract No. 23971 with the following conditions: 1. The proposed park shall comply with Exhibit "A" of the park proposal plan (see Attachment #1). 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. 5. This approval is subject to review and approval of the hydrology plans by the Engineering Department. BJ/STAFFRPT.014 - 2 - ATTACHMENT No. 1 AVE ` %TAL flcEA % ,8E' 40 bICA TC4 TR, it/o. 2397/ ATTACHMENT No. 2 ,1 Attachments: 1. Revised park/retention layout 2. Revised section view 3. Staff Report for Planning Commission meeting September 26, 1989 B,J/STAFFRPT.014 - 3 - ATTACHMENT No. 3 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: "8. 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 an 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 f lood, 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. 9. 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. 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 BJ/STAFFRPT.014 - 3 - AT TACHMENT No. ATTACHMENT No. 2 "Ilea CIRCLE-- , - - �, - -p --- -- -- - awl ACC ,cvwD" - WE�L �E AV _ MILES Ave ONKwPurrf ab frtlK y.t, t Laft /KNPMt taesrwr ItJJ•t osr 1Z RECEIVED SEt -0 BE3 Cm of LAurt QuA `: 'AM'1 "- !r KIM r ..C.JoJ�i w LA O&0 TR.AGT i✓a P3971 Pn,er sirt % 3•srs.�>ia� �S A-A.V PARK,/RETENTION BASIN PROPOSAL Al o ACHMENT No. 3 n gv I i 09 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-105 Calle Esta.do, La Quinta, California September 26, 1989 I. II. 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER A. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Walling. The Flag Salute was led by Commissioner Steding. ROLL CALL A. Chairman walling requested the roll call. Present: Commissioners Bund, Steding, Moran, Zell.es, and Chairman Walling. A. Staff Present: Planning and Development Director Jerry Herman and Principal Planner Stan Sawa. u'G A V T WTr_ c Cnairma.n Walling introduced. the Public Kearing items as follows: A. Continued Hearing: General Plan Amendment 89-028 and Preannexation Zoning 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 County 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. Commissioner Zelles advised the Commission that he had a potential conflict of interest and wo+.zld abstain. from discussion of this item. 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. IKR/MIN09-26.DFT -1- 2. Chairman Walling opened the Public Hearing. The following individuals spoke in favor of the proposal: Jack Leaney, Chuck Strother, George Berkey, Sonny Kanlian, Jeff Cole, and Tom Tiegen. There being no further comment, Chairman Walling closed the Hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion. 3. The Commission was in agreement with the proposed zoning as recommended by Staff with no additional commercial included at this time. It was the consensus that any other requests for specific commercial uses in this area in the future should be in the form of a Change of Zone request at that time. A motion was made by Commissioner Moran and seconded by Commissioner Steding to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 89-056, recommending to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 89-028 and Change of Zone 89-048, and recommending adoption of the Negative Declaration. Following roil call vote, the motion was unanimously adopted, with Commissioner Zelles abstaining. B. Special_ Residential Adjustment 89-003; a request by Lott L. Kilmer to replace stucco siding with masonite lap siding for a single-family dwelling located at 54-575 Avenida Vallejo. 1. Planning and Development Director Jerry Herman presented the information contained in the Staff Report, a copy of which is cn file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Chairman Walling opened the Public Hearing. Lott Kilmer, the Applicant, addressed the Commission urging approval of his request. Paul Quill, resident of the neighborhood, addressed the Commission to say it was a nice house with quality construction and was not offensive in appearance. There being no further comment, Chairman Walling closed the Hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion. 3. It was the consensus of the Commission that the house was pleasant in appearance and was not detrimental to the area. A minute motion was made by Commissioner Zelles and seconded by Commissioner Moran to approve Special Residential Adjustment 89-003. Unanimously adopted. 14R/MIN09-26.DFT -2- C. Plot Plan 89-422; a request by Landmark Land Company for 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); located on the west side of Jefferson Street, one -quarter mile south. of 50th Avenue. 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. Paul Quill, representing Landmark Lana Company, 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. A minute motion was made by Commissioner Zelles and seconded by Commissioner Stedinig to approve Plot Plan 89-422, subject to conditions. Unanimously adopted. D. Tentative Tract 24801; a request by Sunrise Desert Partners to subdivide 31+ acres into eight condominiimin lots, with a total of 105 condominium units; located within the PGA West Specific Plan area, along the easterly right-of-way of Lake Cahu.illa and the All -American Canal. 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. Mr. Sawa advised the Commission that, after further discussion: with the Engineering Division, Staff was recommending the deletion of Condition No, 15. 2. Chairman Walling opened the Public Hearing. Allen Levine, representing Sunrise Company, addressed the Commission explaining the request. There being no further comment, Chairman Walling closed the Hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion. 3. A motion was made by Commissioner Bund and seconded by Commissioner Steding to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 89-057, recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract 24801, subject to conditions MR/MIN09-26.DF'T -3- IV. IV. amended to delete Condition 15 and to change Condition 25 so that the disclosure regarding the shooting range will be made to purchasers of all lots in the tract through an amendment to the purchase agreement which the buyers would acknowledge by signing. Following roll call vote, the motion was unanimously adopted. E. Tentative Tract 21846 (Revision No. 2.); a request by Sunrise Company for a revision to the tentative tract map to modify dwelling unit product locations and. increase total number of dwelling units within -the tract from 367 to 434, on 56.51 acres in the R.-2 zone; located in PGA West, in the area generally bounded. by Riviera, Tanglewood, and Arnold Palmer. 1. Planning and Development Director Jerry Herman advised the Commission that a continuance to October 10, 1989, was recommended to allow sufficient time for noticing residents in the vicinity. 2. There being no objection from the Commission, Chairman Walling declared the Hearing continued to October 10, 1989. PUBLIC COMMENT No one wished to address the Commission.. CONSENT CALENDAR - None RT i.q T NF.q.q Chairman Walling introduced the Business Items as follows: A. Park Proposal for Tentative Tract 23971; a request by FSCO/Deane Homes for approval of a parkland proposal .for a tract located on the northeast corner of Washington Street and Miles Avenue. 1. Planning and Development 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. The Applicant's representative, Steve Robbins, answered various questions from the Commission. PRR/MIN09-26.DFT -4- VT . 3. A Minute Motion was made by Commissioner Moran and seconded by Commissioner Zelles for continuance for redesign and clarification of applicable code requirements for fencing. Unanimously adopted. B. Tentative Tract 24950; a request by Chong Lee for review of proposed single-family dwelling architectural elevations; located at the northeast intersection of Miles Avenue and Dune Palms Road. 1. planning and Development 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.. A Minute Motion was made by Commissioner Zelles and seconded by Commissioner Moran. requesting the Applicant to resubmit the proposed elevations, floor plans, and color_ schemes for Tentative Tract 24950, with the changes recommended by Staff. Unanimously adopted. C. General Plan. Consistency; a request by Coachella Valley Water District for review of proposed CVWD capital improvement program for the next three to five years. 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. A Minute Motion was made by Commissioner Steding and seconded by Commissioner Moran concurring that the 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. Unanimously adopted. OTHER Commissioner Stedi.ng informed the Commission that she will be out of town on business on October 10, 1989, and will be unable to attend the Commission on that date. IqR/MIN09-26.DFT -5- VIIi. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Steding and, seconded by Coaanissicner Moran to adjourn to a regular meeting on October 10, 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 8:15 p.m., September 26, 1989. PZR/MIN09-26.DFT -6-