1988 02 09 PCcF'y OF TNt'v
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
February 9, 1988 - 7:00 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER
Flag Salute
II. ROLL CALL
III. HEARINGS
A. PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIFIC PLAN 84-003, AMENDMENT
#2; THE ORCHARD AT LA QUINTA
APPLICANT: RUFUS ASSOCIATES
LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE OF AVENUE 50,
ONE -QUARTER MILE WEST OF
JEFFERSON STREET
PROJECT: AMEND CONDITION #4 TO EXTEND THE
APPROVAL PERIOD FOR ONE
ADDITIONAL YEAR
1. Staff Report
2., Public Comment
3., Commission Discussion
4., Hearing Closed
5„ Motion for Commission Action
IV. PUBLIC COMMENT
This is the time set aside for citizens to address the
Planning Commission on matters relating to City planning
and zoning which are not Public Hearing items.
MR/AGENDA.2/9
n
Persons wishing to address the Planning Commission should
use the form provided. Please complete one form for each
item you intend to address and submit the form to the
Planning Secretary prior to the beginning of the
meeting. Your name will be called at the appropriate
time.
When addressing the Planning Commission, please state
your name: and address. The proceedings of the Planning
Commission meeting are recorded on tape and comments of
each person shall be limited.
V. CONSENT CALENDAR
Minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of
January 26, 1988.
VI. BUSINESS
A. Discussion/direction on a General Plan Amendment
for the "Civic Center" and other "Major Community
Facilities".
B. Any action relating to Study Session items.
VII. OTHER - None
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
ITEMS FOR FEBRUARY 8, 1988, 3:00 P.M. STUDY SESSION
** DISCUSSION ONLY **
1. Continued Discussion on Highway 111 Specific Plan:
Access and Land Use Patterns
2. All Agenda Items
3. Identification of Future Commission Agenda Items
4. Discussion of Public Hearing by the Federal Environmental
Protection Agency on a Draft Permit which would grant
conditional approval to Colmac Energy, Inc. for the
construction and operation of a 49-megawatt biomass -fired
power plant to be located within the Cabazon Band of
Mission Indians Reservation in Mecca, California.
MR/AGENDA.2/9
111., A. 1
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
DATE: FEBRUARY 9, 1988
PROJECT: SPECIFIC PLAN 84-003, AMENDMENT #2; THE
ORCHARD AT LA QUINTA - AMEND CONDITION #4 TO
EXTEND THE APPROVAL PERIOD FOR ONE ADDITIONAL
YEAR
PROJECT
LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE OF AVENUE 50, ONE -QUARTER MILE
WEST OF JEFFERSON STREET
APPLICANT: RUFUS ASSOCIATES
ZONING
DESIGNATION: TOURIST COMMERCIAL (C-T)
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: SPECIAL COMMERCIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT: A PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION WAS
PREPARED AND ADOPTED FOR THE SPECIFIC PLAN.
NO SUBSEQUENT CHANGES ARE PROPOSED;
THEREFORE, ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS
NOT WARRANTED FOR THIS AMENDMENT REQUEST
BACKGROUND:
The original Specific Plan approved by the City Council on
February 7, 1984, was for this construction of a 60-unit hotel
on 28.8 acres..
An amendment was requested in 1986 to increase the acreage to
37.5 acres (:increase of 8.7 acres) and increase the hotel units
to 86 (increase of 26 units). These amendments were considered
by the Planning Commission in January 28, 1986. The Commission
recommended approval subject to conditions. The City Council
concurred with the Commission on February 18, 1986, and adopted
Council Resolution No. 86-11, subject to conditions. Condition
#4 limited -the approval to two years (February 18, 1986, to
February 18, 1988).
Therefore, the Applicant is requesting that this condition be
amended to :permit approval for one more year (see attached
letter).
MR/STAFFRPT.028 -1-
ANALYSIS:
1. The Specific Plan, as approved, is still consistent with
the General Plan and development policies.
2. No other changes are requested by the Applicant; all
existing conditions still pertain.
RECOMMENDATION:
By adoption of Planning Commission Resolution 88-001, recommend
approval of the one-year time extension (by amending Condition
No. 4)
MR/STAFFRPT.028 -2-
EI
11
RUFUS ASSOCIATES
POST OFFICE BOX 299
LA QUINTA, CALIBOENIA 02253
(619) 564-6676
January 15, 1988
Mr. Murrel Crump
Planning Director
City of La Quinta
P.O. Box 1504
78-105 Calle Estado
La Quinta, CA 92253
RE: THE ORCHARD HOTEL
Dear Murrel.:
CABLES.
].AMSPEC
LA QUINTA, CA
TELEX
6711612 ORCHD
TELECOPIER
(619) 304-0164
In reference to Amendment No. 1 of Specific Plan No. 84-003,
"The Orchard at La Quinta", I am respectfully requesting
an amendment of Condition No. 4 extending the conditional
approval until February of 1989.
The project's grading has been completed, however,
construction has not yet begun due to circumstances with the
development loan. We are actively pursuing the project and
expect to commence construction soon.
Thank you for your help in this matter.
Sincerely,
RUFUUSS ASSOCIATES
Gary A. Lohman
Director of Development
GAL:ec
J AN 1 51988
CITY OF LA QUINTA
PLANNIB & DEVELOPMENT DEK
11
11
RESOLUTION NO. 86-11
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ,WITH CONDITIONS,
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 84-003, AMENDMENT NO. 1, ("THE
ORCHARD AT LA QUINTA"), FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY IN
THE CITY.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended approval of
Specific Plan No. 84-003, Amendment No. 1, pursuant to Government Code
Section 65500 et seq. of the California Planning and Zoning Law and has
transmitted the same to the City Council in compliance with Section 65502
of said law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has held at least one public hearing on
Specific Plan No. 84-003, Amendment No. 1, as required by Section 65503
of the California Planning and Zoning Law; and
WHEREAS, the Specific Plan, as amended, is consistent with the
adopted La Quinta General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Specific Plan is consistent withthe adopted La Quinta
Redevelopment Project No. 1 plan; and
WHEREAS, there are no physical constraints which would prohibit
development of the site as proposed; and
WHEREAS, the project will be provided with adequate utilities and
public services to ensure public health and safety; and
WHEREAS, although the project could have a significant adverse impact
on the environment, the mitigation measures agreed to by the Applicant
and incorporated into the conditions of approval will mitigate those
project impacts to levels of insignificance; and
WHEREAS, the Specific Plan, as amended, will be compatible with
existing and anticipated area development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
La Quinta does hereby adopt Specific Plan No. 84-003, Amendment No. 1,
as amended, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein
by this reference, for certain property in the City, subject to Conditions
1-24 as listed :in attached "Exhibit 1, Conditions of Approval - Specific
Plan No. 84-003, Amendment No. 1", which is incorporated herein as though
set forth at length.
APPROVED and ADOPTED this 18th day of February 1966, by the
following vote:
AYES: Council Members Allen, Bohnenberger, Wolff and Mayor Pena.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Cox.
E
El
RESOLUTION NO. 86-11
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
G
CIT TTOR Y Y AGER
- 2 -
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -Proposed
SPECIFIC PLAN NO 84-003, AMENDMENT NO 1
"The Orchard at La Quinta"
Morris and Grayson, Inc.
January 28, 1986
1. The development of the resort hotel as approved by Specific
Plan No. 84-003, Amendment No. 1 shall comply with the
policies and provisions of the La Quinta General Plan.
2. Development of the site shall comply with the standards and
requirements of the La Quinta Land Use Ordinance unless
otherwise modified by these conditions of approval.
3. Specific Plan No. 84-003, Amendment No. 1 shall comply with
the applicable provisions of Tentative Parcel Map No. 19834,
Revised No. 1, as approved by the Community
Development Deparatment.
4. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the City
Council's final approval of Specific Plan No 84-003,Amendment
No. 1; otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no
effect. whatsoever. The term "use" shall mean the beginning
of substantial construction of permanent buildings (not
including grading) as authorized by this permit, which
construction shall thereafter be pursued diligently to
completion.
5. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of
any use contemplated by this approval, the Applicant shall
first obtain permits and or clearances from the following
public; agencies:
b City Engineer
' City Fire Marshal
° City Community Development Department,
Planning Division
lk Riverside County Environmental Health Department
.k Coachella Valley water 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.
6. Project phasing plans, including phasing of public im-
provements, shall be submitted for review and approval by the
Community Development Department.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -Proposed
SPECIFIC PLAN NO 84-003, AMENDMENT NO 1
January 28, 1986
Page 2
Building and Project Design
7. The development of the buildings and site shall comply with
the approved Exhibits A, B, C and D as contained in the
Community Development Department file for Specific Plan No
84-00S, Amendment No 1 and the following conditions, which
conditions shall take precedence in the event of any
conflicts with the provisions of the specific plan.
8. The Applicant shall submit plans for the location and
design of any maintenance facilities for the hotel and
its grounds to the Community Development Department for
review and approval.
9. All mechanical equipment, heating and cooling equipment
shall be ground mounted or screened from view by the
buildings roof structure.
10. The location and design of out trash enclosures shall be
submitted to the Community Development Department for
review and approval.
Streets, '.Drainage and Grading
11. The Applicant shall comply with the following requirements
of the City Engineer.
a. The Applicant shall dedicate all necessary public
street and utility easements as required by the City
Engineer and in accordance with the La Quinta General
Plan.
b. The Applicant shall construct half width street im-
provements for Avenue 50 in accordance with the re-
quirements of the City Engineer and the La Quinta
Municipal Code.
c. The Applicant shall be responsible for the construction
of a landscaped median on Avenue 50, subject to
compliance with City policies and procedures in effect
at the time of the development.
d. In conjunction with the Conditions of Approval for
Tentative Parcel Map No. 19834, Revised No. 1 and prior
to the issuance of grading or building permits for
Specific Plan No 84-003, Amendment No 1, the Applicant
shall submit an access/traffic circulation analysis
Prepared by a Registered Civil or Traffic Engineer for
the hotel and parcel map site. This analysis shall
address access from public roads and onsite circulation.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -Proposed
SPECIFIC PLAN NO 84-003, AMENDMENT NO 1
January 28, 1986
page 3
This report shall be submitted to the City Engineer for
review and approval; and (if necessary) revised site and
improvement plans conforming with the approved
circulation analysis shall be submitted for review and
approval.
e. That the Applicant shall have prepared street improvement
plans (for public and private streets) that are prepared
by a Registered Civil Engineer. Street improvements,
including traffic signs and markings, and raised median
islands (if required by the City General Plan) shall
conform to City Standards as determined by the City
Engineer and adopted by the LQMC. (3" AC over 4" Class 2
Base min. for residential streets). Street design shall
take into account the subgrade soil strength, the
anticipated traffic loading, and street design life.
f. The Applicant shall have prepared a grading plan that is
Prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer, who will be re-
quired to supervise the grading and drainage improvement
construction; and certify that the constructed conditions
at the rough grade stage are as per the approved plans
and grading permit. This is required prior to issuance
of building permits. Certification at the final grade
stage and verification of pad elevations is also required
prior to final approval of grading construction.
g. A thorough preliminary engineering geological and soils
engineering investigation shall be done and the report
submitted for review along with the grading plan. The
reports recommendations shall be incorporated into the
grading plan design prior to grading plan approval. The
soils engineer and/or the engineering geologist must
certify to the adequacy of the grading plan. Pursuant to
Section 11568 of the Business and Professions Code, the
soils report certification shall be indicated on the
final subdivision map.
h. A detailed hydrology and hydraulic study of the site
shall be required prior to the issuance of grading or
building permits. All structures shall be protected
from 100-year storm flooding.
i. All utilities will be installed and trenches compacted to
City Standards prior to construction of any streets. The
soils engineer shall provide the necessary compaction
test reports for review by the City Engineer.
j. An encroachment permit for work in any abutting local
jurisdiction shall be secured prior to constructing or
joining improvements.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -Proposed
SPECIFIC PLAN NO 84-003, AMENDMENT NO 1
January 28, 1986
Page 4
k. The Applicant acknowledges that the City is considering a
City-wide Landscape and Lighting District and the
Applicant agrees to be included in the district. Any
assessments will be done on a benefit basis as required
by law.
12. In order to facilitate mitigation of cumulative traffic
impacts of this and other area projects, the City shall
establish a traffic improvement needs monitoring program.
This program will undertake biannual traffic count studies to
determine if warrants are met for major roadway improvements
and traffic signalization. Upon determination of needs, the
City may initiate projects to meet those needs. Funding of
this program may be by fee programs that assess new
development an/or users on a pro-rata or fair -share basis,
formation of assessment districts, acquisition of State or
Federal road funds, or other means that fairly allocate costs
to those generating the need. The Applicant shall agree to
pay the designated pro-rata share that the City may establish
to fund off -site roadway improvements and traffic
signali.zation on an "as warranted" basis.
13. The Applicant shall comply with the Community Development
Department's requirements for dust control during construc-
tion.
14. Parking shall be provided in accordance with the requirements
of the Municipal Land Use Ordinance and the City Engineer.
15. The Applicant shall comply with the following requirements of
the City Fire Marshal:
a. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with
the! City of La Quintals adopted codes and ordinances
in effect at the time of construction and the re-
quirements of the City Fire Marshal. The City Fire
Marshal may approve alternative means of compliance
where deemed equivalent or superior to these standards.
b. Provide a water system capable of delivering 2500 gpm
fire flow for a two hour duration at 20 psi residual
operating pressure. The required fire flow may be
adjusted at a later date in the permit process to
reflect changes in design, construction type, area
separations, or built-in fire protection measures.
c. A combination of on -site and off -site super fire
hydrants (6" x 4" x 2 1/2" x 2 1/211) will be required
located not less than 25 feet nor more than 165 feet
from any portion of the buildings as measured along
approved travelways.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -Proposed
SPECIFIC PLAN NO 84-003, AMENDMENT NO 1
January 28, 1986
Page 5
The required fire flow shall be available from any two
adjacent hydrants in the system.
d. All buildings must be sprinklered. Complete fire
sprinkler systems shall be installed in accordance with
NFPA 13. Plan review and approval by Factory Mutual
or Insurance Services Office will be required. Post
indicator valves and fire department connections shall
be located at building fronts, not less than 25 feet from
the building and within 50 feet of an approved hydrant.
e. Install fire alarms (waterflow) and tamper alarms on the
water supply system to the sprinkler system(s).
f. Install fire alarms, panic hardware, exit signs, portable
fire extinguishers and other fire control devices as
required by the City's adopted codes, NFPA, Pamplet No
10, and the Fire Marshal.
g. Buildings more than 150' from approved vehicular access
must have Class III hose cabinets and standpipes.
h. Fire department connections must be provided at approved
locations on the perimeter access road. Certain
designated areas will be required to be designated as
fire lanes.
i. The Applicant shall furnish water system plans to the
City Fire Marshal for review and approval. Said plans
shall comply with all the Fire Marshal's requirements.
Plans shall be signed/approved by a Registered Civil
Engineer and Coachella Valley Water District 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."
j. A fire flow of 500 gpm for a 2 hour duration at 20 psi
residual operating pressure must be available before any
combustible material related to construction is placed on
the site.
k. Staff emergency personnel shall have carts capable of
carring gurneys and litters.
16. The Applicant shall comply with the following requirements of
the Coachella Valley Water District.
a. The domestic water system shall be installed in
accordance with the District and City requirements at
the time of development.
b. The Applicant shall provide and dedicate to the District
any land needed for the provision of additional
facilities, including but not limited to sites for wells,
reservoirs and booster pumping stations.
c. The site shall be annexed to CVWD Improvement District
No. 55 for sanitation service.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -Proposed
SPECIFIC PLAN NO 84-003, AMENDMENT NO 1
January 28, 1986
Page 6
17. The Applicant shall provide all necessary easements for
public utilities. All onsite utilities shall be placed
underground. The overhead telephone cable along the south
side of Avenue 50 shall be undergrounded. The Applicant
shall comply with the requirements of Imperial Irrigation
District.
Miscellaneous
18. Prior to the issuance of building permits or certificates of
occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a noise study prepared
by a licensed acoustical engineer. The study shall focus on
the noise generated by this nonresidential use (including
traffic noise) as it could affect residential uses within
1000 feet of the site. Based upon the study as approved by
the Community Development Department, mitigation measures
shall be incorporated into the design as required.
19. Perimeter walls or fences shall be subject to the following
requirements:
a. Walls shall be setback a minimum of twenty (20) feet from
the Avenue 50 right-of-way.
b. Portions of the wall along Avenue 50 may use wrought iron
or similar open fencing to allow views into the project
where appropriate.
c. View of the parking lots shall be screened from Avenue 50
and adjoining parcels by the use of walls or combination
walls/berms.
d. The walls along the interior property lines may be placed
on the property line.
e. The design of the walls shall take into consideration any
noise abatement considerations as required by Condition
No. 16.
f. All fencing designs, including location, materials and
construction, shall be submitted to the Community
Development Department for review and approval.
g. A modification of these standards may be permitted
dependent upon the overall design and location of the
walls and site conditions.
20. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall
submit plans to the Community Development Department,
Planning Division, for review and approval which shall
indicate the following:
a. Landscaping materials, including plant type, species,
size, spacing and location.
6 0
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -Proposed
SPECIFIC PLAN NO 84-003, AMENDMENT NO 1
January 28, 1986
Page 7
b. Landscape Irrigation system incorporating water
conservation measures where feasible.
c. Locations of exterior walkways.
d. Exterior lighting plan with details of proposed
lighting fixtures.
e. Design and location of trash enclosures in
accordance with the requirements of the City
and Palm Desert Disposal Service.
21. Prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy, the
Applicant shall submit a master signage plan to the
Community Development Department, Planning Division, for
review and approval. The plan shall indicate the
following:
a. Location, size and design of project signs.
b. Directory signs at major entrances and appropriate
points to direct emergency personnel.
c. Location, size and design of onsite directional and
informational signs.
22. Existing trees on the site shall be retained in general
accordance with Exhibit "D". The Applicant is encouraged
to maintain the trees in agricultural production, provided
that :it is economically feasible.
23. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Applicant shall
submit an archaeological survey on the site to the Community
Development Department for review and approval. Mitigation
measures recommended in the approved survey shall be
completed prior to commencement of grading.
24. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the
City's adopted infrastructure fee program in effect at the
time of issuance of building permits. This fee may include
drainage fees.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 88-001
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE: CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA,
ANNOUNCING FINDINGS, CONFIRMING THE
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A ONE-YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR
THE: ORCHARD SPECIFIC PLAN.
SPECIFIC PLAN 84-003, AMENDMENT #2; THE ORCHARD
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La
Quinta, California, did, on the 20th day of January, 1984, hold
a duly -noticed Public Hearing recommending approval of Specific
Plan No. 84-003 to the City Council, subject to conditions; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council did, on the 7th day of
February, 1984, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing approving
Specific Plan No. 84-003, subject to conditions; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Rufus Associates, requested
an Amendment. to the Specific Plan No. 84-003, which was
considered by the Planning Commission at a Public Hearing on
January 28, 1986;.and,
WHEREAS, the Planning commission recommended to the
City Council, approval of said Amendment #1, subject to
conditions; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Amendment
at a Public Hearing conducted on February 18, 1986, at which
time the City Council adopted Resolution No. 86-11, approving
said Amendment #1, subject to conditions; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Rufus Associates, requested
an Amendment. to the time limit imposed on the Specific Plan No.
84-003, Amendment #1; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 9th
day of February, 1988, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to
consider said Amendment #2, requesting a one-year time
extension; and,
WHEREAS, said Amendment #2 complied with the
requirement 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 the Specific Plan has been previously assessed
for environmental impacts and that a Negative Declaration was
adopted; and,
MR/RESO88.001 -1-
® 0
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 time extension:
1. The Specific Plan is consistent with the adopted La
Quinta General Plan.
2. There are no physical constraints which could prohibit
development of the site as proposed.
3. The project will be provided with adequate utilities and
public services to ensure public health and safety.
4. The mitigation measures agreed to by this Applicant and
incorporated into the Conditions of Approval will
mitigate any adverse environmental impact.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. The the above recitations are true and correct and
constitute the findings of the Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of the
environmental assessment relative to the environmental
concerns of this Amendment;
3. That it does hereby recommend approval of amending
Condition No. 4, granting a one-year time extension for
the reasons set forth in this Resolution, and subject to
the attached revised Condition No. 4.
APPROVED and ADOPTED this 9th day of February,
1988, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
PLANNING DIRECTOR
MR/RESO88.001. -2-
® 0
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 88-001
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 84-003, AMENDMENT #2
REVISED CONDITION 44
This approval shall be used within one year of the City
Council's final approval of Specific Plan No. 84-003,
Amendment #2; otherwise, it shall become null and void
and of no effect whatsoever. The term "used" means the
beginning of substantial construction of permanent
buildings (not including grading) as authorized by this
Specific Plan, which construction shall thereafter be
pursued diligently to completion. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, the Applicant may, prior to the expiration,
request an extension of time in which to "use" the
Specific Plan approval. The extension request must be
made in writing 30 days prior to expiration. The matter
will be placed on the Planning Commission's regular
agenda. The requested extension may be granted upon a
determination that valid reason exists for the Applicant
not using the approval within the required period of time.
MR/RESO88.001 -3-
® 0 v.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-1,05 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California
January 26, 1988
II.
III
CALL TO ORDER
A. The: meeting was called to
Chairman Walling. The
Commissioner Bund.
PnT.T. C.AT.T.
7:00 p.m.
order at 7:00 p.m. by
Flag Salute was led by
A. Chairman Walling requested the roll call.
Present: Commissioners Steding, Bund, Zelles,
Moran, and Chairman Walling.
B. Staff Present: Planning Director Murrel Crump.
HEARINGS
Chairman Walling introduced the Public Hearing item
as follows:
A. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment No. 88-004; A
request by the City of La Quinta to amend the
zoning text to replace two Urgency Ordinances with
permanent regulations for the review of commercial
and multi -family projects by the Planning
Commission.
1. Planning Director Crump presented the
information contained in the Staff Report, a
copy of which is on file in the Planning and
Development Department.
2. Chairman Walling opened the Public Hearing.
There being no comment, Chairman Walling
closed the Hearing and opened the matter for
Planning Commission discussion.
3. During discussion, Chairman Walling suggested
that item 3.c. - Site Plans, include the
locations of air conditioning condensers and
pool equipment pits.
MR/MINO1-26.DFT -1-
4. A motion was made by Commissioner Steding and
seconded by Commissioner Zelles that the
Planning Commission suggest to the City
Council adoption of Zoning Ordinance Text
Amendment No. 88-004, with the suggestions of
the Planning Commission. Unanimously adopted
by minute motion.
IV. PUBLIC COMMENT
No one wished to address the Commission.
V. CONSENT CALENDAR
A motion was made by Commissioner Moran and
seconded by Commissioner Zelles to approve the
minutes of January 12, 1988. Unanimously approved.
VI. BUSINESS - None
VII. OTHER
The Commission acknowledged receipt of the 1988
schedule of Planning Commission attendance at City
Council meetings. Commissioner Steding commented
that if no planning items are on the City Council's
agenda, it is not necessary to attend that meeting.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made by Commissioner Steding and
seconded by Commissioner Moran to adjourn to a
regular meeting on February 9, 1988, at 7:00 p.m.,
in the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La
Quinta, California. This meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission was adjourned at 7:15 p.m.,
January 26, 1988.
MR/MINO1-26.DFSC -2-
VI. A.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
BACKGROUND:
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF LA OUINTA
THE HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF
COMMISSION
THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
FEBRUARY 8, 1988
THE PLANNING
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE CIVIC CENTER AND
OTHER MAJOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES
Neither the proposed La Quinta Civic Center, nor other major
community facilities such as the school complex, are adequately
provided for in the General Plan.
The General Plan for the City of La Quinta does contain a
"Cultural Resources Element", in which there are references to
the goal of providing and encouraging a variety of facilities
such as parks, open space, playgrounds, mini -parks, "...public
facilities which are designed to complement private facilities
and encourage opportunities for cultural enhancement...
schools,and libraries.
The General Plan also contains an "Infrastructure Element"
covering "the basic installations and facilities on which the
continuance and growth of a community depend...". In this
section are discussed systems for water distribution, sewage
collection, storm water drainage, natural gas, electrical
power, telephone service, solid waste disposal, and the traffic
circulation system.
The General Plan Map for "Open Space/Community Facilities Plan"
shows symbols for the imprecise locations of various parks, two
existing fire stations, the downtown Village concept, image
corridors, and the civic center. The symbol for the civic
center is floating somewhere south of Calle Tampico, halfway
between Washington and Eisenhower Streets.
MR/MEMOPC.013 -1-
The Land Use Element of the General Plan, entitled "Community
Development", focuses on open space (especially as it relates
to slope, hazards, and agriculture), residential and its
various densities, and commercial land uses. The General Plan
Land Use Plan Map displays graphically the general placement of
"residential", "commercial", and "miscellaneous" land uses.
The latter is limited to "water-course/flood control" and "open
space" land use designations.
The City of La Quinta has just concluded negotiations for a new
civic center site, and has purchased an approximately 17-acre
site on the southwest corner of Washington Street and Calle
Tampico. Some of the uses being considered for this site
include municipal offices for City administration, a possible
future fire department and police department, a future library,
a senior citizens community center, and an interim public works
corporate yard. In the General Plan Land Use Map, this
location is designated "High Density Residential" on the east
and "Medium :Density Residential" on the west portions. (The
zoning is also residential: R-2-4000 and SR, respectively.)
In the fall of 1987, the Desert Sands Unified School District
opened its La Quinta elementary (K-5) school on its 36-acre
site on the north side of 50th Avenue, east of the La Quinta
Evacuation Channel and west of the site of the City park and
sports complex. This site is also being planned for a middle
school (grades 6-8) as well as community uses in conjunction
with the park site. This site is shown on the General Plan
Land Use Map as low density residential (and the zoning is also
residential: R-2-12000).
Because of Legal complications arising from premature
designation of a site prior to acquisition, it is a common
practice to be somewhat vague about the precise locations of
future sites of community facilities. However, in the cases of
the two facilities mentioned, property acquisition is now
completed (and for the school complex, the first phase is
constructed and in operation).
THE PROBLEM:
When their locations are finally determined, major community
facilities over a certain size should be depicted as land uses
on the General Plan Land Use Map so that their planned or
actual presence can be shown in relation to adjacent land uses,
and so that future facilities planning can take their locations
into account. However, neither the General Plan text, nor the
Land Use Map categories provide for major community facilities.
The California Government Code, in Section 65402, provides that
the planning agency reports on the conformity of real property
acquisition and plans for public buildings with the adopted
MR/MEMOPC.013 -2-
E
E
General Plan. When plans are formulated and the report is
requested, the Planning Commission will find a discrepancy
between their shared understanding of the City's intent to
build a civic center and what the General Plan actually says.
Therefore, an amendment to the General Plan is proposed for
consideration to provide a means of describing the City's
intent to build a civic center, and in the same amendment, also
provide for land use designations for other major community
facilities.
RECOMMENDED SCOPE OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS:
A. Plan Text
In the Community Development Element (6.0), add a brief
section (6.8) introducing the concept of "major community
facilities" as a land use. Limit the concept to
facilities occupying more than two acres. Include in the
definition such types of facilities as:
0 multi -purpose facilities
0 offices for municipal, county, school system, state
or federal functions
o fire stations
o police stations
o post offices
o public schools
o libraries
o centers for community, senior or youth activities
0 corporate yards and work centers
0 other facilities operated by public or
not -for -profit community agencies for the public,
to which the public might go and/or are occupied by
staff of such agencies
Exclude from the definition parks, playgrounds, sports
complexes (and incidental recreation buildings) which
have an essentially "open -space" nature.
Exclude also the infrastructure -related facilities of
utilities such as water tanks, power substations,
telephone switching stations, pumping installations, and
similar locations where the public are not expected to
visit and/or do not have significant numbers of staff
permanently assigned to that location as a work station.
Exclude temporary locations and facilities occupying less
than two acres unless they are in some other fashion to
be considered "major".
MR/MEMOPC.013 -3-
B. Land Use Plan Map Legend
In the "Miscellaneous" land use list, insert a category
for "Major Community Facility" with an appropriate
graphic designator.
C. Land Use Plan Map
Amend the Land Use Plan Map:
1. At the southwest corner of Washington Street and
Calle Tampico, for Assessor's Parcel Number
769-090-001 (17.58 gross acres, 16.42 acres net),
remove the "High Density Residential" (approximate
11-acre east portion) and "Medium Density
Residential" (approximate 7-acre west portion)
designations and amend the designation to indicate
"Major Community Facility" for the La Quinta Civic
Center.
2. North of 50th Avenue, east of the La Quinta
Evacuation Channel, and west of the La Quinta City
Park and Sports Complex, for Assessor's Parcel
Numbers 617-37-8 and 9 (approximately 36 acres),
remove the "Low Density Residential" designation
and amend the designation to indicate "Major
Community Facility" for the La Quinta schools site.
GENERAL PLAN CONSIDERATIONS:
The implications of these amendments to the General Plan are
primarily focused on the following considerations:
1. Development versus presently vacant land;
2. Removal of a certain acreage of land from the Low,
Medium, and High Density Residential land use inventories;
3. Relocation of certain facilities and services and
re -utilisation of their original locations;
4. Conversion of land from residential to community facility
purposes with resulting marginal increases in impacts.
The factors to be assessed and impacts determined are traffic,
local drainage, noise, utilities, and adjacent land uses
(buffering and compatibility). Most of these factors are
likely to be addressed with mitigation measures in the design
stages and/or are insignificant.
MR/MEMOPC.013 -4-
RECOMMENDATION:
Direct Staff to prepare a formal General Plan Amendment
Application, further evaluate the environmental impacts of
these amendments to the General Plan, prepare an Environmental
Assessment Checklist, circulate the amendments for comment,
prepare a more detailed evaluation report, and schedule
appropriate public hearings for the Planning Commission and
City Council as a part of the first annual cycle of General
Plan Amendments; for 1988.
MR/MEMOPC.013 -5-
• County of Riverside 8 Cities of:
• Coachella • Desert Hot Springs • Indian�'
• Indio • Palm Desert • Palm Springs • R W
• Cathedral City • La Quinta
February 1, 1988 FEB 0 3
TO: ALL INTERESTED PARTIES
FROM: LESTER D. CLEVELAND, CVAG EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
RE: Public Hearing by the Federal Environmental Protection
Agency on a DRAFT PERMIT which would grant conditional
approval to Colmac Energy, Inc, for the construction and
operation of a 49 megawatt biomass fired power plant to be
located within the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians Reservation
in Mecca, California
THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD AS FOLLOWS:
DATE: THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1988
TIME: 7:00 P.M.
PLACE: COACHELLA VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL
83-800 AIRPORT BLVD. (CROSS STREET VAN BUREN)
THERMAL, CALIFORNIA
ALL INTERESTED PERSONS ARE INVITED TO EXPRESS THEIR VIEWS AT
THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMENTS MAY BE VERBAL OR IN WRITING
OR BOTH. IF WRITTEN COMMENTS ARE NOT SUBMITTED AT THE
PUBLIC HEARING THEY MUST BE SENT OR DELIVERED TO LINDA BARAJAS
BEFORE THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON FEBRUARY 18, 1988. THE ADDRESS
FOR SUCH WRITTEN COMMENTS IS:
LINDA BARAJAS (A-3-1)
EPA, REGION 9
215 FREMONT STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CA. 94105
ATTACHED ARE CVAG'S OFFICIAL COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED
DRAFT PERMIT. WE URGE YOU TO ATTEND THIS IMPORTANT
HEARING EVEN IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO COMMENT ON THE
PROJECT. PLEASE BRING THIS NOTICE TO THE ATTENTION OF
ALL PERSONS WHO WOULD BE INTERESTED IN THIS MATTER.
74.133 :El Paseo, Suite 4, Palm Desert Calif. 92260 • (619) 346.1127
0
.'a
COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS
• County of Riverside & Cities of:
• Coachella • Desert Hot Springs • Indian Wells
• Indio • Palm Desert • Palm Springs • Rancho Mirage
• Cathedral City • la Ouinta
January 13, 1988
Ms. Linda Barajas (A-3-1)
EPA Region IX
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Dear Ms. Barajas:
This letter provides Coachella Valley Association of Governments
comments on the EPA's Ambient Air Quality Impact Report (NSR 4-4-
11, SE 87-01) and preliminary decision to permit the Colmac
Energy, Inc. proposed electric power plant. we do not believe
that sufficient information has been provided to make an
affirmative decision to permit this proposed facility. Our
technical comments are provided below.
EMISSIONS OFFSETS
CVAG is strongly opposed to any further deterioration of air
quality in the region. A critical factor in preventing further
deterioration is the provision for real and verifiable offsets of
any new emissions. The South Coast Air Quality Management
District (District) has stated their concerns on this matter in
their December 31, 1987 letter (Atch 1) to Mr. Donald Knapp of
the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). we refer you to their
calculations contained in the above referenced letter and simply
summarize that. CVAG and the District do not believe the
emissions, particularly for NOx and SOx to have been adequately
offset. The basis of this conclusion appears to be a significant
discrepancy between controlled emissions estimates presented in
Table 1 of EPA's Ambient Air Quality Impact Report and emissions
calculated using procedures specified in the District's Rule 1306
and presented in Table I of the District's letter. In addition,
we agree with. the District that worst case, more conservative
assumptions should be used in calculations of emissions offsets
including use of minimum predicted emissions credits and distance
factors which realistically reflect the fact that the proposed
offsets would be obtained from fuel sources which are greater
than 15 miles away from the project site.
We emphatically urge the EPA to use the level of conservatism and
stringency normally employed by our local Air Quality Management
District to ensure a level of protection which this region would
otherwise be provided if the proposed project were under local
jurisdiction.
74-133 El Paseo, Suite 4, Palm Desert, Calif. 92260 • (619) 346-1127
COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS
BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (BACT) REQUIREMENTS
The District ha.s also documented their recommended requirements
for BACT in October 5, 1987 (Atch 2) and December 31, 1987
letters to Mr. Donald Knapp of the BIA. Again, we refer you to
their recommendations and urge the EPA to employ BACT which will
control emissions as stringently as the existing local
jurisdiction would require. Specifically, we agree with the
District that ROG emissions should be most effectively controlled
with the use of operating temperatures of 1800 F for a one
second residence time. We also affirm their recommendations for
control of other criteria pollutants.
The control of non -criteria pollutants (toxic air pollutants) is
also of great concern to CVAG. We are aware of the remand of EPA
Region IX's determination to issue a PSD permit for the North
County Resource Recovery Project in San Marcos, California. The
remand required Region IX to evaluate:
"the environmental impact of unregulated pollutants in
the course of making a BACT determination for the
regulated pollutants" (Lee Thomas, Administrator of
EPA, June 3, 1986).
Mr. Thomas further stated that:
"EPA may ultimately choose more stringent emission
limitations for a regulated pollutant than it would
otherwise have chosen if setting such limitations
would have the incidental benefit of restricting a
hazardous, but, as yet, unregulated pollutant."
Given this precedent, we would request an appropriate evaluation
and BACT requirements for the proposed Colmac Energy, Inc.
facility. Our concerns regarding the potential toxic risks and
impacts are further discussed below.
Although the District has not formally adopted their proposed
Rules 1401 and 223, we do not agree with the applicant's
statement in the FEIS that the District does not have any
authority to require an evaluation of toxic risks. Under the
District's Rule 402, risk assessments have been required on a
case -by -case basis. To date, all resource recovery facilities in
the District's jurisdiction have been required to provide
extensive risk analyses including exposure assessments for
multiple pathways. The same information should be required by
EPA to assess appropriate BACT requirements for this proposed
facility.
u
COACH ELLA 'VALLEY ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS
RISK ASSESSMENT
We agree with .statements in the October 5, 1987 letter from the
District and the January 1, 1988 letter (Atch 3) from Dr. Emily
Nelson, Independent Consultant, to Mr. Donald B. Knapp of the BIA
regarding the importance of evaluating potential toxic air
pollutant emissions and health impacts in the surrounding areas.
The September 22, 1987 memo from Gerald A. Emison, Director of
EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards to the
Director 'of Region IX's Air Management Division gives direct
guidance on air toxics evaluations. The policy:
"charges the PSD review authority with analyzing at
the outset the environmental impacts of proposed
construction projects with respect to air toxics
which might be of concern, even if such matters are
not initially raised by the public... The review
authority should evaluate unregulated pollutants for
both carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic effects."
In addition, the policy requires:
"that the affected public be fully informed of the
potential toxic emissions from a proposed project and
of what the reviewing authority has done to minimize
this potential within the BACT decision. A specific
discussion of toxics concerns in a technical support
document might be helpful in accomplishing this
information transfer."
CVAG requests that documentation be provided for public review
which assesses the air toxic impacts as described above.
EPA Region IX has published a document titled Air Toxics Source
Assessment Manual for California Air Pollution Control
District's, Volumes 1 and 2, October 1987. This document was co-
authored by the California Air Resources Board, California
Department of Health Services, California Air Pollution Control
Officer's Association, the District and EPA. This manual, along
with an EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
publication Methodology for Assessment of Health Risks Associated
with Multiple Pathway Exposure to Municipal Waste Combustor
Emissions, October 1986, provide the methodologies necessary to
conduct an adequate screening analysis as well as a more detailed
assessment of potential excess cancer risks and non -cancer health
effects.
COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS
We believe the FEIS to be inadequate and incomplete in its
treatment of toxic air pollutants. The risk assessment
incorporated in the FEIS for the Colmac Energy, Inc. facility is
not even a "screening analysis" because it does not employ
conservative, health protective assumptions to ensure that the
calculated risk: is not less than the probable resulting risk.
Many items which were not adequately addressed are included in
the above referenced January 1, 1988 letter from Dr. Emily Nelson
to the BIA. We refer you to this letter for specifics.
Generally., several issues must be addressed in the determination
of air quality impacts and ultimately appropriate BACT:
* Emissions estimates which reflect both gaseous and
metallic: toxic air pollutants from both the facility as
well as the cooling tower;
* Detection limits which allow for the measurement of these
pollutants of concern at toxicologically meaningful
concentrations;
* Rationale for the absence of toxic substances which might
be expected in emissions, such as dioxins which may be
formed during combustion of agricultural wastes
previously treated with chlorinated pesticides;
* Characterization of population exposed, including current
and future residential and worker populations;
* Calculation of maximum individual lifetime risk and
excess cancer burden; and
* Identifi.cation of chemical species and pathways of
exposure in addition to inhalation which may be relevant
to the proposed project.
It has been observed in several risk assessments conducted for
the District that the ingestion of soil or crops which have been
contaminated by deposition of carcinogenic particulate matter
onto agricultural land can lead to an equal or greater
carcinogenic risk than the risk from direct inhalation of these
same air pollutants. Since the proposed site is adjacent to
existing agricultural land as well as grape packing and food
products plants, the ingestion of contaminated foods may provide
a significant contribution to the total carcinogenic risk.
We believe a full analysis of all air quality impacts includes
the potential ca.rcinogenic and non -carcinogenic risks imposed by
a project. In addition, a project of these proportions merits
more than the two page risk assessment contained in the FEIS.
COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS
The lack of authority of the District to permit this proposed
project does not exempt the EPA from these considerations. As
stated earlier„ EPA as well as many other agencies have
established guidelines and requirements for risk assessments and
BACT for toxics and these procedures have been documented for
public review.
INSPECTION, SOURCE TESTING, MONITORING
On page 2 of the permit conditions in EPA's Ambient Air Quality
Impact Report, the right to enter the premises and inspect
equipment, operations and records is specified. CVAG strongly
suggests that written agreements be made designating the District
as the inspecting and enforcement authority in lieu of EPA and to
provide unannounced inspections at the site. This agreement
should stipulate that appropriate fees be collected by the
District to cover the costs of their services. We are concerned
that the District may not make this facility a source testing and
inspection priority given their resource and enforcement staff
limitations and their lack of permitting authority.
On page 4 of the permit conditions, it is stated that EPA may
waive specified annual performance tests for the facility. CVAG
believes these tests, in conjunction with adequate inspection,
are essential to ensuring optimal operation and minimum
emissions.
FUEL SUPPLY
We agree with EPA that no treated wood or wood wastes be used as
a fuel for this facility. However, most agricultural wastes are
treated with chlorinated pesticides which will potentially form
dioxins when combusted at high temperatures. In addition, we are
concerned that commercial woodwastes might include foreign
substances such as insulation, nails, etc. Some authorized
agency should inspect these wastes routinely as they arrive at
the facility and are loaded into the incinerator. Inspection of
this fuel for verification of the permit conditions should be
done on a real-time basis as well as through the proposed record
keeping process..
ADDITIONAL AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
As the District: stated in their December 31, 1987 letter to the
BIA, the handling of biomass fuel will present a potential for
fugitive dust production which might violate District Rule 403.
Additional detailed mitigation measures which may be necessary to
comply with District requirements should be included in the
permit conditions to reduce this potential.
® �D
COACH ELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS
The District also sta':ed a concern regarding odors resulting from
decomposition of the three month biomass fuel supply as it is
sacred on -site in open areas. The Dermit conditions do not state
how EPA will mitigate an odor problem so that there will be no
violation of District Rule 402.
On the first page of EPA's Ambient Air Quality Impact Report it
is stated that the project includes fire protection equipment.
CVAG is not aware of this equipment. Perhaps this should be
addressed in EPA's report.
r
Permit condition VIII on page 2 specifies that "the owner and
operator of the proposed project shall construct and operate the
proposed stationary source in compliance with ... all other
aonlicable Federal, State and local air quality regulations".
This condition is essential to minimize impacts on air quality
and public health. CVAG also urges EPA to include any other
permit language changes which the District may suggest.
CVAG understands that EPA has federal regulations with which to
permit facilities on a nationwide basis. However, we believe it
would be witair_ EPA Region IX's jurisdiction to justify the use
of more stringent controls within our region which is severely
impacted by the country's most polluted air basin. We support
EPA's further efforts to ensure compliance with additional
stringent state and local rules and regulations.
In conclusion, this proposed project has the potential to
contribute to further deterioration of the air quality in the
Coachella Valley. This region has a large and rapidly growing
population attracted to this area by the healthy ambient air.
Our major industries of agriculture and tourism would be
negatively affected by this facility in its present form and
location.
Sincerely,
jUDITH A. COX
CVAG Chairman
Dr. Emily Nelson Mr. Max Reefer