2000 11 28 PCf
Planning Commission Agendas are now
available on the City's Web Page
@ www.la-quinta.org
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California
November 28, 2000
7:00 P.M.
**NOTE**
ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED
TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING
Beginning Resolution 2000-083
Beginning Minute Motion 2000-021
CALL TO ORDER
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call
II. PUBLIC COMMENT
This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public
hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three
minutes.
III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of the Minutes of the regular meeting on November 14, 2000,
B. Department Report
PC/AGENDA
..�, 001
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Item .................. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000-402, GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT 2000-071, ZONE CHANGE 2000-069,
VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2000-004
Applicant.......... Chapman Golf Development, LLC and the City of La Quinta
Location .......... Northeast and southwest corners of Avenue 52 and Desert
Club Drive and the west side of Eisenhower Drive from Calle
Tampico to Avenida Montezuma
Request ........... Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact and development plans for a 16,222
square foot restaurant
Action .............. Request to continue to December 12, 2000
B. Item ................... SIGN APPLICATION 93-197, AMENDMENT #2
Applicant........... Thane International
Location............ 78-140 and 78-150 Calle Tampico (Plaza Tampico)
Request ............. Amend the Plaza Tampico Sign Program to allow tenants to
use corporate sign colors and permit major second story
tenants identification signs on building entry towers.
Action ............... Minute Motion 2000-
C. Item .................. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000-407 AND
TENTATIVE TRACT 24197
Applicant.......... Century Crowell Communities
Location........... Generally on the west side of Jefferson Street, between
Fred Waring Drive and Miles Avenue
Request............ Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact and the subdivision of 63 _+- acres into
206 single family and other miscellaneous lots.
Action .............. Resolution 2000- Resolution 2000-
D. Item .................. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2000-052
Applicant.......... Wal-Mart Stores
Location .......... 78-950 Highway 111, within the One Eleven -La Quinta
Shopping Center
Request ........... To allow 35 metal containers for the temporary storage of
holiday merchandise.
Action .............. Resolution 2000-
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS:
p�_es
Applicant...........
Location............
Request .............
Action ...............
CONTINUED - MASTER DESIGN GUIDELINES 2000-011
Kristy Brady
51-785 and 51-805 Avenida Villa
Review of one prototype house with two different facades
Minute Motion 2000-
PC/AGENDA
.4.. 002
B. Item ................... RW-A 2000-002
Applicant........... City of La Quinta
Location............ Southeast corner of Washington Street/Highway 111
intersection
Request ............. General Plan consistency finding for proposed acquisition of
street right-of-way to widen the Washington
Street/Highway 111 intersection
Action ............... Resolution 2000-
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL
Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Commissioner discussion regarding City Council meeting of November 21,
2000.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
I . �
003
PC/AGENDA
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
November 14, 2000 7:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00
p.m. by Chairman Robbins who asked Commissioner Tyler to lead the
flag salute.
B. Present: Commissioners Richard Butler, Tom Kirk, Robert Tyler, and
Chairman Robbins. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Butler/Tyler to excuse Vice Chairman Abels. Unanimously approved.
C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, Assistant
City Attorney John Ramirez, Planning Manager Christine di lorio, Senior
Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planners Stan Sawa and Fred Baker, and
Secretary Carolyn Walker.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT:
A. Mr. Forrest Haag asked to address the Commission on the feasibility of
understanding the water use and compliance with the Water Efficiency
Ordinance early in planning process of projects. The purpose of this
presentation and workshops prepared in conjunction with staff and
CVWD was to give everyone a way to gauge whether or not projects
from a planning perspective are making general sense with the way the
Ordinance is written in terms of water use compliance. The RJT project
at 501h Avenue and Jefferson Street, was used as an example of a
method of developing this compliance strategy as it was conditioned to
do so. He introduced Jean Hamlim, a landscape architect in his office,
who worked on the technical issues. To summarize what they did was
to take the 72 acre site, move a three acre circle over the project area in
AutoCAD until it located an area that fundamentally has in that area the
sample area of three acres, the same relative acreage of water, front yard
landscape area, streets, green space, etc. Elements that have to be
gauged within that formula. Once that area was isolated as a 2.88 acre
area of land within the plan area, they found that the percentages of
streetscape, residential lots, common area landscape and lake, all areas
that have to be gauged into this formula were within a percentage point
or two of the total of the project, so they had a representative sample of
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC11-14-0O.wpd f
Planning Commission Minutes
November 14, 2000
the project. They also looked at typical residential lot land use and how
in this particular program, frontyard landscape areas to the common area
wall was included in this calculation. The rear yard areas are going to be
landscaped by the homeowners and the way the Ordinance is written,
they are exempt from the Ordinance. Within some reasonable design
parameters, at this early stage, they did a landscape schematic design
with street trees, frontyard trees, shrubs and groundcover areas, turf
area, lake and common area turf as well. From that, using the plant
pallette that is within range of anticipated landscape guidelines, this
landscape sample area was extrapolated over the project. In this
formula, they are determining by project area, the maximum amount of
water that is allowed to be spread on the project. It use a number of
issues in the formula that deals with evapotranspiration, total landscape
area, conversion factors of plant materials to their water usage. This is
a given, so the project area for the RJT Homes total project comes up
with a water allowance of 60,626 cubic feet annually allowed for the
project in landscape areas, lake evaporation, frontyards, turf, etc. Then
moving to the estimated water use formula, this is the total water use for
the entire landscape area and all of the hydrozones in that landscape
area, based on a fairly finite landscape area. Again, based on a fairly
finite plan that is extrapolated over the whole project by taking a
representative sample area and what happens is that they are now down
to plant factors from the list of given amount of water usage that
different types of plants use, you are looking at how much area you have
in shrub massing, turf, trees; every plant material has a different plant
factor and they tried to do averaging of what plant factors are. Basically,
they come up with the total water use for the area typical of this
landscape design. There are three seasons that have to be considered
and different water usages. Then you have plant factors figured into
these for trees, shrubs, groundcover, and turf grass areas and then water
areas as a separate calculations. What they concluded from this was
that if well water was used to fill the blue area on the plan, it would be
difficult to comply with the Ordinance as written. When calculating
filling all the lakes with well water, or a blend of well water and canal
water, the project did not comply. They were coming up with a total
estimated use, with the lake area, of 65,153.58 ccf. They are allowed
60,000 ccf. In meeting with Dave Harbison of CVWD, it was determined
that if they used canal water to the lakes, and there is access from the
Citrus course irrigation system, this area falls out of the calculation area.
Without the lake area in the calculation they are at 34,449 ccf.
According to what they have read, they would be given an allowance for
using canal water. Chairman Robbins indicated the lakes were included
even if filled with canal water. If that is not the case, they would have
.. ( 005
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC 11-14-00. wpd 2
_ IIIAIIII®ImA1Tll�m
Planning Commission Minutes
November 14, 2000
to back off from 65,000 ccf to 60,000 or reduce the surface area of the
lake to bring the evapotranspiration down to that allowable rate. The
goal of the developer is to use the canal water where it is available to
reduce their costs. Now, they have to find the true interpretation of
what the canal usage is.
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed.
IV. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of
joint meeting of October 24, 2000. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page
14, Item #5, correct the spelling of "hummock"; Page 16, Item #6,
should be corrected to read "Commissioner Tyler stated that he realized
a lot of people have their own golf carts, but wondered if there had been
any justification provided for the greater reduced number of automobile
parking spaces. Also, they were speaking about a 40 foot clubhouse,
not 44 feet; Page 17 it should be changed to 40 feet; Page 18, Item
#18, should be clarified to state he questioned what was intended by the
requirement for "conventional switching inside the home". Commissioner
Butler asked that Page 3, Item #3 and other statements where "water
suitability" was referenced, it should be changed to "water efficiency".
Commissioner Kirk asked that Page 4, Item #8 should be clarified to
show that Mr. Haag indicated his interpretation of the Ordinance
indicated that lakes were not a part of the landscape area for preparation
of the calculation. This was a key point made by Mr. Haag, and the
Community Development Director corrected him that lakes should be
included. There being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded
by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to approve the minutes as corrected with
Chairman Robbins abstaining.
B. Department Report: None.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Continued Environmental Assessment 2000-396, General Plan
Amendment 2000 067 Zone Change 2000-093 Specific Plan 2000-
045 and Site Development Permit 2000-677; a request of Evergreen-
Walgreens for a change in the land use designation from Commercial
Office to Neighborhood Commercial, design guidelines and development
for a 7.63 acre commercial/office complex, and development plans for a
one story 14,490 square foot drug store to be located at the
southwestern corner of Washington Street and 50`h Avenue.
'-U 006
C:\My Documents\WPD0CS\PC11-14-OO.wpd -1
Planning Commission Minutes
November 14, 2000
1. Staff informed the Commission that a request had been received
by the applicant to continue this item to January 9, 2001. It was
moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to continue the
application to January 9, 2001. Unanimously approved.
B. Site Development Permit 2000-685; a request of Tait and Associates for
review of development plans for a 3,984 square foot convenience store
and gas station canopy to be located at the northwest corner of
Washington Street and Highway 111.
1. Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for the
staff report. Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the
information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file
in the Community Development Department.
2. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Butler asked staff to identify where the base of the
hill would be located in relation to the landscaping. Staff identified
the property line in relation to the slope of the hill and the slope
will dead end into a retaining wall so there would be no sluff from
the slope.
3. Commissioner Tyler stated the entrance to the gas station from
the driveway near Highway 111 is dangerous and staff should
work on it to control it better. Staff stated there would be a signal
to help with the traffic flow. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated
it is a difficult situation as they do need the large openings to get
the gas tankers into the station. Locations close to signals are a
favorite location for service stations in general. Staff has included
a statement regarding the reconfiguring of the islands and he went
on to explain the background on how the islands were designed.
4. Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would be building and
landscaping this independently of building the curb and
landscaping and widening Highway 111 for the entire project as
it seems 'but of kilter". Senior Engineer Steve Speer explained this
was something to be addressed by the master developer, not this
applicant. The master developer will be responsible for the
perimeter landscaping, constructing the street, installing the signal,
and some of the basic circulation patterns. Eventually they will do
the entire parking lot, but it is not included in the first phase. As
they start selling the retailer pads they will add to the parking lot.
Chairman Robbins asked if the external work would be completed
prior to this being constructed. Staff stated they did not know the
timing for this part of the development. The master developer is
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC11-14-00.wpd 4 007
Planning Commission Minutes
November 14, 2000
almost ready to pull their permits for the site improvements.
Principal Planner Fred Baker stated they are required by the Fire
Department to construct two driveway accesses before they can
build. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated the master developer is
required to bond for the backbone improvements, utilities, and the
pavement to ensure they are completed.
5. Commissioner Tyler asked if the approved conditional use permit
indicated how many pump islands there could be. Senior Engineer
Steve Speer stated it showed three islands on the specific plan.
Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated Conditions #38, and #39
address the curbline alignments and landscaped islands. The
pump islands were not addressed specifically. Planning Manager
Christine di lorio stated Condition #40 asks for the traffic
circulation review for the fuel pumps. Chairman Robbins stated
that from an engineering standpoint, if the applicant cannot prove
they are not going to impede the traffic circulation, staff will not
allow the last island. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that was
correct.
6. Commissioner Butler noted the carwash was no longer a part of
the application and would help on the traffic flow. Senior Engineer
Steve Speer stated it does help to equal it out. Commissioner
Butler stated it looks like an ornamental island set out in the middle
of nowhere and if that is impeding the traffic, he would like staff
to define where the problem comes from. Staff stated it is not
impeding the traffic. Staff's concerns was that they were starting
to minimize the island that you were losing where the side of the
road was and where were the onsite parking; how or where do
you park if you are trying to get to the pumps? Principal Planner
Fred Baker explained the applicant's original submittal in relation
to new submittal and how the applicant was trying to addresses
staff's concerns.
7. Chairman Robbins stated he is still concerned that if you have a
car pulling in to get gas, with the front of the car facing the
mountain, and it pulls all the way up with the back of the car at
the last fuel pump at the westerly island, the front of the car will
be out in the traffic. Staff explained the cars would be facing
north and south, not east and west and therefore would not be in
the flow of traffic.
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC11-14-OO.wpd 5
Planning Commission Minutes
November 14, 2000
8. Commissioner Kirk stated this may elevate the stress expressed by
the Commissioners, but creates a new concern with the conflict
of pulling in and out from the closest pump. Senior Engineer Steve
Speer reviewed other gas stations in the City and how their traffic
circulation patterns work. Discussion followed regarding
circulation problems.
9. Commissioner Tyler asked if the Commission had the purview to
restrict the number of islands under the conditional use permit?
Planning Manager Christine di lorio stated that Condition #40
requires that the applicant show that the fuel pumps will not
interfere with the flow of traffic. Staff could add to the condition
that if they do, they will be removed.
10. Commissioner Kirk stated he would like to know if the Commission
could condition it to have only six pumps instead of eight.
Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated he saw no reason
why they could not.
11 . Commissioner Kirk asked what the difference was between the
new Condition #68 and the old Condition #68. Principal Planner
Fred Baker stated the old required a channel letter "Circle K" with
a channel including the circle around the "K" as the sign. The new
condition is to allow a canister with their red and white logo as
one sign and staff has eliminated, based on the City's Ordinance,
that allows only one sign per building with the monument sign that
had already been approved under the specific plan. Staff is
recommending elimination of the right elevation sign and on the
canopy the applicant is requesting three "Union 76" signs and the
difference is staff is recommending only one and that has to be
24-inches and equal margins from the top to the bottom on the
fascia. Commissioner Kirk asked if the sign on the building was
also 24-inches. Staff stated that is correct. Commissioner Kirk
asked if the 24-inches was the letter or the entire sign? Staff
stated it would be 24-inches by 24-inch square sign.
12. Commissioner Butler asked if the monument sign on the street
contained the Union 76 and Circle K sign. Staff stated that was
correct. It was a five foot high sign with pricing.
13. Commissioner Tyler asked if staff had a colored rendering and was
there stone work on the pillars. Staff stated yes they would have
stone veneer on the pillars. Commissioner Tyler asked if the fascia
would be painted metal. Staff stated that was correct.
..0 001
C:\My D0cuments\WPD0CS\PC11-14-00.wpd 6
Planning Commission Minutes
November 14, 2000
14. Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Richard Tait, Tait and Associates, stated their
primary concern was the traffic and canopy islands. They do need
eight pumps to have less stacking and to accommodate more
customers and asked if they could move the pump eight feet back,
or south, on the other side of the canopy column so they will not
encroach into the drive aisle.
15. Commissioner Butler asked if this would affect the other pump in
terms of vehicles coming in and going out on either side. Mr. Tait
stated they would like to have 18 feet between centerlines of the
dispensers. They have 35 feet between the dispensers and
adequate width for a pass through lane. They cannot go down to
six dispensers as the economics will not allow it and with eight
dispensers there is less time waiting and stacking.
16. Commissioner Butler asked if they were the typical dispensers
which would use the credit cards. Mr. Tait stated they would be
card readers with multi -product dispensers.
17. Chairman Robbins asked if it will accessible to the 40-foot RV as
this could cause a traffic problem. Mr. Tait stated that if an RV
were to fuel, it would have some encroachment into the aisle.
Chairman Robbins stated his concern is that the RV owner will
want to use the end island and this will cause the RV to extend
into Highway 111 and cause a traffic nightmare.
18. Commissioner Butler asked if diesel would be offered at all the
dispensers. Mr. Tait stated only at two dispensers.
19. Chairman Robbins asked if the traffic direction would be
controlled. Mr. Tait stated it will be free flow. They have not
planned to use any traffic arrows to direct the traffic.
20. Commissioner Tyler asked what the hours of operation would be.
Mr. Tait stated it would be 24-hours. Commissioner Tyler stated
there appeared to be a lot of light spill -over onto Point Happy. Mr.
Steve Frank, Tait and Associates, stated that is for traffic safety
and went over the lighting plan. In regard to the changes
recommended by the Architecture and Landscape Review
Committee (ALRC), they have made those changes. In regard to
signs, they concur with staff's recommendation and are requesting
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC11-14-OO.wpd 7
Planning Commission Minutes
November 14, 2000
additional signs on both structures, the canopy and building. They
would like the 24-inch Circle K sign on the front elevation and the
same size on the east elevation. In addition, they would like to
have another Union 76 sign on the canopy.
21. Commissioner Butler asked the applicant to identify where on
Highway 1 1 1 where the monument/pricing sign would be located.
22. Commissioner Kirk asked if the specific plan sign requirements
were the same as what is in the Zoning Ordinance. Planning
Manager Christine di lorio stated the specific plan does not address
gas station signs. One gas station sign per building is allowed.
Commissioner Kirk asked if there was a two foot high sign
requirement in the Zoning Code. Staff stated there is a two foot
requirement for the sign program. Where it was silent was in the
regulation of gas station signs, not silent for size. Commissioner
Kirk asked what the total size allowed. Staff stated 50 square
feet. Commissioner Kirk stated they will install a four square foot
sign, where if the name were longer they could extend it to 50
feet. Staff stated that was correct.
23. Mr. Frank asked if he could get some direction from the
Commission regarding the Circle K sign by allowing the word
"Circle" spelled out in channel letters and then the circle with the
"K" inside it. Chairman Robbins stated he did not think this was
in conformance with the Zoning Code. Planning Manager Christine
di lorio stated it would fulfill the requirements of the specific plan.
They allow for channel letter signs which the "Circle" would
represent and the "K" would be their logo and they would have to
conform to the 50 square foot requirement and two foot in height.
24. Chairman Robbins asked if there was any other public comment.
There being no further public comment, the public participation
portion of the hearing was closed and opened the project for
Commission discussion.
25. Commissioner Kirk stated he concurs with staff's recommendation
and is agreeable to the additional Circle K sign on the building.
Whether they need an additional sign on the canopy he is not sure
as they do have the monument sign out front. He would prefer to
have two four square foot "K" signs rather than the spelled out
Circle K and would be amendable to the second Union 76 sign on
the canopy. On the circulation, it is difficult to design a pattern
when it is hard to determine how people will react when it is
..u' O11
C:\My Documents\WPD0CS\PC11-14-OO.wpd 8
Planning Commission Minutes
November 14, 2000
actually built. He does like moving the dispenser eight feet to the
south. He would also suggest letting them build the project and
allow the City Engineer six or 12 months in the future to work
with the owner to change the circulation with signage or
landscaping as needed.
26. Commissioner Tyler stated he concurred with Commissioner Kirk's
recommendation. He also agrees with the relocation of the
dispenser.
27. Commissioner Butler stated he agrees with moving the pump. In
regard to the signage, he agrees with reducing the size to 24
inches and having one located on the east side of the building. He
is not in favor of the Circle K on the front of the building. He
would prefer to retain staff's recommendation of 24-inch sign. As
to the additional signs on the east side of the canopy at 24 inches,
he would concur.
28. Commissioner Kirk stated he would like to applaud the applicant
on his willingness to work with staff. In regard to the
recommendation of the ALRC, this raises the question he brought
up before in that specific plans are not taken to the ALRC for
design review and now the Commission is caught where the ALRC
wants to change the specific plan requirements, and they were
never involved in determining the design rules to begin with. This
re -enforces his opinion that it is important to have the ALRC
involved early in the design. Even if they are not involved, the
Commission should be taking a real hard look at design issues
because they can end up with this situation where the project
complies, but maybe could have been required to take further
design steps in the right direction.
29. Commissioner Butler stated he thought the ALRC wanted this
design to capture what was represented in the design of the
Cliffhouse Restaurant and in his opinion they have done this by
upgrading the look of the gas station.
30. Chairman Robbins stated he agrees with the improved design and
they should also require the moving of the pump. In regard to the
sign he has no objection.
31. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that in
regard to the role of the ALRC, it was the intention of the City
Council to not create a long review process. Therefore, the ALRC
Q\My Documents\W PDOCS\PC11-14-OO.wpd
9 012
Planning Commission Minutes
November 14, 2000
was formed to meet only one time on any given project. Their
recommendation shall be advisory only and not binding on the
Planning Commission.
32. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez clarified that the Zoning
Ordinance allows for the Commission to approve an additional
number of signs above and beyond the one sign per building as
called out for prices and gas station, upon a finding that
inadequate visibility or to facilitate good design balance. These
findings can be made by referencing the ARCO across the street
with the two signs on the canopy would substantiate good design
balance and the fact that the signs are being reduced in size goes
to the issue of visibility.
33. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Butler/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2000-082 recommending to the City Council approval
of Site Development Permit 2000-685.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman
Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Abels.
ABSTAIN: None.
a. Condition #68: Change the one Circle K and one Union 76
logo cabinet sign to two Circle K and two Union 76 logo
cabinet signs.
b. Condition #69: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the
site design shall be modified to move the western most gas
dispenser nearest the convenience store, eight feet to the
south.
C. Condition #70: Six months after receiving final building
approval, the City Engineer shall review the circulation
pattern in regard to corrective measures limited to signs and
striping and the Community Development Department shall
review the landscaping in regard to planting materials and
irrigation, and request modifications as necessary. Should
the applicant not agree with staff's recommendation, they
have the right to appeal to the Planning Commission.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman
Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Abels.
ABSTAIN: None.
*. V
013
C:\My Documents\WPDOC S\PC11-14-OO.wpd 10
Planning Commission Minutes
November 14, 2000
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Site Development Permit 99-664; a request of Tiburon Homes, LLC for
review of irrigation and landscape plans for 19 residential lots on the
north side of Airport Boulevard, east of Madison Street in the Norman
Golf Course.
1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained
in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community
Development Department.
2. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Kirk asked what the source was the condition
regarding the review of the landscaping plans by the ALRC and
Planning Commission. Community Development Director Jerry
Herman stated the Commission requested it come back to the
Commission at the tract level after review by the ALRC.
Commissioner Kirk asked why the applicant was required to bring
this back to the Commission. The applicant stated it was because
the landscaping plans were not available at the time the
architectural plans were approved as part of the site development
permit.
3. Chairman Robbins asked if anyone reviews the backyard
landscaping. Staff stated it is exempt from the Ordinance. The
City does not regulate rear yard landscaping.
4. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Butler/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Minute
Motion 2000-016 approving the landscaping plans for Site
Development Permit 99-664. Unanimously approved.
B. Site Development Permit 99-665; a request of Steven Walker Homes for
review of landscaping plans for model homes, prototype residential plans,
and common areas on the north side of Airport Boulevard, east of
Madison Street, in the Norman Golf Course.
1 . Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained
in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community
Development Department.
C:\My D0cuments\WPD0CS\PC11-14-00.wpd f f
014
Planning Commission Minutes
November 14, :2000
2. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Minute
Motion 2000-017 approving the landscaping plans for Site
Development Permit 99-665. Unanimously approved.
C. Master Design Guidelines 2000-011; a request of Kristy Brady for review
of prototype house plans for two different facades located at 51-785 and
51-805 Avenida Villa.
Planning Manager Christine di lorio presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
2. Commissioner Kirk asked staff to explain the process for Master
Design Guidelines. Community Development Director Jerry
Herman stated the process is currently that when a person
submits application to build his fifth house, they have to prepare
Master Design Guidelines for Planning Commission review and
approval. After that they can continue to build according to those
approved guidelines. Commissioner Kirk asked if staff was
proposing to change these requirements. Staff stated they were
working on the process.
3. Commissioner Butler asked if the applicant was present. Noting
that they were not present, Commissioner Butler stated that when
he looks at a presentation like this, he sees a "cookie -cutter" look
in regard to the stucco colors, roof tiles, etc., that he has seen for
everyone. He questions whether they are doing justice to the
Cove area by allowing another design without any real detail to
say they are acceptable. Based on this presentation, he would
reject this application. There is no architectural detail and he
would want to see this builder have a better attitude about what
they want to build in the Cove.
4. Commissioner Tyler questioned whether or not there were any
standards for what a builder is suppose to submit. There are no
page numbers, square footage of each house, etc. The consensus
each time they review these applications, it is the same problem.
5. Commissioner Kirk stated staff does give applicants guidelines as
to what they are to submit. Staff stated they are shown examples
of what is expected and has been approved in the past.
Commissioner Kirk stated his concern that these two homes would
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC11-14-OO.wpd 12 ,ku 015
Planning Commission Minutes
November 14, :2000
be next to each other and they are too similar. In his opinion, the
designs do not meet the spirit and intent of the Ordinance. There
needs to be a variation in window treatments, elevations, etc.
6. Commissioner Tyler asked whether these designs had already been
built in the Cove. Community Development Director Jerry Herman
stated they have already built four in the Cove and they cannot get
their fifth permit until the Master Design Guidelines are approved
by the Commission. Commissioner Tyler asked if staff knows how
many of these designs have been built. Staff stated no.
7. Commissioner Butler asked if there were any pictures of the four
homes that are built. Planning Manager Christine di lorio stated
that with the first four, staff did a field review to see that there
were no similar homes within the 200 feet of the proposed homes.
Commissioner Butler asked that the next presentation have
pictures.
8. Chairman Robbins stated the Commission has had discussions
with staff so they would not get presentations they did not like.
Staff informed the Commission this process would be eliminated
and they would not be coming to the Commission for review.
Obviously, this has not happened and the Commission is still not
happy with what has been submitted. On the exterior elevation it
states typical location for 3/8 plywood. To him that says there
will be plywood on the exterior of the building which says this is
an ill -prepared plan. Community Development Director .Jerry
Herman stated that as long as they vary the front elevation and
not the same within 200 feet of each other, staff approves it as
long as they have a tile roof and landscaping. Staff does not have
the latitude to require additional detail as long as they meet the
minimum requirements of the Code. The only reason they are
before the Commission is that this is the fifth house they are
building. Staff can only ask the application to provide the material
requested. If they do not provide everything, staff cannot sit on
the application so it is brought to the Commission for direction.
9. Commissioner Butler stated an elevation is needed that shows
color, texture, and design. If he has built other houses in the
Cove, a picture of those homes would have been better than what
is submitted. The process may not be wrong, but in this instance
a picture would have helped.
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC11-14-OO.wpd 13 4. 016
Planning Commission Minutes
November 14, 2000
10. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Minute
Motion 2000-018 denying Master Design Guidelines 2000-011 .
Unanimously approved.
11. Staff asked for clarification as to what the Commission was
wanting. Commissioner Kirk stated they need to see variation
similar to others they may be reviewing where there are multi-
product styles with different sorts of treatment and they need to
do a better job of presenting it.
12. Chairman Robbins stated these plans do not show enough detail.
Based on these drawings, none should have been allowed to be
built.
D. Master Demon Guidelines 2000-012; a request of Robert and Sylvia
Kellogg for review of eight prototype house plans to be located
throughout the Cove.
1. Planning Manager Christine di lorio presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
2. Commissioner Butler commended the applicant on his
presentation.
3. Chairman Robbins asked why he voided some of the elevations as
he thought they were the better looking units. Mr. Kellogg stated
he could not get the floor plans in time to meet the deadline for
this meeting. It is his understanding that if the plans are not
contained in the Guidelines book, he is not allowed to build it.
Staff stated he could add to the Guidelines, but they would have
to come back to the Commission for approval.
4. Commissioner Kirk suggested the applicant be allowed to provide
the floor plans for the units crossed off, because the photos give
him the confidence to approve them and allow the applicant to
work with staff on the floor plans.
5. Commissioner Tyler suggested they show the square footage of
the homes, and include the colors and tile to be used, and a date
of submittal.
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC1 1-1 4-OO.wpd
14 ' 017
Planning Commission Minutes
November 14, 2000
2. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Minute
Motion 2000-019 approving Master Design Guidelines 2000-012.
Unanimously approved.
E. Sian Application 2000-523; a request of Pomona First Federal Bank and
Trust for review of four internally illuminated identification signs including
two time and temperature signs to be located at 78-752 highway 1 1 1 .
1 . Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained
in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community
Development Department.
2. Commissioner Butler asked staff to clarify the three changes.
Staff stated that under Statement of Issues "B" where the location
of the sign on the west elevation is discussed, staff is saying that
is acceptable. Only A and C and #2 are the recommended
conditions.
3. Commissioner Tyler noted that Condition B has the wrong
direction. It should be north and south, not east and west. What
is the objection of having the sign on the east facade protrude into
the archway. Staff stated the sign program shows all the signs on
the tower structures below the parapet and the main parapet is
lower than what they are showing. The other issue is that when
you put it above the parapet it becomes a roof sign. Staff is
therefore recommending that it be in line with the parapet that is
on the sides of the arch on the tower.
4. Commissioner Kirk stated that on the master sign program a single
tenant on a satellite pad would get one sign per facade, 50 square
feet and 24-inches high. If this was a successful bank, for
example, would he be allowed the same latitude? Could he have
a 40-square foot logo and 12-inch illuminated sign. Staff stated
he could request it if he has five branches. Commissioner Kirk
stated his disagreement that national, or multi -tenant, large
companies get latitude from our sign program and he does not
think this is right. One thing we could do, is require that their
entire logo and name be no more than 12-inches high and no more
than 50 square feet. Staff noted it is 24-inches high. Community
Development Director Jerry Herman stated this requirement is part
of the master program for the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping
Center. Discussion followed regarding what the master sign
program allows.
013
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC11-14-OO.wpd 15
Planning Commission Minutes
November 14, 2000
5. Commissioner Butler asked if the time and temperature was
included in the square footage for the sign. Staff stated yes.
6. Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Robert Rice, Pomona First Federal and Trust
clarified that the statement, "the proposed background stainless
steel is not illuminated". It is illuminated. He stated they agreed
with staff's recommendation.
7. Commissioner Tyler asked if they would retain the drive -through.
Mr. Rice stated yes.
2. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Butler/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Minute
Motion 2000-020 recommending to the City Council approval of
Sign Application 2000-523. Unanimously approved.
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None.
Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners butler/Kirk to cancel the
regular meeting of the Planning Commission on December 26, 2000.
Unanimously approved.
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Butler/Kirk to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next
regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held November 28, 2000, at 7:00
p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:36 p.m. on
October 24, 2000.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary
City of La Ouinta, California
'-" � 019
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC11-14-00.wpd 16
PH # A
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: NOVEMBER 28, 2000
CASE NO.: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) 2000-071
CHANGE OF ZONE (ZC) 2000-096
VILLAGE USE PERMIT (VUP) 2000-040
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA) 2000-402
AMEND THE VILLAGE DESIGN GUIDELINE
BOUNDARIES
REQUEST: ALLOW DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A 16,222
SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT
LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF AVENUE 52 AND DESERT
CLUB DRIVE
APPLICANT'S: CHAPMAN GOLF DEVELOPMENT, LLC
CITY OF LA QUINTA
ZONING: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL)
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR)
SURROUNDING
ZONING/LAND USE: NORTH: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL-
10,000)
SOUTH: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR)
EAST: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR)
WEST: VILLAGE COMMERCIAL (VC)
BACKGROUIIND:
The currently vacant project site of 4.99 acres, is located at the northeast cornerof
Avenue 52 And Desert Club Drive. The site is adjacent and across Avenue 52 from The
Tradition Club. The site is currently zoned Low Density Residential and the applicant is
also requesting to amend the General Plan and Zoning Designation from Low Density
Residential to Village Commercial and allow construction of a restaurant at northeast
Corner of Avenue 52 and Desert Club Drive. The City is requesting to amend the
General Plan and Zoning Designation from Low Density Residential to Village Commercial
on Eisenhower Drive south of Calle Tampico and the northeast corner of Avenue 52
and Avenida Bermudas (Attachment 1).
029
RECOMMEN )ATI N:
Staff recommends Planning Commission continue this item to December 12, 2000 as
the applicant, Chapman Golf Development, is requesting this to allow time to complete
a parking study (Attachment 2).
Prepared by:
Fred Baker, AICP
Principal Planner
Submitted by:
Ci4 �tiL
Christine di lorio
Planning Manager
021
�C
Y
N
a
m
m
LL
Onud
c
a�
ca
a
*-� 022
4Tradition
November 17, 2000
eFL. Jerry Herman, Ms. Christine Di Iorio, Mr. Fred Baker
Community Development Department
CITY OF Uk QUWA
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quints, CA 92253
Re: Application for Village Use Permit Approval
Palmer's Restaurant
Dear Jerry, Christine, and Fred,
Via hand delivery
Please accept this letter as a request for a continuance from the November 28, 2000
planning Commission meeting for palmees Restaurant, to December 12, 2000.
Enclosed with this letter is one complete submittal package, minus the parking study.
Thank you,
Sincerely,
Christina J. Dotes
for Chapman Golf Development
/cjd
x t (� �'H ]4Q115E I'u(� Snur SAI I•S N MAIUGTINI
TII: 7601564.8723 rw :760/564.1067 Ili:760/564-3355
zAx: 760/564.6691 FAX: 760/564 7405 FAX: 760/564.2)5(1
78`;05 0111 AVENUE 52 - Ln Qc:w m - CA V2253.1120
IA k;IKSh MAINTENANCE
TEU 760/564.5429
FAx: 760/564.6926
r, 2 3 TOTAL P. 02
PH #B
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: NOVEMBER 28, 2000
CASE NO.: SIGN APPLICATION 93-197 (AMENDMENT #2)
APPLICANT'.. THANE INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED
PROPERTY
OWNERS: LA QUINTA MEDICAL COMMERCIAL PLAZA LTD. AND MIGUEL
A. ELIAS
REQUEST: TO AMEND THE PLAZA TAMPICO SIGN PROGRAM TO ALLOW
TENANTS TO USE CORPORATE SIGN COLORS AND PERMIT
MAJOR SECOND STORY TENANTS IDENTIFICATION SIGNS
ON BUILDING ENTRY TOWERS
LOCATION: 78-140 AND 78-150 CALLE TAMPICO (PLAZA TAMPICO) AND
ADJACENT
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: THIS SIGN PROGRAM IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM
REVIEW UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15311 (A) OF THE
REGULATIONS BECAUSE ALL SIGNS ARE "ON -PREMISE"
IDENTIFICATION SIGNS.
GENERAL
PLAN/ZONING
DESIGNATIONS: OFFICE/VILLAGE COMMERCIAL
Site History
Plaza Tampico is located on six acres at the northeast corner of Calle Tampico and
Desert Club Drive in the La Quinta Village. Phase #1 improvements, including two
office buildings, were completed in the mid-1980's under Plot Plan 85-217. The
approved master plan for the site allowed development of approximately 100,000
square feet. Development of the last two office buildings on the west side of the
site requires Planning Commission approval because the entitlement period for PP
85-217 has expired (Attachment 1)•
Existing Sign Program
The Planned Sign Program for Plaza Tampico was approved by the City in 1989 to
allow 1/4" thick painted bronze aluminum channel letters (14" high) for each
tenant. The sign program stated that: "Exterior signage is not to exceed one
square foot of sign area per lineal foot of frontage, or for a total of 50 square feet."
Thirty inch high pictorial logos were also allowed. Corporate colors were only
permitted for logo signs. Building mounted signs were reserved for first floor level
businesses, and lighting was to be from an external source. Monument signs were
permitted at primary development entrances on Calle Tampico and Desert Club
Drive.
On June 22, 1993, the Plaza Tampico Sign Program was amended by the Planning
Commission so that tenant signs could also be constructed using three inch thick
cedar wood measuring 3' wide by 14' long (i.e., 42 square feet); sign copy was to
be sandblasted into the wood surface and painted brown and beige (Attachments 2
and 3).
Public Hearing: This case was advertised in the Desert Sun on November 18,
2000. All property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the project were
mailed a copy of the public hearing notice.
Project Request
The applicant is requesting an amendment to the Plaza Tampico Sign Program that
would allow Thane International, a major tenant in Building E, to place a non -
illuminated individual lettered sign (24 inches high) and 30 inch high company logo
on the south -facing entry tower, above the second story window (Attachments 4
and 5). Sign letters and logo are constructed from 1 /4" thick aluminum and have
painted surfaces in dark blue, blue, black and white. The size of the proposed sign
is approximately 30.5 square feet.
Pursuant to Section 9.160.090 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission
must make the following findings to approve modifications to this Planned Sign
Program:
a. The sign program is consistent with the purpose and intent of this chapter;
b. The sign program is in harmony with and visually related to:
i. All signs within the planned sign program, via the incorporation of
several common design elements such as materials, letter style,
colors, illumination, sign type and sign shape.
ii. The buildings they identity. This may be accomplished by utilizing
materials, colors, or design motif included in the building being
identified.
025
iii. Surrounding development. Implementation of the planned sign
program will not adversely affect surrounding land uses or obscure
adjacent conforming signs.
The proposed sign program amendment allows major second story level tenants
signing on street and parking lot frontages similar to first floor level tenants.
Condition 3b allows signs on building tower elements for major tenants, subject to
final approval by the Community Development Director. The proposed
amendments to the Plaza Tampico Sign Program are consistent with other City
approved sign programs and complies with design standards of Chapter 9.160
(Sign) of the Zoning Ordinance.
1. By Minute Motion approve amendments to the Plaza Tampico Sign Program ,
subject to the attached findings and conditions.
Attachments:
1. Plaza Tampico Site Plan
2. Plaza Tampico Site Plan - Sign Program
3. Existing Plaza Tampico Sign Graphics (Amendment #1)
4. Thane Sign (Tower)
5. Thane Sign - Letters
Prepared by:
Greg Trousdell, Associate Planner
Submitted by:
Christine di lorio, PI nning Manager
D26
Ll
ATTACHMENT #1
IN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
TENTATVE PARCEL MAP No. 28435
SCHOOL BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF PARCEL I OF PARCEL MAP 27109,RECORDED IN PMB 175/ 1 { 2, RIVERSIDE COUNTY RECORDS.
UNDER CONSTRUCTION PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST OUARTER OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH. RANGE 7 EAST.
SPRINGTII�it AUGUST 12 1996 J.F. DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES, INC. SCALE : 1" = 40'
WAY I N 89. 58' 9"E
u -I
EXISTING C.V.WA. WATER'EBMH.
E STING CESS
------ I/ EME
30'
NI i
G0�50 12'Cye
_ 10,! k' EX I
N 89- 58' 41' ACVS
EXISTING C.V.W.D1 SEWER SM
I
I
-1�4XISTING
N NCo PARKING EASEM
ENT
401 —24L7
IV32' ACCESS EASEMENT
I
I 15' LANDSCAPE ESMT.
CALL E7_.I TAMPICO
<
Z
N. I =
12 a
N
I I rc
30' 30'
6 '
0
N
0
02S
ATTACHMENT 2
PROPOSED SIGN PROGRAM
PLAZA TAMPICO
SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 93-197, AMENDMENT #2
PURPOSE: The purpose of this criteria is to establish sign standards necessary for
tenant identification insuring architectural compatibility through the use of common
graphic elements and colors.
FINDINGS:
A. That the Planned Sign Program for Plaza La Quinta, as conditioned, is consistent
with Chapter 9.160 (Signs) of the Zoning Ordinance.
B. That the Planned Sign Program allows design variation for exterior signs in
terms of color and materials, but limits sign placement and letter style to create
flexibility and visual harmony for each respective tenant or business.
C. This Planned Sign Program does not adversely impact any surrounding
developments, nor obscure views of neighboring off -site signs.
D. Building signs shall be designed as an integral feature of the buildings they
relate to, and be in good scale and proportion to the structures consistent with
the design guidelines for The Village.
1. All sign contractors shall be licensed to do business in the City of La Quinta and
possess a State Contractor's License to perform the work outlined herein.
2. Tenants signs may be illuminated from an external source, provided the light
fixture is shielded to comply with the requirements of the City's Zoning
Ordinance. Internally illuminated signs are not allowed.
3. Building signs for Plaza Tampico shall conform to the following requirements:
First floor level tenants are permitted one building sign per street or parking lot
frontage not exceeding one square foot of sign area per lineal foot of building
frontage, or 50 square feet. The aggregate total per business is 100 square
feet. Sign sizes include logo pictorials.
ThaneSign Progre n - 42
s_ 029
Second floor level tenants are not permitted exterior building signs, unless the
business leases more than 50 percent of the upstairs floor area. One building
sign per street or parking lot frontage is allowed not exceeding one square foot
of sign area per lineal foot of building frontage, or 50 square feet. The
aggregate total per business is 100 square feet. Sign sizes include logo
pictorials.
a. Sign construction specifications are:
Option #1 - 1 /4" thick aluminum (individual 24 inch high letters) with
painted surface stud mounted to the adjacent stucco surface. One row
of sign copy is allowed. Logo pictorials may not exceed 30 inches.
Option #2 - Three inch thick wood (i.e., redwood or cedar) plaque
measuring 3 feet wide by 14 feet long with 24 inch high letters
sandblasted into the wood. Nine inch high letters shall be used for two
rows of copy information. Letters shall be painted darker than the
proposed background color (i.e., white, light brown, etc.). A painted 1 "
wide border shall frame the sign graphics, including radius corners.
b. Additional requirements:
• Helvetica type lettering shall be used for sign graphics, unless the
business has a registered trademark and/or more than three
existing businesses with identical graphic characteristics.
• Exterior signs shall be located on the building's facade below the
second floor windows and above the first floor windows. Major
tenants may place their building identification signs on tower
elements of the center, subject to approval by the Community
Development Director.
• Signs shall be proportional to the facade they are to be mounted
onto. Existing architectural features of the building shall not be
modified to place a tenant sign on the facade unless the change
enhances the overall design characteristics of the office complex.
• Earth tone colors are required for all exterior sign graphics
excluding corporate users.
• Prior to submission of a Sign Application to the City, the applicant
shall obtain written approval for the sign from the property owner
and/or his or her legal agent.
ThaneSign Program - 42
O_
039
4. One monument sign per street frontage is allowed based on the City's Zoning
Ordinance requirements in effect at the time a building permit is applied for.
5. All other signs not addressed herein shall be subject to the rules and regulations
of City's Sign Ordinance when submitted.
6. The Community Development Director may approve material changes that are
architecturally compatible with the proposed program, subject to approval by
the property owner.
7. Modifications to this Sign Program shall be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Commission.
8. This Sign Program Amendment superceded all previous City of La Quinta
approvals.
ThaneSign Program - 42
.., . (13
1
0
® ATTACHMENT 3
EXHIBIT—p--�--�-
�_CASE N0.Y:!.--,7REVf$IED
Z
O
M
W
Z O 1
Z cc d
S o. N
a. 'L
�a
as
..7 O
45 IC:-N IIXATION Otf W ESi ELEV.
---- 14-0 -
C,CIVIC CENTER
MEDICAL PLAZA-
tl3„ Vleep can)
'. 032
� I -r r� � { �_'a✓. 'J"r Y`.'C"'^�tR' M1�- 1 6 T. r'J_ R �M' nF � R aY ��' '' 1
t L yi-J"3_
��
F
I
.rN
Fa
I
-
Itti ■I■ ■
Itgl■
�-
I 3 I`
`mis ,t a ■
milk
�MiS tt't 't't■
MIS
w , iln
1
p,
x a-
. i _ _ ..
:r'JJ ib`�M r..LI I. 'Yr�J'ji`zJ ... •:s�� ���
0
ATTACHMENT #5
cp
i:r via,
03
m
PH #C
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: NOVEMBER 28, 2000
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT 24197
APPLICANT: CENTURY CROWELL COMMUNITIES
ENGINEER: DUDEK AND ASSOCIATES
LOCATION: GENERALLY ON THE WEST SIDE OF JEFFERSON STREET,
BETWEEN FRED WARING DRIVE AND MILES AVENUE
REQUEST: SUBDIVISION OF 63± ACRES INTO 206 SINGLE FAMILY AND
OTHER MISCELLANEOUS LOTS
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000-407 WAS PREPARED FOR
THIS TENTATIVE TRACT MAP IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED. THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HAS DETERMINED THAT THE
PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT
ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THEREFORE, RECOMMENDS THAT
A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT BE CERTIFIED.
ZONING: RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) AND PR (PARK AND
RECREATION)
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: LDR (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) AND P (PARK FACILITIES - 4
ACRES))
SURROUNDING
ZONING/LAND
USES: NORTH: RL UNDER PREANNEXATION ZONING/ VACANT.
SOUTH: RESIDENTIAL IN INDIO/RESIDENTIAL
CONSTRUCTION UNDER WAY
EAST: RESIDENTIAL IN INDIO/RESIDENTIAL COUNTRY
CLUB
WEST: RL / RESIDENTIAL
p:\stan\tt 24197 pc rpt.wpd '-", 037
BACKGROUND:
The property is located at the northeast corner of the City on 63.1 acres bounded on
the east by Jefferson Street, the north by Fred Waring Drive, the south by Miles
Avenue, and the west by the Cactus and Wildflower subdivisions (Attachment 1)• The
project site excludes a 551.7' by 789.48' ten acre area on the corner of Fred Waring
Drive and Jefferson Street. This property is being sold to a commercial developer for
future development.
The site is vacant and consists of rolling sand dunes and typical desert shrubs and
slopes from west to the east. A previous tentative tract map was approved in 1990,
for 234 single family lots on 74 acres, including the commercial site which was then
zoned for single family development. That map has since expired without being
recorded.
Project Request
The applicants are proposing 206 single family lots on 63.12 acres of land or 3.26
dwelling units per acre (Attachment 2). The lots vary in size from 7,200 to 15, 098
square feet, with an average size of 8,728 square feet.
The tract is laid out with a main stem road meandering north to south from Fred
Waring Drive to Miles Avenue. Culs-de-sac and loop streets are provided from this
stem road. The tract will connect to the existing streets to the west at Buttercup Lane
near the north and Dandelion Drive near the south as originally planned when those
tracts were approved. This site will have one access to each of the three surrounding
arterial streets. The accesses on Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street will be right
turn in and out, and left in only, with the access on Miles Avenue allowing full turn
movements.
Five retention basins for stormwater are proposed, generally, on the east side of the
property. One is a 5.06 acre park site and retention basin proposed along the west
boundary of the adjacent commercial site. The applicant is proposing this site as a
neighborhood park to comply with their City parkland dedication requirements. The
General Plan shows a four acre park site on this property. Therefore, the retention
basin for off -site stormwater may only occupy one acre of this five site, subject to
Public Works Department approval. Two Coachella Valley Water District water well
sites are designated, one at the northeast corner of the five acre park site/retention
basin and one at the corner of Jefferson Street and Miles Avenue.
The project site will be surrounded by a block wall. Along portions of the west
boundary a wood fence currently exists. The applicant has indicated a along Fred
Waring Drive, Jefferson Street, and Miles Avenue the wall will be meandering. This
will require some modification to the rear property lines adjacent to these streets.
p:\stan\tt 24197 pc rpt.wpd
'-`J: 036
Public Notice
This map application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on November 6,
2000. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the
public hearing notice as required by the Subdivision Ordinance of the La Quinta
Municipal Code. As of this writing, no comments have been received concern.
Public Agency Review
All written comments received are on file with the Community Development
Department. All applicable agency comments received have been made part of the
Conditions of Approval for this case.
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
Findings necessary to recommend approval of this request can be made and are
contained in the attached Resolutions, with the exception of the following:
1.) The Tentative Tract Map does not meet the Finding that design and proposed
improvements of the proposed map are consistent with the General Plan and
any applicable specific plan (Zoning Code) in that Lots 140 and 141 have less
than the minimum required 60 feet of lot frontage. Recommended Condition of
Approval #83 requires that these lots be adjusted to meet the lot width
requirement.
2.) The Tentative Tract Map does not meet the Finding that design and proposed
improvements of the proposed map are consistent with the General Plan Park
and Recreation Element Policy 5-2.1.5 in that the proposed retention/park site
would subject residents of the park to potential detrimental impacts due to the
use of the five acre site for water retention. Therefore, recommended Condition
of Approval #81 requires that four acres of the five acre site shall be designed
to not be used for on -site storm water retention.
3.) The Tentative Tract Map does not meet the Finding that design and proposed
improvements of the proposed map are consistent with the General Plan
Circulation Element Policy 3-2.1 .5 (Table CIR-2) in that the cuts -de -sac street
pavement widths are proposed at 32 feet (50' right-of-way) for the double
loaded streets, which allows on -street parking on one side. The General Plan
requires double loaded streets provide a 36 foot street pavement, allowing
parking on both sides. Recommended Condition of Approval #51 b.i. requires
the wider cuts -de -sac streets.
4.) The Tentative Tract Map does not comply with the Finding that the design of
the subdivision or type of improvements may cause public health problems in
p:\stan\tt 24197 pc rpt.wpd ® I 037
that some of the streets do not encourage safe traffic movements.
Recommended Condition of Approval #53 b.iii. recommends traffic calming
techniques (i.e. chokers, et.) be incorporated into the project to the satisfaction
of the Public works Department.
RECOMMENDATION:
1.) Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000- , recommending to the
City Council certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact; and,
2.) Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000- , recommending to the
City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 24197, subject to attached
Findings and Conditions of Approval.
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. TT 29147 exhibit
Prepared by:
Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner
Submitted by:
Christine di lorio, lanning Manager
p:\stan\ tt 24197 pc rpt.wpd
33,q
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED
FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 24197
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000-407
CENTURY CROWELL COMMUNITIES
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 2 8TH day of November, 2000, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to
consider the request of Century Crowell Communities for Environmental Assessment
2000-407 for Tentative Tract 24197, located on the west side of Jefferson Street,
between Jefferson Street and Miles Avenue, more particularly described as:
Portion of Section 20, TSS, R7E, SBBM
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that
the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 2000-407)
and has determined that although the proposed Tentative Tract Map could have a
significant adverse impact on the environment, there would not be a significant effect
in this case because appropriate mitigation measures were made a part of the
assessment and included in the Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract 24197, and
a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be certified: and,
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments,
if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find
the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify a recommendation for certification
of said Environmental Assessment:
1. The proposed Tentative Tract Map will not be detrimental to the health, safety,
or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no
significant unmitigable impacts were identified.
2. The proposed Tentative Tract Map will not have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or
endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory.
G.. 039
P:\STAN\ea 2000-407 pc res.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2000-
Environmental Assessment 2000-407
November 28, 2000
3. The proposed Tentative Tract Map does not have the potential to achieve short-
term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals,
as no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified.
4. The proposed Tentative Tract Map will not result in impacts which are
individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or
proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the
area will not be significantly affected by the proposed subdivision.
5. The proposed Tentative Tract Map will not have environmental effects that will
adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no
significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk
potential or public services.
6. There is no evidence to show that State mandated school fees will not be
adequate to address impacts to school facilities. The fees will be paid at time
of issuance of building permits.
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 for this Environmental Assessment.
2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of
Environmental Assessment 2000-407 for the reasons set forth in this
Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist on file in
the Community Development Department.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission held on this 28T" day of November, 2000, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
P:\STAN\ea 2000-407 pc res.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2000-
Environmental Assessment 2000-407
November 28, 2000
STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
s r,
P:\STAN\ea 2000-407 pc res.wpd U f
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project Title: Tentative Tract Map 24197
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Contact Person and Phone Number: Stan Sawa, 760-777-7125
4. Project Location: Southwestern corner of Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Century Crowell Communities
1535 South D Street, Suite 200
San Bernardino, CA 92408
6. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential/4 acre park
Zoning: Low Density Residential/4 acre park
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases
of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach
additional sheets if necessary.)
Subdivision map creating 206 residential lots, street, and park logs on 63 acres.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North: Currently vacant, designated for low density residential
South: Existing single family residential and golf course
East: Heritage Palms, single family residential and golf course
West: Existing single family residential
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.)
P:ACEQAchecklistEA 00-407 wpd .a
2
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each
question. A "No Impact' answer is adequately supported if the reference information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project
falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is
based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose
sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on- site,
cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as
operational impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact' entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant
Impact" to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation
measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section XVIII, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the
checklist.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources
for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously
prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or
pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) The analysis of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
P_\CEQAchecklistEA 00-407.wpd
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (General Plan
Exhibit CIR-5)
b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
(General Plan EIR, page 5-12 ff.)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings? (Application materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application
materials)
it. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:. In determining whether impacts to
agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and
Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Dept. Of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland) to on -agricultural use? (Master
Environmental Assessment 5-29, 5-32)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract? (Zoning Map)
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in
loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Aerial photographs)
Ill. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established
by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control
district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air
Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan? (SCAQMD
CEQA Handbook)
b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA
Handbook)
c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA
Handbook)
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
ft
X
X
X
0
X
X
X
0
11
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
(General Plan EIR) AiJo U 0 4 Y
0
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
(Application materials) X
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the Califo�mia Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service? (General Plan EIR p. 4.69)
b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural) community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game
or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (General Plan EIR p. 4.65 ff.)
c) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Either individually or in
combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means? (General Plan FIR p. 4.65 ff.)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery
sites? (General Plan FIR p. 4.65 ff.)
e) Conflict with, any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (General Plan
FIR p. 4.65 ff.)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Master Environmental
Assessment 5-5)
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource which is either listed or eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic
Resources, or a local register of historic resources? (Phase I
Archaeological: Assessment..., Archaeological Advisory Group,
September, 2000)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique
archaeological resources (i.e.. an artifact, object, or site about which it
can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current
body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it contains
information needed to answer important scientific research questions,
has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or best
available example of its type, or is directly associated with a
scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or
person)? (Phase I Archaeological Assessment..., Archaeological
Advisory Group, September, 2000)
X
X
X
X
X
X
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site?
(Lakebed boundary map, City of La Quinta)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries? (Phase I Archaeological Assessment...,
Archaeological Advisory Group, September, 2000) 0. 0
X
X
0
X
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? (General Plan FIR, Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (General
Plan FIR, page 4-30 ff.)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (General
Plan, page 8-7)
c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on -
or off -site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property? (General Plan FIR, page 4-30 ff.)
e)Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks
or alternative waste water disposal system where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste water? (Master Environmental
Assessment 5-32)
VIL HAZARDS AIND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
(Application Materials)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the
likely release of hazardous materials into the environment?
(Application Materials)
c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
(Application Materials)
d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment? (Riverside County Hazardous Materials
Listing)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip; would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? (General Plan land use map) .6. J 0
X
X
X
X
X
X
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Master
Environmental Assessment 6-11)
h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildlands fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
(General Plan land use map)
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements? (Master Environmental
Assessment 6-26, 6-27)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e.,
the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted? (General Plan EIR, page 4-57 ff.)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -
site? (Preliminary Drainage Study, Dudek & Associates)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or off -site? (Preliminary Drainage
Study, Dudek & Associates)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control?
(Preliminary Drainage Study, Dudek & Associates)
f) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
hazard delineation map? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13)
g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13)
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? (Application Materials)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of
an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited
to the general plan, specific plan, local costal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? (Master Environmental Assessment 2-11)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
communities conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5
5)
M
X
X
X
X
X
M
X
X
X
0
X
047
X.
MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
XII.
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental
Assessment 5-29)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29)
NOISE: Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies? (Acoustical Analysis, Gordon
Bricken & Associates, October, 2000)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbonae
vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Acoustical Analysis, Gordon
Bricken & Associates, October, 2000)
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels
in the project viicinity above levels existing without the project?
(Acoustical Analysis, Gordon Bricken & Associates, October, 2000)
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use, airport, would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Master Environmental
Assessment)
e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive levels? (General Plan map)
POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (General
Plan, page 2-14)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application
Materials)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application
Materials)
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. )
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. )
Schools? (General Plan MEA, page 4-9 ff. )
X
X
X
X
X
X
91
X
X
X
X
X
I7
XIV
XV.
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, page 4-14 ff. )
RECREATION:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
(Application Materials) -
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application Materials)
TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC: Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a
substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (General Plan
EIR, page 4-126 ff.)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways? (General Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff.)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase
in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety
risks? (General Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff.)
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)? (Application materials)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Application Materials)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Application Materials)
g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (General Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff.)
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, page 4-
24)
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental effects? (CVWD
comment letter, October 26, 2000)
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA,
page 4-27)
d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed? (CVWD comment letter, October 26, 2000)
e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the projects
projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
(CVWD comment letter, October 26, 2000) 1 04
0
lN
X
tit
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
94
t) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?(General Plan
MEA, page 4-28)
XVII, MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant 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?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that
the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
project, and the effects of probable future projects)?
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
XVIII EARLIER ANALYSES.
X
X
X
0
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program FIR, or other CEQA process, one or
more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier FIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D).
In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets.
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
No earlier analyses specific to this project site have been used.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Not applicable..
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the
mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address
site -specific conditions for the project.
See attached Addendum.
SOURCES:
Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 1992.
SCAQMD CEQA Handbook.
General Plan, City of La Quinta, 1992.
General Plan Environmental Impact Report, 1992
Paleontological Lakebed Delineation Map, City of La Quinta.
City of La Quinta Municipal Code
059
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is a 'Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages
Aesthetics
Hazards and Hazardous
Public Services
Materials
Agriculture Resources
Hydrology and Water Quality
Recreation
Air Quality
Land Use Planning
Transportation/Traffic
Biological Resources
Mineral Resources
Utilities and Service Systems
Cultural Resources
Noise
Mandatory Findings
Geology and Soils
Population and Housing
Determination
(To be completed by the Lead Agency.)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that 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 nox be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the: project have been
made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared. 12
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets.
An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects
that remain to be addressed. El
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier FIR
pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
FIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,
nothing further is required.
4-�� i l l
Signature Date
Christine di Norio City of La Ouinta
Printed Name For ._ 0$
1
P:\CEQAcheckhstEA 00-407.,Pd
Addendum to Environmental Checklist, EA 2000-407
I. a) & c) Fred Waring and Jefferson are both designated as primary image
corridors in the General Plan. Miles Avenue is designated a secondary
image corridor. The intersection of Fred Waring and Jefferson is
designated a secondary gateway in the General Plan. The proposed
project, therefore, occurs at a significant location in the City, from an
aesthetic perspective. The proposed tract map, however, does not
include landscaping plans. The map does, however, identify lettered lots
along each of the roadways which provide a width of 20 feet for the
construction of parkways. The project proponent will be required to
submit landscaping plans for the parkways, which will be reviewed and
approved by the City, in order to ensure that City standards are
implemented. This will reduce the potential impacts to scenic vistas to a
less than significant level.
I. d) The project site is currently vacant desert land. The proposed lighting on
the project site will be typical of that for residential development, and will
primarily occur on the interior of the site. The site's lighting impacts are
not expected to be significant.
III. c) & d) Based on the residential land uses proposed, the project can be expected
to generate approximately 2,198 trips per day'. Based on this, as shown
in the Table below, the project will not exceed any SCAQMD thresholds.
1., itnte of TEnSi^e ,, Trips Genernfion Handbook, 6th Fdition, for single family residentlnl
P:\Addendum EA00-407. wpd
Running Exhaust Emissions
(pounds/day)
PM10 PM10 PM10
CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires
50 mph 79.4 3.1 16.3 0.0 0.34 0.34
8
Daily
Threshold 550 75 100 150
Based on 2198 trips/day and average trip length of 7.0 miles, using
EMFAC7G Model provided by California Air Resources Board. Assumes
catalytic light autos at 75°F. * Operational thresholds provided by SCAQMID
for assistance in determining the significance of a project.
The Coachella Valley has in the past been a non -attainment area for PM10 (particulate
matter of 10 microns or smaller)• Recent analysis by SQAQMD has determined that
the Valley has reached attainment, and a redesignation is pending. In order to control
PM10, the City has imposed standards and requirements on development to control
dust. SCAQMD also suggests mitigation for vehicular emissions, which are integrated
into the following mitigation measures:
1. No earth moving activity shall be undertaken without the review and approval
of a PM10 Management Plan by the City Engineer.
2. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize
exhaust emissions.
3. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible; via temporary power
poles to avoid on -site power generation.
4. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit
opportunities.
5. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on site.
6. Any iportion of the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of three
feet prior to the onset of grading activities.
7. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed on an
on -going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the site. Portions of
the site that are actively being graded shall be watered regularly to ensure that
a crust is formed on the ground surface, and shall be watered at the end of each
work day.
P:\Addendum E A00-407. wpd
053
8. All disturbed areas shall be treated to prevent erosion until the site is
constructed upon. Sites which are to remain undeveloped shall be seeded with
either a desert wildflower mix or grass seed.
9. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential
for wind erosion.
10. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of construction -
related dirt on approach routes to the site.
11. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone
episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
12. All buildings on the project site shall conform to energy use guidelines in Title
24 of the California Administrative Code.
13. The project shall provide for non -motorized transportation facilities and shall
implement all feasible measures to encourage the use of alternate transportation
measures.
With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts to air quality from
the proposed project will not be significant. Moreover, improvements in technology
which are likely to reduce impacts, particularly from motor vehicles or transit route
improvements in the future which may occur at the project site are not included in the
analysis.
IV. a), d), e) & f)
The project occurs within the potential habitat area of the Coachella Valley
Giant Sand Treader Cricket (General Plan EIR Exhibit 4.4-1). The Cricket is a
species of concern and being considered for inclusion in the Coachella Valley
Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan. As such, its potential presence on the
project site should be determined prior to the issuance of grading permits. The
following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
1. Prior to any site disturbance, the project proponent shall submit, for review and
approval by the Community Development Department, a focussed biological
resource analysis for the Coachella Valley Giant Sand Treader Cricket. Should
the Cricket be located on the site, the biological resource analysis shall
recommend mitigation measures necessary to reduce impacts to a less than
significant level.
The project occurs within the boundaries of the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed
Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan. The project proponent will be required to pay
the mandated $600 fee per acre prior to development at the site.
These mitigation measures will reduce impacts to biological resources to a level of
insignificance.
PAAddendum EA00-407. wpd
�5r
V. a), b) & d)
Phase I and Phase II cultural resource analyses were conducted for the proposed
project'. Four sites have been previously recorded on the project site. Previous
studies also recommended that backhoe trenching be undertaken, since deeply
buried resources could occur, particularly under mesquite hummocks on the
subject property. The Phase II analysis, including 31 trenches, was completed
for the; proposed project. No significant cultural deposits were identified in the
trenching.
1 . An archaeological monitor shall be present during all rough grading and major
trenching activities on the site. The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily
halt or redirect earthmoving activities should any cultural resources be
encountered. Upon discovery of a cultural resource, work should stop in the
vicinity of the find, and a plan for its evaluation and treatment should be
developed in consultation with the Community Development Department.
V1..a) i)
The proposed project does not lie in an Alquist-Priolo hazard area. The potential
impact for fault rupture is not expected to be significant.
VI. a) ii)
The proposed project occurs in a Zone IV groundshaking zone. The City has
adopted the provisions of the Uniform Building Code for this hazard.
Construction of any structure on the project site will conform to these
standards, and will reduce the potential hazard to a less than significant level.
VI. b) & c)
The site is located immediately south of a blowsand hazard area. As discussed
above, the project proponent will be required to submit a PM10 management
plan, which will reduce blowsand impacts. Unstable soil conditions can occur
from improper grading or excavation of sandy soils such as those found on the
project site. The City's standards for site preparation shall be adhered to in all
site preparation activities. In order to reduce the impacts of unstable soils on the
proposed site, the following mitigation measure shall be: implemented:
1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for any structure on the proposed site, the
applicant shall submit, for review and, approval by the City Engineer, a detailed,
site specific soil study, which shall include recommendations designed for the
specific structures being constructed.
VIII. a)
The proposed project will be required to retain the 100 year, 24 hour storm on -
site. The water will be retained in retention basins which shall be designed to
meet the standards established by the City Engineer. This requirement includes
"Phase I end Phase II Assessmeirt for the Proposed Monticello P jec[.' prepared by Aahawlogy Advisory Group, November, 2000.
P:\Addend um EA00-407. wpd
055
the installation of "water cleaning" devices when necessary to ensure that no
contaminants are introduced into the storm water system. This requirement will
reduce the potential for violation of a water quality standard to a less than
significant level.
VIII. bl
Domestic water is provided by the Coachella Valley Water District, which
extracts groundwater from a number of wells in the Lower Thermal sub -basin.
The District will require the installation of water conserving landscaping, as well
as the adherence to building code requirements for water conserving fixtures
within the homes. This will reduce the potential impacts associated with the
proposed project to a less than significant level.
VIII. c), d) & e)
Any development proposal reduces the amount of natural terrain available for
percolation, and changes drainage patterns. Construction of structures and
roadways will reduce the amount of land available for absorption of water into
the ground, and has the potential to increase surface runoff. The proposed
project will direct surface runoff to retention basins located within the project.
The City Engineer will impose conditions of approval to ensure that any drainage
is properly treated, if needed. No significant impact is expected.
XI. a), b) & c)
A noise analysis was prepared for the proposed project'. The study identified
traffic: noise as the primary impact to the proposed project. Noise levels along
Fred Waring, Jefferson and Miles will exceed the City's 60 dBA CNEL standard,
and will require mitigation. The noise analysis results in the following mitigation
measures in order to mitigate the impacts of noise to a less than significant
level:
1 . A combination of walls and berms shall be designed to achieve the following
wall heights (top of wall):
Lots 1 through 3: 11'
Lots 89, 97 through 99: 7'
Lots 90, 91, 100 and 101: 8'
Lots 92 through 94: 5'
Lots 95 and 96: 6'
Lots 102 through 113, 187 and 188: 10'
Lots 127 and 206: 9'
In no case shall the wall height exceed 6 feet.
3 "Ac111w I An,lM,,, Tvnl 24197,- emdby Gorden BricAenffi A56U,iatC,.
p55
P:\Add endum EA00-407. wpd
2. Construction enhancements required to satisfy the City's 45 dBA interior noise
levels shall be implemented in conformance with Table 7 of the Acoustical
Analysis.
In addition, in order to lower the potential impacts associated with construction
on the project site, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented:
3. All construction equipment shall be equipped with properly operating and
maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers' standards.
4. All stationary construction equipment shall be placed so that noise is directed
away from the western property line.
5. Construction staging areas shall be located along the eastern property line.
6. All construction shall occur during the hours allowed in the La Quinta Municipal
Code.
XIII. a)
The construction of the proposed project will result in short-term potential
impacts for all public services. The property, once developed, will generate
property tax. These taxes will contribute to the City's General Fund, and off -set
the potential impact to public services. All development has an impact on
governmental facilities and services. The project proponent will be required to
participate in the City's Impact Fee Program, which helps to offset roadway
improvements. The proposed project will be required to pay school fees in effect
at the time of development to mitigate for the impacts to schools. The proposed
project is not expected to have a significant impact on services or facilities.
XIV. a) & b)
The project will create up to 206 homes, which will generate an added need for
parks. The project proponent will dedicate a 5.06 acre site for use as a City
park. This park area will also be used as a retention basin. The dedication of
land and creation of a park at this location will provide mitigation to the impacts
on parks and recreation.
XV. a)
The proposed project was analysed as a Low Density Residential development
in the General Plan. The traffic impacts associated with the proposed project
will riot exceed those analysed in the General Plan, and are not expected to be
significant.
XV. dl
The project proposes access on Jefferson Street, approximately 1,200 feet
south of Fred Waring. The access point will be unsignalized, and appears to be
off -set from an access point on the east side of Jefferson at Heritage Palms.
05
P:\AddendumEAOO-407.wpd 7
These off -set access points could be hazardous, particularly for left turns from
the proposed project onto north -bound Jefferson Street. In order to mitigate the
potential impact, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
1. Access onto Jefferson Street shall be limited to right -in, right -out, and left -in
turn movements only. The left turn lane into the project shall be subject to
approval by the City of Indio. The access point shall be clearly marked "No Left
Turn." Additional physical obstacles to prevent left turns from the project to
north -bound Jefferson Street shall be at the discretion of the La Quinta City
Engineer.
XVI. b), c), d) & f)
All development impacts utilities and service systems. The proposed project,
however, will be required to meet the standards of the City and service
providers in constructing facilities which are energy efficient and water
conserving. The construction of the proposed project will have a limited impact
on solid waste disposal. However, the residents will be required to participate
in the City's AB 939 programs, which are designed to reduce the impacts to
landfills. The overall impacts of the project on these services is not expected to
be significant.
e.' 05g
P:\Addend um E A00-407. wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A SUBDIVISION
OF 63.1 ACRES INTO 206 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 24197
CENTURY CROWELL COMMUNITIES
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 28T" day of November, 2000, hold a duly noticed Public; Hearing to consider
the request of Century Crowell Communities for approval of a Tentative Tract Map to
create 206 single family lots and miscellaneous lots on 63.1 acres in the RL (Low
Density Residential) zone, located on the west side of Jefferson Street between Fred
Waring Drive and Miles Avenue, more particularly described as:
Portion of Section 20, TSS, R7E, SBBM
WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map has complied with the requirements
of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as
amended (Resolution 83-68), in that the Community Development Department has
conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 2000-407), and determined
that the proposed Tentative Tract Map will not have a significant impact on the
environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is
recommended for certification; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings of approval to justify
a recommendation for approval of said Tentative Tract Map:
1 . The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan in that with the lots will
be used for Low Density Residential use which conforms with the General Plan
and its Elements provided the recommended Conditions of Approval are
imposed. The proposed density is 3.26 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) which
is within the 2-4 du/ac designated by the General Plan Land Use Element.
2. The design and proposed improvements of the proposed map is consistent with
the General Plan and applicable specific plans (Zoning Code) in that the
development and improvements of the lots will comply with applicable
development standards regarding, density, grading, access, streets, lot sizes and
width;, etc., provided the recommended Conditions of Approval are imposed.
A '
pAstan\tt 24197 pc res.wpd ���
Planning Commission Resolution 2000-
Tentative Tract Map 24197
November 28, 2000
3. The design of the subdivision and proposed improvements are not likely to
cause environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish, or
wildlife, or cause serious public health problems since the project is surrounded
by development, or other urban improvements, and mitigation is required by the
Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA 2000-407), including noise mitigation
adjacent to Jefferson Street, Fred Waring Drive, and Miles Avenue. This will be
provided by a combination of berming, lowering of the adjacent residential pads,
and construction of garden and retaining walls.
4. The design of the proposed map or types of improvements are not likely to
cause serious public health problems because the development of the land will
require compliance with all health related requirements including traffic calming
techniques (i.e. stop signs, chokers, etc.), and provisions for sewers and water.
5 The design of the proposed map will not conflict with easements acquired by
the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed
Map since none presently exist and new easements as needed will be provided
and recorded.
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 constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case;
2. That it does recommend approval of Tentative Tract Map 24197 for the reasons
set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 28TH day of November, 2000, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
p:\stan\tt 24197 pc res.wpd A. � ()60
J
Planning Commission Resolution 2000-
Tentative Tract Map 24197
November 28, 2000
STEVEN ROBBINS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La ClUnta, California
r r,
p:\stan\tt 24197 pc res.wpd ' ' 61
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 24197
CENTURY CROWELL COMMUNITIES
NOVEMBER 28, 2000
GENERAL
Upon conditional approval by the City Council of this development application,
the City Clerk shall prepare and record, with the Riverside County Recorder, a
memorandum noting that conditions of approval for development of the property
exist and are available for review at City Hall.
2. The subdivider agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La
Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or
proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this tentative map
or any final map thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its
defense counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding
and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
3. This tentative map and any final maps thereunder shall comply with the
requirements and standards of §§66410 through 66499.58 of the California
Government Code (the Subdivision Map Act) and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta
Municipal Code (LQMC).
4. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the applicant
shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies:
• Fire Marshal
• Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit)
• Community Development Department
• Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
Desert Sands Unified School District
• Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
• Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
• California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB)
• Sunline Transit
The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances
from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement
plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City
approval of the plans.
The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES
stormwater discharge permit. For projects requiring project -specific NPDES
p:\stan\tt 24197 pc coampd '4. l 062
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 24197
CENTURY CROWELL COMMUNITIES
NOVEMBER 28, 2000
construction permits, the applicant shall submit a copy of the CWQCB
acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent prior to issuance of a
grading or site construction permit. The applicant shall ensure that the required
Storm 'Water Pollution Protection Plan is available for inspection at the project
site.
5. Final maps under this tentative map shall be subject to the provisions of the
Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at
the time of final map approval.
6. Where streets within the project are extensions of existing streets from adjacent
tracts (Tract Nos. 22982 and 25691), the existing strreet names shall be
continued through the project.
Prior to Final Map approval by the City Council, the applicant/developer shall
submit proposed street names with alternatives for other streets in tract to
Community development Department for approval.
PROPERTY RIGHT
7. Prior to approval of a final map, the applicant shall acquire or confer easements
and other property rights required of the tentative map or otherwise necessary
for construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred
rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to
the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction, and
reconstruction of essential improvements.
8. The applicant shall dedicate or grant public and private street right of way and
utility easements in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code,
applicable specific plans, and as required by the City Engineer.
9. Right of way dedications required of this development include:
a. PUBLIC STREETS
Fred Waring Drive (Major Arterial): 60-foot half of 120-foot right
of way
ii. Jefferson Street (Major Arterial): 60-foot half of 120-foot right of
way
iii. Miles Ave. (Primary Arterial): 55-foot half of 1 10-foot right of way
p:\stan\tt 24197 pc coa.wpd�' ��63
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 24197
CENTURY CROWELL COMMUNITIES
NOVEMBER 28, 2000
iv. Residential Streets: 60-foot right of way, except cul-de-sac right
of way width which may be reduced to 50-foot.
b. CULS DE SAC BULBS
i. Use Riverside County Standard 800 (symmetric) or 800A (offset)
with 39.5-foot radius, or larger.
10, Right of way geometry for knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform
with Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless
otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
11. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and
left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved
construction plans.
12. If the City Engineer determines that access rights to proposed street rights of
way shown on the tentative map are necessary prior to approval of final maps
dedicating the rights of way, the applicant shall grant the necessary rights of
way within 60 days of written request by the City.
13. The applicant shall dedicate ten -foot public utility easements contiguous with
and along both sides of all private streets. The easements may be reduced to
five feat with the express concurrence of IID.
14. The applicant shall create perimeter setbacks along public rights of way as
follows (listed setback depth is the average depth if meandering wall design is
approved):
a. Fred Waring Drive (Major Arterial): 20-feet
b. Jefferson Street (Major Arterial): 20-feet
C. Miles Avenue (Primary Arterial): 20-feet
The setback requirement applies to all frontage including, but not limited to,
remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes.
Where: public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks,
the applicant shall dedicate blanket easements for those purposes.
{ U6Y
p:\stan\tt 24197 pc coa.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 24197
CENTURY CROWELL COMMUNITIES
NOVEMBER 28, 2000
The applicant shall dedicate on the final map the perimeter landscape lots,
however, the applicant shall anticipate retaining ownership of these perimeter
landscape lots unto itself, its heirs, or assigns because the City has not been
accepting dedications of these lots for public ownership since the passage of
Proposition 218.
15. The applicant shall dedicate easements necessary for placement of and access
to utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and
common areas.
16. The applicant shall vacate abutter's rights of access to public streets and
properties from all frontage along the streets and properties except access
points shown on the approved tentative map.
17. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements or written permission, as
appropriate, from owners of any abutting properties on which grading, retaining
wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments are to occur.
18. If the applicant proposes vacation or abandonment of any Existing rights of way
or access easements which will diminish access rights to any properties owned
by others, the applicant shall provide approved alternate rights of way or access
easements to those properties or notarized letters of consent from the property
owners
19. The applicant shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any
portion of this property between the date of approval of this tentative map by
the City Council and the date of recording of any final map(s) covering the same
portion of the property unless such easements are approved by the City
Engineer.
FINAL MAP(S) AND PARCEL MAP(S)
20. Prior to approval of a final map, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad
files of the complete map, as approved by the City's map checker, on storage
media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad
menu items so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program.
If the map was not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be
converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the
map.
p:\stan\tt 24197 pc coa.wpd r V j
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000-
CONDITIONS OF: APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 24197
CENTURY CROWELL COMMUNITIES
NOVEMBER 28, 2000
21. All retention basin lots, park site lot, and well site lots shall be individually
designated as lettered lots.
22. If a retention basin for on site stormwater is to be created within the proposed
city park site area, then a separate lettered lot shall be designated for the basin.
IMPROVEMEfJT PLANS
As used throughout these conditions of approval, professional titles such as "engineer,"
"surveyor," and "architect' refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice
their respective professions in the State of California.
23. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of
qualified engineers and landscape architects, as appropriate. Plans shall be
submitted on 24" x 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading," "Precise
Grading," "Streets & Drainage," and "Landscaping." Precise grading plans shall
have signature blocks for Community Development Director and the Building
Official. All other plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer.
Plans are not approved for construction until they are signed.
"Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike
paths, entry drives, gates, and parking lots. "Landscaping" plans shall normally
include: irrigation improvements, landscape lighting and entry monuments.
"Precise Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls.
Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the
City Engineer.
24. The 0ty may maintain standard plans, details and/or construction notes for
elements of construction. For a fee established by City resolution, the applicant
may acquire standard plan and/or detail sheets from the City.
25. When final plans are approved by the City, the applicant shall furnish accurate
AutoCad files of the complete, approved plans on storage media acceptable to
the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu items so they
may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. ,At the completion of
construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall
update; the files to reflect as -constructed conditions.
If the plans were not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be
converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the
plans.
0
p:\stan\tt 24197 pc coa.wpd .,
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 24197
CENTURY CROWELL COMMUNITIES
NOVEMBER 28, 2000
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
26. Depending on the timing of development of the lots or parcels created by this
map and the status of off -site improvements at that time, the subdivider may
be required to construct improvements, to construct additional improvements
subject to reimbursement by others, to reimburse others who construct
improvements that are obligations of this map, to secure the cost of the
improvements for future construction by others, or a combination of these
methods.
In the event that any of the improvements required herein are constructed by
the City, the Applicant shall, at the time of approval of a map or other
development or building permit, reimburse the City for the cost of those
improvements.
27. The applicant shall construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations, or furnish
an executed, secured agreement to construct improvements and/or satisfy
obligations required by the City prior to approval of a final map or parcel map
or issuance of a certificate of compliance for a waived parcel map. For secured
agreements, security provided, and the release thereof, shall conform with
Chapter 13, LQMC.
Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing
structures or obstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements.
28. If improvements are secured, the applicant shall provide estimates of
improvement costs for checking and approval by the City Engineer. Estimates
shall comply with the schedule of unit costs adopted by City resolution or
ordinance. For items not listed in the City's schedule, estimates shall meet the
approval of the City Engineer.
Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be
approved by those agencies. Security is not required for telephone, gas, or T.V.
cable improvements. However, development -wide improvements shall not be
agendized for final acceptance until the City receives confirmation from the
telephone authority that the applicant has met all requirements for telephone
service to lots within the development.
29. If improvements are phased with multiple final maps or other administrative
approvals (e.g., Site Development Permits), off -site improvements and common
p:\stan\tt 24197 pc coa.wpd 067
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 24197
CENTURY CROWELL COMMUNITIES
NOVEMBER 28, 2000
improvements (e.g., retention basins, perimeter walls & landscaping,) shall be
constructed or secured prior to approval of the first phase unless otherwise
approved by the City Engineer. Improvements and obligations required of each
phase shall be completed and satisfied prior to completion of homes or
occupancy of permanent buildings within the phase and subsequent phases
unless a construction phasing plan is approved by the City Engineer.
30. If the applicant fails to construct improvements or satisfy obligations in a timely
manner or as specified in an approved phasing plan or in an improvement
agreemient, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits or
final building inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development
of the project or call upon the surety to complete the improvements.
GRADING
31. This development shall comply with Chapter 8.11 of the LQMC (Flood Hazard
Regulations). If any portion of any proposed building lot in the development is
or may be located within a flood hazard area as identified on the City's Flood
Insurance Rate Maps, the development shall be graded to ensure that all floors
and exterior fill (at the foundation) are above the level of the project (100-year)
flood and building pads are compacted to 95% Proctor Density as required in
Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 65.5(a) (6). Prior to
issuance of building permits for lots which are so located, the applicant shall
furnish, certifications as required by FEMA that the above conditions have been
met.
32. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall furnish a preliminary
geotechnical ("soils") report and an approved grading plan prepared by a
qualified engineer. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations
of the soils report and be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or engineering
geologist.
A statement shall appear on final maps (if any are required of this development)
that a soils report has been prepared pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health
and Safety Code.
33. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 in landscape
areas outside the right of way unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
34. The applicant shall endeavor to minimize differences in elevation at abutting
properties and between separate tracts and lots within this development.
p:\stan\tt 24197 pc coampd O
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 24197
CENTURY CROWELL COMMUNITIES
NOVEMBER 28, 2000
Building pad elevations on contiguous lots shall not differ by more than three
feet except for lots within a tract or parcel map, but not sharing common street
frontage, where the differential shall not exceed five feet.
The limits given in this condition and the previous condition are not entitlements
and more restrictive limits may be imposed in the map approval or plan checking
process. If compliance with the limits is impractical, however, the City will
consider alternatives which minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties
and neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential.
35. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the applicant
shall submit and receive approval of a fugitive dust control plan prepared in
accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. The Applicant shall furnish security, in
a form acceptable to the city, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance
with the provisions of the permit.
36. The applicant shall maintain graded, undeveloped land to prevent wind and
water erosion of soils. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or
provided with other erosion control measures approved by the Community
Development and Public Works Departments.
37. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide building pad
certifications stamped and signed by qualified engineers or surveyors. For each
pad, the certification shall list the approved elevation, the actual elevation, the
difference between the two, if any, and pad compaction. The data shall be
organized by lot number and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times.
DRAINAGE
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03 and
the following:
38. Stormwater falling on site during the peak 24-hour period of a 100-year storm
(the design storm) shall be retained within the development unless otherwise
approved by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the
centerlline of adjacent public streets.
39. If drainage of on site stormwater is to be directed into the Proposed city park,
only one (1) acre of the park site may be used for retention, capacity. The design
of the one -acre retention basin shall be reviewed by the City Engineer.
p:\stan\tt 24197 pc coampd 069
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 24197
CENTURY CROWELL COMMUNITIES
NOVEMBER 28, 2000
40. Off -site stormwater in Fred Waring Drive may be retained within the proposed
city park site. The water level of the stormwater retention during the 100 year
storm occurrence may exceed the park site grade, but muse: be contained within
the limits of the park lot. The design of the retention area within the park site
shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.
41. Stormwater shall normally be retained in common retention basins. Individual -
lot basins or other retention schemes may be approved by the City Engineer for
lots 21,/2 acres in size or larger or where the use of common retention is
impracticable. If individual -lot retention is approved, the applicant shall meet
the indiividual-lot retention provisions of Chapter 13.24, LQMC.
42. Storm flow in excess of retention capacity shall be routed through a designated,
unimpeded overflow outlet to the historic drainage relief route.
43. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be retained on
site or passed through to the overflow outlet.
44. Retention facility design shall be based on site -specific percolation data which
shall be submitted for checking with the retention facility plans. The design
percolation rate shall not exceed two inches per hour.
45. Retention basin slopes shall not exceed 3:1. Maximum retention depth shall be
six feet for common basins and two feet for individual -lot retention.
46. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. In residential developments, nuisance
water :shall be disposed of in a trickling sand filter and leachfield approved by
the City Engineer. The sand filter and leachfield shall be designed to contain
surges of 3 gph/1,000 sq. ft. (of landscape area) and infiltrate 5 gpd/1,000 sq.
ft.
47. In developments for which security will be provided by public safety entities
(e.g., the La Quinta Safety Department or the Riverside County Sheriff's
Department), retention basins shall be visible from adjacent street(s). No fence
or wall shall be constructed around basins unless approved by the Community
Development Director and the City Engineer.
48. If the applicant proposes discharge of stormwater directly or indirectly to the
Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, the applicant shall indemnify the City
from the costs of any sampling and testing of the development's drainage
discharge which may be required under the City's NPDES Permit or other City-
p:\stan\tt 24197 pc coampd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 24197
CENTURY CROWELL COMMUNITIES
NOVEMBER 28, 2000
or area -wide pollution prevention program, and for any other obligations and/or
expenses which may arise from such discharge. The indemnification shall be
executed and furnished to the City prior to issuance of any grading, construction
or building permit and shall be binding on all heirs, executors, administrators,
assigns, and successors in interest in the land within this tentative map
excepting therefrom those portions required to be dedicated) or deeded for public
use. The form of the indemnification shall be acceptable to the City Attorney.
If such discharge is approved for this development, the applicant shall make
provisions in the CC&Rs for meeting these potential obligations.
49. The tract shall be designed to accommodate purging and blowoff water from
any on -site or adjacent well sites granted or dedicated to the local water utility
authority as a requirement for development of this property.
UTILITIES
50. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of
all utility lines within the right of way and all above -ground utility structures
including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electrical vaults, water
valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and
aesthetic purposes.
51. Existing aerial lines within or adjacent to the proposed development and all
proposed utilities shall be installed underground. Power lines exceeding 34.5
kv are exempt from this requirement.
52. Utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities
in existing, improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration
requirements maintained or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall
provide certified reports of trench compaction for approval of the City Engineer.
STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
53. The applicant shall install the following street improvements to conform with
the General Plan street type noted in parentheses. (Public street improvements
shall conform with the City's General Plan in effect at the time of construction.)
a. OFF -SITE STREETS
i. Fred Waring Drive (Major Arterial) - Construct 51-foot half of 102-
foot improvement (travel width, excluding curbs) plus 6-foot
a
p:\stan\tt 24197 pc coa.wpd - 0 71
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDEI
TENTATIVE TRACT 24197
CENTURY CROWELL COMMUNITIES
NOVEMBER 28, 2000
sidewalk. Costs incurred by the developer related to arterial core
improvements lie one regional lane and the landscaped median) are
eligible for reimbursement from the City's Developer Impact Fee
fund in accordance with policies established for that program.
iii. Jefferson Street (Major Arterial) - Developer shall pay a prorated
cash fee for the outer 20 feet of pavement: including curb and
gutter, of the 51-foot half -width improvements. The prorata share
shall be calculated on the basis of regional funds (ie no City
funding) and developer funds paying ifor 100% of the
improvements on the west side of the centerline. The developer
shall install a meandering 6-foot sidewalk at its expense.
Miles Avenue (Primary Arterial) - Construct 43-foot half of 86-foot
improvement (travel width, excluding curbs) plus 6-foot sidewalk.
Costs incurred by the developer related to arterial core
improvements (ie landscaped median) are eligible for
reimbursement from the City's Developer Impact Fee fund in
accordance with policies established for that program.
b. ON -SITE PUBLIC STREETS
Residential Streets - Construct 36-foot full improvements (travel
width, excluding curbs) plus 6-foot sidewalk. (NOTE: this
requirement applies to all residential streets, including cul-de-sac
streets.)
i. Culs de sac per Riverside County Standard 800 (symmetric) or
800A (offset), 38-foot curb radius.
iii. Traffic calming "chokers" shall be installed at five (5) intersections
(Lots D/N, Lots D/L, Lots D/P/I, Lots D /0, and Lots D/E/F), and
offsite on Buttercup Lane just west of the tract boundary, if
determined by the City Engineer that a mid -block "choker" on
Buttercup Lane will help reduce traffic speeds on Buttercup Lane.
The choker design configuration and landscaping appointments
shall be as directed by the City Engineer.
Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, turn knuckles, corner cutbacks, bus
turnouts, dedicated turn lanes, and other features contained in the approved
p:\stan\tt 24197 pc coa.wpd 072
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 24197
CENTURY CROWELL COMMUNITIES
NOVEMBER 28, 2000
construction plans may warrant additional street widths as determined by the
City Engineer.
54. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs,
markings and other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs, and
sidewalks. Mid -block street lighting is not required.
55. The applicant may be required to extend improvements beyond development
boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements (e.g.,
gradingl; traffic control devices and transitions in alignment, elevation or
dimensions of streets and sidewalks).
56. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC,
adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, and as approved
by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking
areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers.
57. Knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with Riverside County
Standard Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by
the City Engineer.
58. Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations which
convey water without ponding and provide lateral containment of dust and
residue: for street sweeping. If a wedge or rolled curb design is approved, the
lip at the flowline shall be vertical (1/8" batter) and a minimum of 0.1' in height.
Unused curb cuts on any lot shall be restored to normal curbing prior to final
inspection of permanent building(s) on the lot.
59. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using Caltrans' design
procedure (20-year life) and site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated
traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall
be as follows (or approved equivalents for alternate materials):
Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" c.a.b.
Collector 4.0"/5.00"
Secondary Arterial 4.0"/6.00"
Primary Arterial 4.5"/6.00"
Major Arterial 5.5"/6.50"
�. 7
p:\stan\tt 24197 pc coampd �� / 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 24197
CENTURY CROWELL COMMUNITIES
NOVEMBER 28, 2000
60. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the
time of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete.
The submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design
procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include
recent (less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation
test results confirming that design gradations can be achieved in current
production. The applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix
designs are approved.
61. The City will conduct final inspections of homes and other habitable buildings
only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access
to publlicly-maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic
control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets
are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall
complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of
homes within the tract or when directed by the City, whichever comes first.
62. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the
following:
a. Fred Waring Drive - Access is restricted at the intersection of Fred
Waring Drive and Lot D to right turn movements only onto Fred Waring
Drive from Lot D and to both right and left turn movements from Fred
Waring Drive onto Lot D. The left turn pocket on Fred Waring Drive shall
be designed so that it does not conflict with any future left turn pocket
on Fred Waring Drive for eastbound traffic turning north into any future
development on the north side of Fred Waring Drive and so that
westbound movements from Lot D remain restricted. If such design
,cannot be accomplished, then left turn access from Fred Waring shall be
restricted.
b. Jefferson Street - Access is restricted at the intersection of Jefferson
Street and Lot T to right turn movements only onto Jefferson Street from
Lot T and to both right and left turn movements from Jefferson Street
onto Lot T.
C. Miles Avenue - Unrestricted access at the intersection of Miles Avenue
and Lot D.
p:\stan\tt 24197 pc coa.wpd 0 / Y
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000-
CONDITIONS OF: APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 24197
CENTURY CROWELL COMMUNITIES
NOVEMBER 28, 2000
63. The applicant shall be responsible for one-half of the cost of the installation of
a traffic: signal at the intersection of Miles Avenue and Lot D.
LANDSCAPING
64. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks, retention basins,
common lots, and park areas.
65. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians,
retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape
architect.
The applicant shall submit plans for approval by the Community Development
Department prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan
checking is complete, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the
Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner prior to submitting for signature by
the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the
City Engineer.
66. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the
requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn
or spray irrigation within 18 inches of curbs along public arterial streets.
67. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous maintenance of landscaping
and related improvements in landscaped setbacks, retention basins and other
public or common areas unless and until those areas have been accepted for
maintenance by the City's Landscape and Lighting District. The applicant shall
maintain all other improvements until final acceptance of improvements by the
City Council.
PUBLIC SERVICES
68. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by Sunline
Transit and approved by the City Engineer. Improvements shall include a bus
turnout location and a passenger waiting shelter with night lighting, a bench and
a trash receptacle along Jefferson Street at the southwest corner of Lot T.
0,75
p:\stan\tt 24197 pc coa.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 24197
CENTURY CROWELL COMMUNITIES
NOVEMBER 28, 2000
QUALITY ASSURANCE
69. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet
the approval of the City Engineer.
70. The applicant shall employ or retain qualified civil engineers, geotechnical
engineers, surveyors, or other appropriate professionals to provide sufficient
construction supervision to be able to furnish and siign accurate record
drawings.
71. The applicant shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and
testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program but required by
the City as evidence that construction materials and methods comply with
plans, .specifications and applicable regulations.
72. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City
reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were signed by the
City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -
Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor
certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the CAD
or raster -image files previously submitted to the City to reflect as -constructed
conditions.
MAINTENANCE
73. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of
all on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks.
The applicant shall maintain required public improvements until expressly
released from this responsibility by the appropriate public: agency.
FEES AND DEPOSITS
74. The applicant shall pay the City's established fees for plan checking and
construction inspection. Fee amounts shall be those in effect when the
applicant makes application for plan checking and permits.
75. Within four days after City Council approval of the Tentative Tract Map, the
applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department a check
made out to the County of Riverside for $928.00 for filing of the required
Notice of Determination.
p:\Stan\tt 24197 pc coampd N. 076
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 24197
CENTURY CROWELL COMMUNITIES
NOVEMBER 28, 2000
FIRE MARSHAL
76. Prior to issuance recordation of final map, applicant/developer shall furnish one
blue line copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for
review/approval. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and
spacing, and the system shall meet fire flow requirements. Plans shall be
signed/approved by a registered Civil Engineer and the local water company
with the following certification: "1 certify that the design of the water system
is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire
Department'.
77. Fire hydrants in accordance with CVWD standard W-33 shall be located at each
street intersection spaced not more than 330 feet apart in any direction with no
portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a fire hydrant. Minimum
fire flow shall be 1000 gpm for a two hour duration at 20 psi. Blue dot
reflectors shall be mounted in the middle of streets directly in line with fire
hydrants.
78. The required water system, including fire hydrants will be installed and accepted
by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being
placed on an individual lot.
79. A temporary water supply for fire protection may Ibe allowed for the
construction of the models only. Plans for a temporary water system must be
submitted to the Fire Department for review prior to issuance of building
permits.
80. Culs-de-sac streets shall be designed to have a minimum turning radius of 38
feet. It should be noted that the entire radius of 38 feet is required to properly
turn fire department vehicles. Vehicle parking along the curb should be
prohibited when the minimum radius is used.
MISCELLANEOUS
81. Four acres of the proposed park site shall be accepted by the City as compliance
with the Parkland Dedication requirements as set forth in Chapter 13.48 of the
La Quiinta Municipal Code. This four acre site shall not be used for stormwater
retention.
p:\stan\tt 24197 pc coampd * 077
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 24197
CENTURY CROWELL COMMUNITIES
NOVEMBER 28, 2000
82. Along (Fred Waring Drive, Jefferson Street, and Miles Avenue the perimeter
masonry or block wall shall meander with an average setback of 20 feet from
the street property line. Design, material, and wall colors shall be approved by
the Community Development Department with the perimeter landscaping plans.
Prior to approval of the Final Map by City Council, the Final Map shall be
modified to show the rear lot line of the adjacent lots meandering to coincide
with the perimeter wall.
83. Lots 140 and 141 shall be revised to have a minimum 60 feet lot frontage as
required by the Zoning Code.
84. All mitigation measures as noted in the Initial Study for Environmental
Assessment 2000-407 for this Tentative Tract shall be met, as applicable.
0/3
p:\stan\tt 24197 pc coa.wpd
CASE No.
R
\,A
DR.
AVENUE
VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
CASE MAP
TEN-fATIVE TRACT 24197
ATTACHMENT #
stOrin
INDI D
ORTH
SCALE:
CENTURY-CROWELL COMMUNITIES NTS
073
��9�
\_
()|\
o<
91
It
34
NOV-27-00 MON 17:04
BELK FARMS
FAX NO. 7603991223
P. 01
November 27, 2000
Paul and Margaret Hoesterey
44215 Calico Circle
I.a Quinta, CA 92253
work 760/399-5951 home760f360-2177
Chairman Steve Robbins and
Members of the planning Commission
City of La Quinta
via fax: 777-123.1
Dew Chairman Robbins and Commissioners-
Due 10 prior committments, the are unable to attend the commission meeting on Tuesday, Nov. 28. Had we
been able to attend, we would have asked to speak on the pending approval of the Century 140mes project in
North La Quinta_ While we support the development of single family residences in that area, we would
protest approval as currently submitted.
Our specific concerns are with the circulation plan which contemplates directing traffic from the new
subdivision through the existing Cactus Flower subdivision in order to access Dune palms Road. Ap:?roval
of that circulation element would be both unwise and would exhibit poor planning.
The streets in Cactus Flower were not planned and are not designed to serve as thorouehfares as pro?osed_
Approval of the project in ita current Form would cause potentially grave safety problems and would
negatively impact our enjoyment of our property for the following reasons:
Meandering streets are inadequate for throughways: The struts (especially Buttercup and
Blaung Star) meander in a way which confuses people who are not familiar with the neighborhood.
Cross gutters prevent smooth traffic flow: There is at least one cross 1prtter (usually wet due to
sprinkler run-off which would tramper traffic flow.
Blind intersections create safety hazards: Through traffic would be directed across at leas[ six
blind intersections (less than 100 feet visibilty). There are far too many children in the neighborhood for this
to be safe.
Prima Facie speed limits will be exceeded: Calif Vehicle Coda Section 22352 A (1) (b)
establishes the speed limit through Cactus Flower at 15 miles per hour due to the existence of intersections
with limited visibilry. it is unreasonable to expect through traffic to limit their speed to 15 miles per how as
they travel up to 1/2 mile in order to access Dune Palm Road.
Finally, at build -out the Century Homes project will have access to three major thoroughfares (Fred Waring,
Jefferson, and Miles) designed for such use. Directing westbound traffic through Cactus Flower is
unnecessary, at best.
Please consider approval of the Century Homes project without the connection to Buttercup lane- Thank
you, in advance, for your wise consideration and service to our community.
Sincerely
Paul Hoesterey
11-27-09 16:59 RECEIVED FROM:7603991223
081
P.OI
Cactus Flower Homeowners Association
44-155 Goldenrod Circle
La Quinta, CA 92253
(760) 772-1428
Mr. Steve Robbins C�
Co�t
Cityity off La Quinta Planning Commission J'yMUN�t1
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Dear Mr. Robbins,
We have had conversations with our excellent city staff regarding the public
hearing scheduled for Tuesday, November 28 regarding the development of 206 single
family homes bound by Jefferson, Miles, Fred Waring and the Cactus Flower
development. While in general support of the development of the corner, we have very
strong objections to one aspect of the development.
The road mapping in Tentative Tract No. 24197 shows the continuation of
Buttercup from the exiting Cactus Flower development into the new development.
Buttercup currently ends at the desert and is flanked by a wash on each side of the road.
That wash is used extensively by our children for soccer, football, baseball and all other
kinds of play. The children frequently kick a ball into what is now a dead end street and
chase it there. The continuation of Buttercup will endanger our children and dramatically
change our neighborhood. In our meeting with City staff we were told that they designed
the new development so that most of the traffic from there would use that small road to
enter and exit their development. This is a plan that is bad for the existing homeowners
who are already taxpayers and voters in the city of La Quinta and does little to enhance
the new development.
We are strongly opposed to routing the traffic from 206 homes into our
neighborhood of 82 homes and request that Buttercup be permanently closed.
The City did an excellent job of creating a quiet family neighborhood in Cactus
Flower. That is evidenced in the extremely high number of families with small children
living there. Our children currently play in the wash with no fear of traffic and ride their
bikes on very quiet roads. Our neighbors in large part know one -another and are careful
when driving in the area.
We are concerned that the new traffic will end up being the overwhelming
majority of traffic on Buttercup and the entrance to the community, Blazing Star and that
the traffic will not be as careful with our children as we are. The creation of the new
schools at Dune Palms and Miles will also cause people to shortcut through our
neighborhood to avoid the main roads. This traffic increase will happen at the times that
our children are walking those streets to go to school.
082
The current plan will adversely affect our neighborhood in a imajor way and must
not be approved.
We propose that Buttercup be closed permanently and that a :Footpath be created
connecting the two communities. This will allow the residents of the new community to
access the wash where our children now play, but prevent hundreds of cars that are not
involved with Cactus Flower from racing through our neighborhood.
We appreciate your help in resolving this issue.
Best Regards
Don Hay
Tom Huebner
PH #D
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: NOVEMBER 28, 2000
CASE NUMBER: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2000-052
REQUEST: APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW
35 METAL STORAGE CONTAINERS FROM SEPTEMBER 1 ST
TO JANUARY 15T" EVERY YEAR IN THE REAR OF THE
BUILDINGS
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY OWNER:
LOCATION:
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION:
EXISTING
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE
DESIGNATION:
EXISTING
ZONING
DESIGNATION:
Walmart STORES
78-950 HIGHWAY 111, WITHIN THE ONE ELEVEN -LA
QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER
THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS WITHIN SPECIFIC
PLAN 89-014 AND EXEMPT FROM CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT REQUIREMENTS UNDER
PUBLIC RESOURCES SECTION 65457(A).
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 89-150 (STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE #90020162) WAS CERTIFIED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL ON APRIL 17, 1990. NO CHANGED
CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS EXIST WHICH WOULD
TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO PUBLIC
RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21166.
MIXED/REGIONAL COMMERCIAL WITH NONRESIDENTIAL
OVERLAY
REGIONAL
OVERLAY
COMMERCIAL WITH NONRESIDENTIAL
St PC CUP Walmart2 44 - greg Page 1 08 "
Y
BACKGROUND:
The site is a part of Specific Plan 89-014, approved in 1990, located on the north side
of Highway 1 1 1, between Adams Street and Washington Street. The plan permits
617,565 square feet of floor space, with approximately 60% built to date. Walmart,
with approximately 131,960 square feet of floor space on 13.13 acres, was
constructed in 1992, and part of the original center. Parking for approximately 898
customers is, located on the south and east sides of the building on property owned
by the applicant.
On November 10, 1998, the outdoor garden shop on the east side of the store was
allowed to expand by 3,733 square feet under Site Development Permit 98- 637
(Planning Commission Resolution 98-077).
The City's Code Compliance Department issued a Notice of Public Nuisance on
September 22, 2000, for the proposed metal bins currently stored in the rear of the
building as this is a violation of Municipal Code 9.100.120 Outdoor Storage and
Display. To correction this violation, the applicant must either remove the storage
container or apply and receive approval of a conditional use permit.
Project Request
The applicant requests placement of 35 temporary metal storage containers (storage
and lay -away) at the rear of the existing building to store holiday merchandise and lay-
away purchases from September 1" through January 15`h, every year (Attachments
1 & 2).
The existing storage containers are located abutting the truck well and placed within
the designated truck delivery area for Walmart and other adjoining commercial
businesses. Each roll -off style container is 400 square feet, measuring roughly 10 feet
wide by 40 feet long by 10 feet tall, and can be locked. Aisle widths between the
containers are 12 feet or wider and abut the buildings. Personnel from Walmart state
that mechanical lifts are used to remove the stored material frorn the portable storage
containers.
The five lay -away containers are placed to the north of the store on a gravel lot. All
storage containers are placed on property owned by Walmart.
Public Notice: This case was advertised in the Desert Sun on November 16, 2000.
All property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the project were mailed a
copy of the public hearing notice. The public hearing notice requirements were
expanded to include business owners in the shopping center. To date, no
correspondence has been received.
St PC CUP WalmarO 44 - greg Page 2 083
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
Findings to approve this request per Sections 9.210.020 (Conditional Use Permit) of
the Zoning Code can be made and are contained in the attached Resolution.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-_, approving Conditional Use Permit
2000-052, subject to findings and the attached conditions.
Attachments:
1 . Container Location Map
2. Typical Container Photograph
Prepared by::
Greg Trousclell, Associate Planner
Submitted by:
Christine di lorio, Plannin Manager
St PC CUP Walmart2 44 - gregPage 3
o_ 086
RESOLUTION 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR
THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING
APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW
35 METAL STORAGE CONTAINERS FROM SEPTEMBER
1 ST TO JANUARY 15T" EVERY YEAR IN THE REAR OF
THE BUILDINGS
CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2000-052
APPLICANT: WALMART STORE #1805
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 2F3`" day of November, 2000, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider
Conditional Use Permit 2000-052 to allow storage of holiday merchandise in metal
containers for Walmart located at 78-950 Highway 111, more particularly described
as:
APN: 643-080-004
WHEREAS, said Conditional Use Permit 2000-052 is within Specific Plan
89-014 and exempt from California Environmental Quality Act requirements under
Public Resources Code Section 65457(A). Environmental Assessment 89-150 (State
Clearinghouse #90020162) was certified by the City Council on April 17, 1990.
Therefore, no changed circumstances or conditions are proposed which would trigger
the preparation of a Subsequent EA pursuant to Public Resources Code Section; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings of approval pursuant
to Section 9.210.020 of the Zoning Code to justify a recommendation for approval of
said Conditional Use Permit 2000-052:
1. That the proposed Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the goals and
policies of the La Quinta General Plan in that the property is designated Regional
Commercial with Non -Residential Overlay which permits the temporary use
proposed by this application.
2. The proposed temporary storage containers are consistent with the development
standards outlined in Section 9.100.120 (Outdoor Storage and Display) of the
Zoning Ordinance because merchandise will be stored in metal containers placed
on the north and northwest sides of the existing business.
3. Approval of this Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or general welfare, or incompatible with surrounding properties.
The adjacent properties are designated and zoned for commercial use and also
within the One Eleven -La Quinta Shopping Center.
ResoCUP 52Wahnart - 44 greg
087
Planning Commission Resolution 2000-_
Conditional Use Permit 2000-052, Walmart
November 28, 2000
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
Planning Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby approve the above -described Conditional Use Permit request
for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, and subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 28th day of November, 2000, by the
following vote, to wit:
YES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
TERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
..ri 08,e
ResoC UP 52 W al mart - 44 grog
MI
Il
m
V
U
U' k N O
N y
00 t u 1 cc
~ .IJ
)Ot o
IT
t6L
x
P
—1
O
w
m
C'
r-uwre Building (Presently Vacant)
® Storage _
S orage
Storage
N
v
ati a'
�a rn
Z
r
d
m
J OD D
J J '.
f
n A T
�.
oND
O
(7
a31N30 Ngz
r302id0
,f rt�P
rm uoisuedxg
x
r�
M
X
x
� J
I
a
m
x
zee
e
d as
%ifs f
F
j
TOlit
4
'b
F� S
2
1000
\ \�Y /
/ /
/ A4
:`o
2
099
DATE:
CASE NUMBER:
REQUEST:
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY OWNER
LOCATION:
EXISTING GENERAL
PLAN LAND USE
DESIGNATION:
EXISTING ZONING
DESIGNATION:
BACKGROUND:
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
NOVEMBER 28, 2000
MASTER DESIGN GUIDELINES 2000-011
REVIEW OF ONE PROTOTYPE HOUSE WITH TWO
DIFFERENT FACADES
KRISTY BRADY
51-785 AND 51-805 AVENIDA VILLA (ADJACENT
LOTS)
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR)
COVE RESIDENTIAL (RC DISTRICT)
The applicant is proposing two different facades for this residential prototype.
Prototype A's architectural design consists of a side facing gable main roof with a hip
roof garage. The roof will be covered in concrete "S" tile. Proposed is an arched
stucco arcade supported by decorative columns along the facade.
Prototype B's architectural design consists of a side facing gable main roof and front
facing gable roof garage. The roof will be covered in concrete "S" tile. Proposed is a
stucco arcade supported by decorative columns along the facade.
The Planning Commission at its November 14, 2000 meeting denied the application
and requested the applicant resubmit more detailed plans.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Minute Motion 2000- approving Master Design Guidelines 2000-011, as
presented.
'- 091
Attachments:
Architectural Booklet (Planning Commission only)
Prepared and Submitted by:
-( (,----
Christine di lorio, Planni6g Manager
• I)92
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: NOVEMBER 28, 2000
CASE NO: RW-A 2000-002
APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA
REQUEST: GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING FOR THE
PROPOSED ACQUISITION OF STREET RIGHT OF WAY
TO WIDEN THE WASHINGTON/HIGHWAY 111
INTERSECTION - MORRIS COMMUNICATIONS
LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WASHINGTON/HIGHWAY 111
INTERSECTION
The parcel of land proposed for acquisition to satisfy right of way needs is located
in the southeast quadrant of the Washington Street/Highway 111 intersection.
The City Council will consider a Resolution of Necessity regarding this acquisition
at its December 15, 2000 meeting.
The General Plan has Washington Street designated as a Major Arterial Street
which means it is a six -lane divided street with a raised landscaped median. The
six -lane configuration defines and applies to mid -link locations which are the street
segments located between intersections. The street configuration at intersections
is driven by the General Plan requirement to keep the intersection operating at a
Level of Service "D", or better. This is accomplished by adding additional turn
lanes as needed to keep the Level of Service at level "D" or higher.
It has been determined and reconfirmed by several traffic studies performed
through the years that the south leg of the Washington Street/Highway 111
intersection needs the following lanes: 3-southbound thru lanes 2-northbound left
turn lanes, 3-northbound thru lanes, and 1-northbound right turn lane, in order to
keep the Level of Service at level "D" or higher.
On July 25„ 2000 and August 15, 2000 the Planning Commission and the City
Council respectively approved Specific Plan 2000-047 which is the commercial
project commonly known as La Quinta Court with its notable anchor tenant LG's
Steakhouse. As a Condition of Approval, the City required this project to dedicate
sufficient right of way from the site to the City to implement the necessary street
configuration at the subject intersection. The developer of La Quinta Court is
e
r:wwoevnPienomy commissmn\oon ze.wae r��
C; 3
currently preparing a parcel map to comply with that condition, and is also
preparing street improvement plans to construct the needed street improvements
It's not possible, however, to construct the needed offsite street improvements as
just described without also acquiring an additional parcel of land not owned by the
developer of La Quinta Court, which the developer is required to acquire and
dedicate to the City as right of way. The additional parcel is sandwiched between
the La Quinta Court site and Highway 111 as progressively shown on Attachments
1 through 3. This small parcel (approx. 3,485 sf) is owned by Morris
Communications and is the subject of this consistency finding. To date, the
developer has been unsuccessful in negotiating the purchase of the parcel and has
requested the City to consider proceeding with the acquisition effort at the
developer's expense. If the City does not acquire the parcel by negotiation, or
condemnation, the developer will be excused from the requirement to install the
exclusive right turn lane pursuant to Government Code Section 66462.5.
If the City Council should decide to proceed with acquisition at its December 15
meeting, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to have reviewed the
proposed acquisition and found the acquisition to be consistent with the General
Plan prior to commencing acquisition activity.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The General Plan Circulation Element has two general goals (3-1 and 3-2) that
address the need to have a street system capable of accommodating projected
traffic demands produced by development of the City's planned Land Use Element.
Pursuant to those two goals there are several policy statements provide specific
guidance to accomplish those goals. All of the policy statements that serve to
satisfy Goal 3-1 are relevant in this consistency finding, along with policy
statements 3-2.1 .1; 3-2.1.3; and 3-2.1.4 that serve to satisfy Goal 3-2.
a" •
Given the parameters noted in this report, it is possible for the Planning
Commission to make the following finding:
1. The proposed street right of way acquisition is consistent with the General
Plan.
T:\PWDEPT\Planning Commission\001128.wpd t// O1-
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000- , finding the parcel proposed for
acquisition to be consistent with the General Plan.
Attachments:
1. Partial map from Assessor's Map Book
2. Proposed Washington Street traffic lane configuration
3. Map of Proposed Acquisition Parcel
Prepared and Submitted by:
11
-fi- "4-wntl
Steven D. eer, Senior Engineer
T-TWDEPT\Planning Commission\001128.wpd
Submitted by:
4A A A )54--
I
Christine di lorio, Planni g Manager
RESOLUTION NO. 2000
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, FINDING PROPOSED
ACQUISITION OF PARCEL OF RIGHT OF WAY LOCATED
IN SOUTHEAST QUADRANT OF THE WASHINGTON
STREET -HIGHWAY 111 INTERSECTION TO BE
CONSISTENT WITH GENERAL PLAN
CASE NO.: RW-A 2000-002
APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did
on the 28th day of November, 2000, review the particulars of the proposed
acquisition of a parcel of land, owned by Morris Communication and located in the
southeast quadrant of the Washington Street/Highway 111 intersection, for the
purpose of street right of way, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission was asked to make a finding as to
whether the proposed acquisition was consistent with the La Quinta General Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of La Quinta, California, as follows:
The proposed acquisition of subject parcel for street right of way purposes has
been found to be consistent with the La Quinta General Plan.
096
Planning Commission Resolution 2000-
RW-A 2000-002
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City
Council, held on this 28th day of Novemberr, 2000, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
4,0 097
b
w
ATTACHMENT #1
7B6-E2
73 ��
3
a
N3
��,� • sue,
s
CI
12• 16. 1
044 AC.
46 F ra
VAC. O. R. 1560160
gq5��f/NSM. Z//77/ ////Z/B/
i SW COR. SE //4. SEC. /9
pM. /24/47- 49
P. M. /60/87- 88
ATTACHMENT #2
I 1
I, ,I
I�4 11
I
I
PROPERTY IN QUESTION
imPortion of Acquired Parcel
Needed for R/W
Portion of Acquired Parcel
Not Needed for R/W
Proposed R/W Dedication
by Developer
ATTACHMENT #3
Portion of Acquired Parcel
Needed for R/W
amPortion of Acquired Parcel
Not Needed for R/W
Proposed R/W Dedication
by Developer