2010 04 27 PC MinutesMINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
April 27, 2010 7:04 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
A. A regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission was called to
order at 7:04 p.m. by Vice Chairperson Barrows.
PRESENT: Commissioners Quill, Weber, Wilkinson, and Vice
Chairperson Barrows
ABSENT: Chairman Alderson (Excused)
STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Les Johnson, Planning Manager
David Sawyer, Assistant City Attorney Michael
Houston, Principal Engineer Ed Wimmer, Principal
Planner Stan Sawa, Assistant Planner Eric Ceja,
and Executive Secretary Carolyn Walker.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: Vice Chairperson Barrows commented on Principal
Planner Stan Sawa's upcoming retirement after 20
years with the City of La Quinta.
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed.
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR:
Commissioner Weber asked staff to clarify the minutes on Page 10,
Paragraphs 5 and 6. Corrections were made as follows:
Paragraph 5, Sentence 3, shall be changed to read: He said what should
have happened was a radio frequency (RF) expert should have been brought
in to answer these questions.
Paragraph 6, Sentence 1, shall be changed to read: Mr. Greenwood said he
could bring in the RF expert but, (if that was the basis of the denial) the
expert was going to come and tell you it does not work for the same reasons
that I told you it does not work; so just deny my application now.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 27, 2010
There being no further comments, or suggestions, it was moved by
Commissioners Wilkinson/Weber to approve the minutes of April 13, 2010
with amendments as noted. Unanimously approved.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Continued -Conditional Use Permit 2009-124; a request by T-Mobile
West Corporation for consideration to allow the placement of a fifty-
seven (57) foot tall monopalm tower and equipment enclosure within
the Family Heritage Church parking lot located at 78-998 Miles
Avenue.
Assistant Planner Eric Ceja presented the staff report, a copy of which
is on file in the Planning Department.
Vice Chairperson Barrows asked if there were any questions of staff.
There being no questions of staff, Vice Chairperson Barrows asked if
the applicant would like to speak.
Mr. Jay Greenwood, T-mobile representative, 1594 N. Batavia Street,
Orange CA introduced Mr. James Wilkerson, RF Design Engineer, T-
mobile, 3257 Guasti Road, Ontario CA, who gave a Power Point
presentation. He then stated the presentation should clarify the
Commission's questions and concerns on the need for the 57 foot
tower site.
Commissioner Wilkinson asked about provision of service by other
carriers and the allocation of frequency bands. Mr. Wilkerson
responded coverage had to do with frequencies assigned by the FCC
and explained how it affected their operations.
Commissioner Wilkinson then expanded his comments on 1)
challenging the frequency band allotment, 2) alternative locations, and
co-locations, and 3) percentage of coverage.
Mr. Wilkerson commented on negotiation for lower band set, and gave
a detailed explanation of calculations and terrain details for coverage
percentile.
Ms. Linda Paul, 3257 E. Guasti Road, Ontario CA, Real Estate and
Zoning Manager for T-mobile, -introduced herself and explained when
-2-
Planning Commission Minutes
April 27, 2070
and how the frequencies were allocated. She said there was always
the possibility of certain entities vacating some frequencies, but at this
time there was no opportunity to obtain a new allocation.
Ms. Paul then addressed the criteria for site selection, said they look
at a number of factors and went into detail of how the site was
chosen as well as the due diligence that went into their cell tower site
selection.
Commissioner Wilkinson provided general review comments on
accuracy of information, additional possible co-locations, and
percentage of coverage.
Commissioner Weber asked what prompted the change of height from
70 feet to 57 feet. Mr. Wilkerson responded the 70 foot height
achieved the upper end for coverage and, at 57 feet the coverage was
reduced to 63%; which was the minimum threshold.
Commissioner Weber asked if the antenna would be focused in a
specific direction. Mr. Wilkerson said yes.
Commissioner Weber asked about the maximum tree height allowable
for coverage as he was concerned about screening. Mr. Wilkerson
responded if the trees were 15 or 20 feet below the antenna, and
staggered, that would be sufficient to reduce any direct impact.
Commissioner Weber expressed his concerns about maintenance of
the landscape/screening. Ms. Paul said typically the landlord (the
church) would be responsible for maintaining the irrigation, but the
applicant will replace trees if they died.
Commissioner Weber then asked if a condition could be included
making both parties responsible.
Staff responded this was a conditional use permit with the property
owner and/or the current owner of the tower being responsible for
vegetation and any other conditions imposed. If there was a
significant issue it could be brought back before the Commission for
reconsideration and/or revocation of the permit.
Mr. Greenwood stated the carrier paid for the installation, the trees,
and the irrigation system; as presented by Ms. Paul, and went over
-3-
Planning Commission Minutes
April 27, 2010
the responsibilities of each portion of the landscape maintenance.
Staff added that if the CUP was granted, the applicant was T-mobile
not Family Heritage Church.
Commissioner Weber said T-mobile's contractual agreement with the
Family Heritage Church was not at issue. Staff added it was an
agreement between the two of them.
Commissioner Weber said he assumed T-mobile would like to reach
the 100% coverage. Mr. Wilkerson said yes. Commissioner Weber
asked if they were already considering any potential sites for
additional towers in La Quinta's jurisdiction.
Mr. Wilkerson said the other proposed locations were to the east and
north, but were not in La Quinta.
There being no further applicant comments, Vice Chairperson Barrows
asked if there was any public comment.
Mr. Alonzo Lugo, 594 N. Batavia, Orange CA and a representative of
T-mobile -said he was there in support of T-mobile. He added that
what was presented to the Commission was the most favorable
location and design available for their cell tower. He pointed out Mr.
Wilkerson's comments about the lower frequencies and added his own
comments on their customer service versus other carriers. He said the
applicant exercised due diligence in researching this facility to make
sure it was the best location to support their customers and meet
coverage objectives. He commented on the Family Heritage Church
being in an area that was completely residential; and the best
alternative. He added T-mobile had already made concessions, 1) in
height, 2) by making sure there are live trees there, and 3) in the
design of the pole being more favorable to the Commission.
There being no further, or public comment, Vice Chairperson Barrows
opened the matter for Commission discussion.
Commissioner Wilkinson provided general review comments on cell
locations, alternative locations for co-location, coverage of other
carriers, height, decibels, sound, restricted frequencies, and the
proliferation of cell towers throughout the City.
-4-
Planning Commission Minutes
April 27, 2010
Commissioner Quill provided general comments on previous meetings,
and noted T-mobile did bring in their team to respond to the
Commissions' concerns. He also commented on building another
tower, co-location, denial of the applicant's ability to compete, and
the church's ability to maintain the trees.
General discussion followed regarding regulation of utility poles versus
cell towers.
Commissioner Weber provided general review comments on the
applicant's frustration in having to keep coming back, avoiding visual
blight, proper planning, and impeding commerce, coverage, as well as
T-mobile's due diligence and their willingness to provide experts to
answer the Commissions' questions. He commented on requirements
for future cell tower applications, and said he still had concerns about
the palm trees and the tower blending in as much as possible.
Vice Chairperson Barrows asked Commissioner Weber if he was
satisfied with the applicant's proposal regarding the palm trees and
the height.
Commissioner Weber said he would prefer to see 35 to 40 foot trees
blended in with the 57 foot tower.
Commissioner Quill said the Commission could require three staggered
trees with a minimum height of 35 feet and a maximum height of 45
feet. He suggested the use of Washingtonia Robusta variety as most
likely to survive transplanting.
General discussion followed regarding growth and survival rates, and
tree replacement.
Vice Chairperson Barrows asked for staff clarification on the
maintenance issue.
Staff responded the applicant is ultimately responsible and the
responsibility would transfer over (to a succeeding company)
regardless of what arrangements have been made with Family
Heritage.
-5-
Planning Commission Minutes
April 27, 2010
Commissioner Weber asked staff for clarification if the tower owner
transfers or a palm tree dies, what recourse does the City have to
have the situation remedied.
Staff responded initially Code Enforcement would address the issue of
the violation of the condition. If they were unsuccessful in
remediating the matter, then it would come back to the Planning
Commission for potential revocation of the Conditional Use Permit. If
the Permit was revoked then they would have to cease-and-desist.
Commissioner Quill said when they are ordered to cease-and-desist,
and they do not comply what steps does the City take. Assistant City
Attorney Houston responded if they do not cease-and-desist the City
would then take them to court.
Commissioner Wilkinson asked when this technology is extinct what
could the City do to have these towers removed.
Staff responded this is a Conditional Use Permit and the permit is
being granted based on a project description identifying the type of
use. If that were amended into something dramatically different, it
would have to be re-visited and addressed.
Vice Chairperson Barrows provided general review comments on the
applicants' response to the Commissioners' questions and noted a
desire to maximize co-location opportunities in the future.
There being no further questions or discussion, it was moved and
seconded by Commissioners Quill/Weber to adopt Resolution 2010-
013 recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit 2009-124 with
the following amendment.
Condition No. 38 shall read:
The applicant shall make planting and irrigation improvements for the
planting of three (3) Washingtonia robustas (Mexican Fan Palms)
around the monopalm tower. The palm trees shall be a minimum
height of thirty five (35) feet, measured from finished floor. The palm
trees shall be planted along the east side of the tower in order to
screen the tower from Adams Street.
-6-
Planning Commission Minutes
April 27, 2010
AYES: Commissioners
NOES: Commissioner
ABSTAIN: None.
Quill, Weber, and Vice Chairperson Barrows.
Wilkinson. ABSENT: Chairman Alderson.
B. Site Development Permit 2010-913; a request by Shea Homes for
consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for three
prototypical house plans and front yard and common area landscaping
plans in Tract 35996 (Trilogy Annex) located east of the CVWD Dike
#4, between Avenues 60 and 62.
Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the staff report, a copy of
which is on file in the Planning Department.
Vice Chairperson Barrows asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Weber asked for additional information on the
underground irrigation system. Staff said it was installed underneath
the lawn and was similar to a soaker hose and explained how it
related to the whole irrigation system.
Commissioner Weber asked staff to address the retention basin
accessibility. Staff said currently there was no access proposed.
Commissioner Quill asked why they did not include a no-turf
alternative.
Planning Director Johnson said these 36 lots represented the
completion of a larger project on which staff, and the applicant, have
worked very hard to minimize the turf. The applicant had not
submitted a no-turf option.
Principal Planner Sawa further commented the applicant has reduced
the turf approximately 50% from the existing 1200 units that are
currently there. They have made a definite effort to reduce turf, but
do not wish to include a no-turf option.
Vice Chairperson Barrows commented that the pathways and entry
points to the homes looked very angular and thought it might look
better if it included some curves. She added she thought the
Commission had previously required other projects to include the no-
turf option, and was concerned about treating this project differently.
-7-
Planning Commission Minutes
April 27, 2010
Staff responded that the ALRC had also brought up the angularity and
a condition was included requiring the applicant to re-study the
sidewalks to improve the circulation; making it easier to maneuver
from the driveway to the house.
There being no further questions of the staff, Vice Chairperson
Barrows opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant would
like to speak.
Mr. Perry Devlin, General Manager for Shea Homes -Trilogy La
Quinta, 60-800 Trilogy Parkway, La Quinta - He said they were trying
to accommodate Homeowners' Association (HOA) members' wishes
of maintaining architectural consistency as well as compatible
landscaping. They have worked very closely with the HOA and had a
pretty well defined annexation agreement. He explained that when
dry wells are not surrounded by some amount of vegetation they have
maintenance problems because of silt build-up. He added the basins
were designed primarily for retention and not necessarily designed to
be accessible. He said the HOA had concerns about its possible use
as a dog park and how that would impact the homeowners
surrounding it. He explained several suggestions made by the HOA to
block that area off, but said, from an aesthetic standpoint, the
applicant would rather not have that. That was not to say the HOA
would not consider the Commissions' recommendations, but he got
the impression the HOA would prefer not to allow access.
He then commented on the no turf issue; explaining that it had been
presented at the HOA meeting, where the vast majority were against
it. He added it came up briefly at the ALRC meeting, and it was noted
that they have alrady eliminated a lot of the sod. He commented on
the angularity of the layouts and the ALRC suggestions.
Commissioner Quill asked who maintained the front yard landscapes.
Mr. Devlin responded they were maintained by the Homeowners'
Association and added they were connected to the Weathertrac
system; which is a satellite governed system to keep water usage
down.
Commissioner Weber questioned the accessibility of the basin and said
it actually looked like a good opportunity for a dog park. He then
asked if there was currently a dog park within Trilogy's boundaries.
Mr. Devlin said no, but the HOA had assigned a group to seek out
-8-
Planning Commission Minutes
April 27, 2010
opportunities to include one. However, there did not appear to be any
unless they were to acquire a piece of golf course property.
Commissioner Weber said it would be great proactive stance as the
City is always trying to find park space; including accommodation for
dog parks. There will be a need for this type of activity and if that
could be incorporated, it would be a real plus.
Mr. Devlin responded that the Homeowners' Association has taken a
proactive approach to analyze the opportunities that are available.
Since this will be annexed into their Association, they will study the
whole idea and the members will vote on the options available. They
can then decide if they want to utilize the retention basin.
Vice Chairperson Barrows commented on no turf landscaping of
retention basins; using the example of the City's recent conversion of
the retention basin on Avenue 52 from all turf to no turf. She asked
about the applicant's comment on dry pump maintenance with turf
and no turf options. She further noted if people are not welcome in
the retention basin then maybe grass should not be there. Areas with
turf should be used in some productive way. She was concerned
about adding more turf into a project with no other purpose other than
aesthetics; as that would not be in line with the City's Water
Conservation Ordinance. She reiterated the City's example of
retention without turf.
Mr. Devlin said he could only speak of their own experience with the
retention basins out there, which were equipped with the McGuckin
systems of dry wells. He then explained they accumulated a lot of
silt; and they had to change to sod around the wells, which eliminated
complaints from the members who lived around the dry wells.
Commissioner Quill asked if the applicant would be adverse to a
condition ensuring access would never be prohibited to these turf
areas; as the Commission has taken a position on utilization of
available turf. He then commented on the positive aspects of why a
green belt would be included in a project. He stated, grass just for
aesthetic reasons, is not valid.
Mr. Devlin said he did not have an issue with it, but thought the
Homeowners' Association members would prefer not. He then
-9-
Planning Commission Minutes
April 27, 2010
reiterated his comments on the sod being critical for the drainage in
the retention basins.
Commissioner Weber said we live in a desert, and if you are going to
have a green belt area, there should be accessibility. If it is going to
be watered and kept green, then there should be the opportunity to
utilize it for other activities which could also include a dog park. A
community of this type would likely demand those types of amenities
and may ask the City to provide them if they are not available. He
advised the applicant that the Commission's direction was, and would
continue, to be good stewards of the City's resources.
Mr. Devlin said the points were well taken and he would not mind, and
would actually prefer, the Commission to make a recommendation as
it was Homeowners' Association property.
There being no further questions of the applicant, Vice Chairperson
Barrows asked if there was any public comment.
There being no additional questions, or public comment, Vice
Chairperson Barrows opened the matter for Commission discussion.
Commissioner Weber said it would be a shame to put a sign up that
says no dogs allowed. It is the wrong direction to go in and he hoped
that the Homeowners' Association would understand and think about
their responsibilities and how they can also play a part in helping to
resolve water issues.
Commissioner Quill said he did not see any benefit to a no turf option
since it was explained that the front yards were maintained by the
Association; however, he would still like to see less turf.
Vice Chairperson Barrows commented she would like to require a no
turf option to be consistent. She also recommended no turf be placed
in the retention basin, unless it had an alternative use. This is an
active community and people should be encouraged to be out and
about. She strongly suggested conditions to that effect; as well as
encouraging that the hardscapes on the landscaping follow the ALRC
recommendations.
-10-
Planning Commission Minutes
April 27, 2010
There was no further discussion and it was moved and seconded by
Commissioner Quill/Vice Chairperson Barrows to adopt Minute Motion
2010-003 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2010-
913 as submitted, with the following added conditions:
1. Pedestrian access within the front yard area of the residences
shall be revised to improve and ease circulation.
2. A front yard no turf option shall be offered to home buyers.
3. If no public access is provided to the retention basins, the turf
at the bottom shall be eliminated and replaced with
decomposed granite and some drip irrigated planting
Unanimously approved.
C. Specific Plan 2008-085 and Environmental Assessment 2008-600; a
request by the City of La Quinta for consideration of a Specific Plan
for the development of up to 200 affordable residential dwelling units
and 82,000 square feet of automobile sales and related uses to be
located south of Highway 111 between Dune Palms Road and Costco
Drive.
Planning Manager David Sawyer presented the staff report, a copy of
which is on file in the Planning Department.
Vice Chairperson Barrows asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Weber asked staff for the status of items listed in the
City of Indio's comments.
Consultant Nicole Criste, Terra Nova, Terra Nova Planning & Research,
400 S. Farrell Drive, Suite B-205, Palm Springs, CA introduced herself
and provided the Commission with an explanation of the response
being provided to the City of Indio. She also explained the seasonal
adjustment requirement the City has and how that results in a high
traffic count as identified by the City of Indio.
Commissioner Weber commented on traffic volume, during extreme
levels of traffic from nearby festivals, and wondered if the 40% figure
was too high. He also wanted to know if Polo Square had been
included in that number.
-11-
Planning Commission Minutes
April 27, 2010
Consultant Criste further explained the rationale for the seasonal
adjustment and said it reflected a more accurate standard if it needed
to come down. She added that the cumulative project analysis
included a number of projects approved by both La Quinta and Indio
which included Polo Square, that were not yet constructed.
Commissioner Weber asked if there would be new signalization along
Highway 111 and Dune Palms. Staff said there is a right-in right-out
environment only for the commercial use along Highway 111 and a
signal would be added at the southern entrance to Sam's Club, linking
up with the proposed "A" Street. That would eliminate the most
northerly driveway serving the Desert Sands School District
Administration offices.
Commissioner Weber provided general review comments on turf,
energy efficiency, sustainability, and LEED design in reference to the
RSG April 21st submittal.
Commissioner Quill asked why the City decided to do a full draft
environment impact report versus a typical negative declaration.
Consultant Criste replied that the initial study triggered an EIR.
Commissioner Quill asked if a Statement of Overriding Consideration
was included. Consultant Criste responded one is included for the
Council to decide upon.
Commissioner Quill asked how many Overriding points there were to
consider. Consultant Criste said two; traffic long-term and
cumulative, which included other projects and named the areas of
inclusion.
Commissioner Quill was very pleased with the housing project and its
walkability, but asked why part of it was designated as an auto center
and what would happen if those plans changed. Staff explained there
was long-standing interest from ahigh-end auto dealership and briefly
explained what would happen if those plans changed.
Commissioner Quill said he was glad there were no Statement of
Overriding Considerations on the GHG issues and asked if there had
been a study done to prove that the City was under the requirements
of AB 32. Consultant Criste said yes.
-12-
Planning Commission Minutes
April 27, 2010
Commissioner Wilkinson asked about gated access at the south end
and security for the auto dealership. Staff said it had not been
determined if the proposed access off of "A" Street would be opened
for general retail activity and explained the proposed delivery traffic
circulation patterns; pointing out the restricted emergency and service
access point as well as the current driveway proposal.
Commissioner Weber asked about possible locations where a truckload
of automobiles could enter. Staff said access would be provided via
the Komar site to the east or off of Dune Palms via "A" Street and
enter the site from the southwest.
Commissioner Weber asked about security for the automobile sales
use. Staff said that would be an item to be determined as part of the
Site Development Permit review.
Discussion among Commissioners followed regarding walled versus
pedestrian-friendly connected communities; including comments on
how to design a friendly, safe, and comfortable sidewalk area.
Discussion among Commissioners then followed on the delivery and
emergency areas of the project as well as the possibility of more
traffic being relocated to the "A" Street access.
Staff responded by pointing out the following items:
1. The number of large truck deliveries would not be significant, if
this becomes an auto center; with most deliveries being done
by UPS-sized trucks;
2. "A" Street would be a realigned access point for the School
District buses and other vehicles with potential of those
vehicles, during peak hour movements being of greater impact
than anything else;
3. The noise sensitivity issue between the residential and the
School District would require mitigation measures to minimize
the noise levels to an acceptable level;
4. It is not anticipated that "A" Street would become a truck route
of significance, other than for auto deliveries;
5. Larger delivery trucks would be discouraged from crossing the
Komar/Costco commercial site as it is already fairly heavily
-13-
Planning Commission Minutes
April 27, 2010
used. The people visiting the Komar/Costco commercial site
will have the ability to use "A" Street which should help
alleviate trips off of Highway 111.
Commissioner Wilkinson asked where the buses were entering and if
that was taken into consideration during the traffic study. Consultant
Criste pointed out the bus entrance, explained what had been included
in the traffic study, and how the existing northern driveway would be
eliminated. She then noted the new access and traffic flow pattern
for the site.
Staff added the importance of this access was that it would be a
signalized intersection eliminating the problem of the buses waiting as
they entered/exited the School District site. A signalized intersection
would be a better long-term solution for the School District; as well as
being a better, safer environment for everybody.
Discussion followed regarding the effect of the bus trips, time of day
and the possibility of potential traffic jams. Consultant Criste
explained how the off-peak hours minimized any potential traffic
problems.
Commissioner Wilkinson said that noise was probably a bigger
problem than the traffic issue. Staff responded that the greater issue
was the unsignalized existing environment; creating a much needed
safety improvement.
Commissioner Quill asked why the layout was changed from the
original design. Consultant Criste said the new design was more
responsive to safety and connectivity issues.
Commissioner Quill said there would be a fairly significant open-space
lot to the north of the new road alignment and asked if that would be
City-owned property. Staff said it would be and then discussed the
potential of utilizing a portion of that for retention/detention purposes,
and to encourage pedestrian connectivity, on the north side, out to
Dune Palms.
There being no further questions of the staff, Vice Chairperson
Barrows asked if there was any public comment.
-14-
Planning Commission Minutes
April 27, 2010
There being no additional questions, or public comment, Vice
Chairperson Barrows opened the matter for Commission discussion.
There was no further discussion and it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Weber/Wilkinson to adopt Resolution 2010-014
recommending approval to Council of Specific Plan 2008-085 and
Environmental Assessment 2008-600 as submitted. Unanimously
approved.
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None
VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Planning Director Johnson gave a report on City Council Meeting of
April 20, 2010. IA brief summary of the meeting was given followed
by discussion of several items.)
B. Vice Chairperson Barrows noted Commissioner Wilkinson was
scheduled to report back on the May 4, 2010, Council meeting.
IX: DIRECTOR ITEMS:
X. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Vice
Chairperson Barrows/Quill to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning
Commission to the next regular meeting to be held on May 1 1, 2010. This
regular meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. on April 27, 2010.
Respectfully submitted,
~' C~a%~~0,~-~
Caroly~r, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
-15-