PP 1993-502 (2)2
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT
Receipt # 930542
LeadAgency: ....................................................... City-lif La.Quinta ...................................................... Date: ......... 1211.6193 .........
County Agency of Filing: .......................................... Riverside .......................................... Document No.: ................. 930542 ......
Project Title: .................................................... CZ-.9.1:- 06.6./.PP.93:75.021..S.P.-93.nQ23./*..TTM27.85.4 ....................................................
Project Applicant Name: ....................... ....................... JASCORP ................................................ Phone Number: .(61.9.)-3457:8090
Project Applicant Address: ................... 79:41I.CQuntry .. Club..Dr-,.Ste..A,,-B.ermuda-Dunes,..CA..-.922.0.1 ...................
Project Applicant: .................... :tlivate.Dility ...................
CHECK APPLICABLE FEES:
❑ Environmental Impact Report
Negative Declaration . .............
❑ Application Fee Water Diversion (State Water Resources Control Board Only)
❑ ...................... $0.00.
Projects Subject to Certified Regulatory Programs
...................... $0,00.
County Administration Fee
❑ Project that is exempt from fees (DeMinimis Exemption)
❑ Project that is exempt from fees (Notice of Exemption)
Signature and title of person
Total Received . ............... $1.328-00
I
Notice of Determination
To: Office of Planning and Resumb
140D Tenth Street, Room 121
Sacramento. CA 95814
County Cleft
County of Riverside
P. 0. Box 751
Riverside, CA 92502-0751
Appendix N
From: (Public Agency) CITY OF LA QUnM
P. O, Box 1504
La Quinta, CA 92253
J�
Subject:
Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code.
La Quinta Village (Change of Zone 91 -066, Specific Plan 93 -023, Tentative Tract Map 27854 g
Project Title Plot Plan 93 -502)
771 - �`oc.7
6rea Trousdel l , City of La Qui nta 619 -%4 2246
State Ckaringhouse Number Lead Agency Area Ccde(fekphone/Eztension
(if submitted to Clearinghouse) Contact Person
West of Washington Street 700' north of Callp. Tamoirn
Project Location (include county)
Project Description: Develop a 116 -unit Zero Lot Line subdivision on 12 acres. The project will
include 30 very.low and low income units in addition to the market rate units. The property
was redesignated from R -1, R -2 and C -P to R -2 Multiple Family Residential.
Ttus is ro advise that the City of La Qu i nta has approved the above dexT"bod project on
QL-1 A4awy QR't�4* A4=7
December 7, 1993 and has made the following de=ninacons regarding the above dexnW projees:
(Otis)
1. The project ()will ®will tat) have a signifiewl efrea on the emit'ortmatt
�..�
An Environmental Impact Report was pmpwt4 for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
® A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions o(CEQA.
3. Mtigadon mea cures (Qwcm )were rat) made a condition of the approval of the project
4. A statement of Overriding Considerations C)wu (RDwas oot] adopted for this project
S. Findings (®were C2wcm not] made past= to the provisions of CEQA.
This is certify Ibm the final EM with comments and responses and record of project approval is available to the Gemral Public sec:
(T COUNTY CLERK
COUNTY CLERK
Nop DedaradonMtc Determination
q {� Fftd per P.H.C. 2+152
�� La POSTED
/2- — 7� _,7 QQ Associate Planner
b ' Agency) t Date Tote
WILLIAM E. ' NERLY aeraovad:
C"N LERK fly : Dept.
C t o alif° count' of Riverside• state of califomia
Date received for filing at OPR: o„ , , >,
;A. 9... it .. ..,. a,a ... � .. .- a.. ..
� --
., .. �• .�
r~ � .
;.� . •.,
a;'r�;ir'lfllv::)
NEGATIVE
PROPONENT:
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL:
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL:
SECTION /TOWNSHIP /RANGE:
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER:
THRESHOLD DETERMINATION:
MITIGATION MEASURES:
LEAD AGENCY:
DATE OF I S&UE :
EA No. 93 -267
CASE No.
DECLARATION
ntal Review Officer
Jascorp (Mr. Joseph Swain)
Tentative Tract
Map 27854, C2- 91 -06,
Specific Plan 93 -02.
& Plot Plan 93 -502
Develop a 116 unit Zero Lot Line project on
12 acres.
West of Washington Street, 700' north of
Calle Tampico
Si-northwest Section 6, T6S R7E
769 - 030 -039 & 040
The Lead Agency for this proposal
has determined that it does not
have a probable .significant ad-
verse impact upon the environ-
ment. An Environmental Impact
Statement is. not required.
This decision was made after
review by the Lead Agency of a
completed Environmental Checklist
and other information on file
with the Lead Agency. This
information is available to the
public on request.
( X were) ( were not) made a
condition of approval of the
project.
CITY OF LA QUINTA
December 7, 1993
1ST BANK of Palm Desert. N.A.
Palm Deaen. CA
004436
JASCORP
92280
79-811 COUNTRY CLUB DR., A
BERMUDA DUNES, CA 92201
90.4120
NO.
(8 19) 346-SM
1222
SEVEN W EI(H & N01100 DOLLARS
DATE
AMOUNT
12/10/93
* *78.00 ** .
PAY
TO THE
oouray OF R1ZiE:RSIDE
ORDER
OF
lie 0 4 4 3 611• 1: L 2 2 24 L 200•:
50 4 3 3 Sue
1ST BANK of Palm Deem. N.A.
Palm Dawn. CA 92260
004435
JASCORP
79-811 COUNTRY CLUB DR., A
BERMUDA DUNES, CA 92201
904120
NO.
(6 19) 346 -8090
1222
ONE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED FIFTY & N01100 DOLLARS
12/10/93
**1,250.00**
'PAY
TO THE
ORDER
r
COL11 y OF R.IVIERSIDE.,
OF
ue0044 3 Slia : L 2 2 24 L 2001:
50 4 3 3 tile
•
RESOLUTION 93-
•
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA
QUINTA DETERMINING THE NECESSITY TO PROVIDE
FINANCING FOR THE SALE OF CONSTRUCTION FINANCING
AND /OR MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS (LA QUINTA VILLAGE)
WHEREAS, the City of La Quinta (the "City ") is authorized by the provisions
of Health and Safety Code Section 52000 to seq. (the "Act ") to issue and sell construction
financing and /or mortgage revenue bonds for the purpose of making loans or otherwise
providing funds to finance the development of multi- family residential rental housing projects,
including units for households meeting the income limits set forth in the Act; and,
WHEREAS, Amcor Realty Fund III and AAA Housing Partners, a joint venture
(the "Developer ") has requested the City to issue and sell its revenue bonds pursuant to the Act
to provide financing for the acquisition of certain land and /or the construction of a certain multi-
family R -2 housing development comprising approximately 116 units to be located on the
northwest corner. of Calle Tampico and Washington Street in the City (the "Project "); and,
WHEREAS, the Project will be .of benefit to the City and its residents; and,
WHEREAS, as an inducement to the Developer to carry out the Project, the City
desires to authorize the issuance of bonds in the approximate principal amount not to' exceed
$5,000,000; and,
WHEREAS, Section 146 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 limits the amount
of multi- family housing revenue bonds that may be issued in any calendar year by entities within
a. state and authorizes the governor or the legislature of a state to .provide the method of
allocation within the state; and,
. WHEREAS, Chapter 11.8 of Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government Code of
the State of California (the "Government Code ") governs the allocation of the state ceiling
among governmental units in the State of California having the authority to issue multi- family
housing revenue bonds; and,
. WHEREAS, Section 8869.85 of the Government Code requires a local agency to
file an application with the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee prior to the issuance of
multi- family housing revenue bonds.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows:
1. The City hereby determines that it is necessary and desirable to provide financing for the
Project by the issuance and sale of construction financing and/or mortgage revenue bonds
pursuant to the Act and hereby authorizes the issuance and sale of such bonds in a
principal amount not to exceed $5,000,000. This action is taken expressly for the
MSOCC.126 34
I
•
Resolution 93-
•
purpose of inducing the Developer, or its successors or assigns, or such other person or
entity designated by this City Council, to undertake the Project, provided that nothing
contained herein shall be construed to signify that the Project complies with the planning,
zoning, subdivision, and building laws and ordinances applicable thereto or to suggest
that the City or any officer, agent, or employee of the City will grant any approval,
consent or permit which may be required in connection with the development of the
Project.
2. The issuance and sale of the bonds shall be upon such terms and conditions as may be
agreed upon by the City, the Developer,and the initial purchasers of the bonds; provided,
however, that the bonds shall not be sold or issued unless specifically authorized by the
subsequent resolution of this City Council.
3. The City Manager or his designee is hereby authorized and directed to prepare and
submit an application, and such other documents as may be required, to the California
Debt Limit Allocation Committee for an allocation of authority to issue construction
financing and /or mortgage revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $5,000,000, to
collect from the Developer and place into an escrow account an amount equal to one
percent (1 %) of the requested allocation, and to certify to the California Debt Limit
Allocation Committee as to the placement into escrow of such amount.
4. The City Manager or his designee is hereby authorized and directed to take whatever
further action, relating to the aforesaid financial assistance, may be deemed reasonable
and desirable, provided that the terms and conditions under which the bonds are issued
and sold must be approved by this City Council in the manner provided by law prior to
the sale thereof.
5. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La .Quinta
City.Council, held on this 7th day of December; 1993, by the following vote, to wit: .
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RESOCC.126
35
r
Resolution 93-
ATTEST:
SAUNDRA L. JUHOLA, City Clerk
City of La Quinta, California
APPROVED AS TO FORM
DAWN HONEYWELL, City Attorney
City of La Quinta, California
JOHN PENA, Mayor
City.of La Quinta, California .
"SOCC.126 36
Notice of Deter
tion
TO: Of a of Planning and Resamb
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121
Sacnmento, CA 95814 "
_.� County Cleft
County of Riverside
P.O. Box 751
Riverside, CA 92502-0751
Appendix M
From: (public Agency) CTTY OF LA Ounm
P. O. Box 1504 t "
La Quinta, CA 92253
r
Subject:
Filing of Notice of Determination In compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code.
La Quinta Village (Change of Zone 91 -066, Specific Plan 93 -023, Tentative Tract Map 27854 &
Project Title Plot Plan 93-502)
Greg Trousdell, City of La Quinta 619 - 564 2246
State Clearinghouse Number Lead Agency Area CodeJrelephoneXxtension
(if submiu4 to Clerrinshouse) Contact Person
West of Washington Street. 700' north of Calle Tampico
Project Location (include county)
Project Description: Develop a 116 -unit Zero Lot Line subdivision on 12 acres. The project will
include "30 very-low and low income units in addition to the market rate units. The property
was redesignated from R -1, R -2 and C -P to R -2 Multiple Family Residential.. ' .
This is to advise that the City of La Quinta has approved the above �� project an
file" km O�Qk A4�
December 7 , 1993 and has made the following de=riinadoas regarding the above descnbod projax
(Dan)
1. The project E)WM Mwill not] have a significant effect on the environment.
2. O An. Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the pmvisions of CEQA.
® A Negative Declara m eras prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
3. Mitigation measures Qwen Owue not] made a cortiditice of the approval of the project
4. A statement of Overriding Cmsideradons Q]was (2was trot) adopted for this project
5. Findings (®were C overt not) made poniard to the provisions of CEQA.
'this isAq certifypt the final EIR with comments and responses and record of project approval is available to the Gaxral P'ubtic at
Agemy).
Date received for filing at OPR:
/2
Dots
Associate Planner
Tide
r� Z 4 ro
EA No. 93 -267
CASE No. Tentative Tract
ap 27, NEGATIVE DECLARATION Specific4Plan 93 -02"
& Plot Plan 93 -502
PROPONENT:
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL:
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL:
SECTION /TOWNSHIP /RANGE:
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER:
THRESHOLD DETERMINATION:
MITIGATION MEASURES:
LEAD AGENCY:
DATE OF I.SSrUE :
ntal Review Officer
Jascorp (Mr. Joseph Swain)
Develop a 116 unit Zero Lot Line project on
12 acres.
West of Washington Street, 700' north of
Calle Tampico
51 northwest Section 6, T6S R7E
769 -030 -039 & 040
The Lead Agency for this proposal.
has determined that it does not
have a probable significant ad-
verse impact upon the environ-
ment. An Environmental Impact
Statement - is not required.
This decision was made after
review by the Lead Agency of a
completed Environmental Checklist
and other information on file
with the Lead Agency. This
information is available to•the
public on request.
( X were) ( were not) made a
condition of approval of the
project.
CITY OF LA QUINTA
December 7, 1993
1ST BANK of Palm Desen, N.A. 004436
JASCORP Palm Desen, CA 92280
79-811 COUNTRY CLUB DR., A
BERMUDA DUNES. CA 92201 90-4120 NO.
(819) 345 -SM 1222
SEVE WY EIGHT & N01100 DOLLARS
DATE AMOUNT
12%10/93 * *78.00 **
PAY
TO THE OOUN'I'Y OF RIVERSIDE
ORDER
OF
11.00443611' 1:L2 2 24 12001: , 50 433511'
1ST BANK of Palm Desen. N.A. 004435
JASCORP Palm D~. CA 92280
79-811 COUNTRY CLUB DR., A
BERMUDA DUNES, CA 92201 90-4120 NO.
(819) 345 -8090 1222
ONE THOUSAND TPU HUNDRED FIFTY & N01100 DOLLARS
12%1093
PAY
TO THE
ORDER �y OF RIVERSIDE
OF
lie 00443511a e: &2224 &2001: 50 433511'
AMOUNT
* *1,250.00 **
n
•
•
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - FINAL
PLOT PLAN 93 -502, JASCORP
DECEMBER 7, 1993
* Modified by City Council on 12 -7 -93
** Added by City Council on 12 -7 -93
GENERAL
•
1. Phasing plans, including phasing of public improvements, shall be submitted for review
and approval by the City Engineer and the Planning and Development Department prior
to the issuance of a building permit.
2. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit for construction of any building or
use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall obtain permits and /or clearances
from the following public agencies:
- City Fire Marshal
- Public Works Department
- Planning and Development Department
- Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
- Desert Sands Unified School District
- Coachella Valley Water District.
- Imperial Irrigation District.
- California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit)
- Sunline Transit
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 approvals and signatures on the
plans.
Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above mentioned agencies shall be
presented to the Building and Safety Department at the time of the application for a
building permit for the use contemplated herewith.
3. The development of the property shall be generally be in conformance with the exhibits
contained in the file for PP 93 -502, unless amended otherwise by the following
conditions or by Tentative Parcel Map 27854 and Specific Plan 93 -023.
4. The approved plot plan shall be used within two years of the final approval date;
otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. "Be used" means
the beginning of substantial construction which is contemplated by this approval, not
including grading which is begun within the one year period and is thereafter diligently
pursued until completion. The plot plan case shall run concurrently with Tentative Tract
Map 27854 and Specific Plan 93 -023 once approved.
CONAPRVL.097 1
0 0
Conditions of Approval
Plot Plan 93 -502, Jascorp
December 7, 1993
5. Approval of this plot plan shall be subject to final approval of Change of Zone 91 -066,
Specific Plan 93 -023, and Tentative Tract Map 27854.
6. There shall be no outdoor storage of boats, trailers, or RV's without specific approval
of the Planning Commission.
7. All exterior lighting shall be shielded and directed so as not to shine directly on
surrounding adjoining properties or public rights -of -way. Light standard type with
recessed light source shall also be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director.
Exterior lighting shall comply with Outdoor Light Control Ordinance and off -street .
parking requirements.
8. A decorative trash enclosure shall be built for the proposed clubhouse building. The
structure shall be designed with pedestrian access that does not require opening the doors,
and provided with opaque metal doors. Plans for trash enclosures to be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of a building permit. Applicant shall
contact local waste management company to insure that enclosure design, size, and
location is adequate.
9. Handicapped parking spaces and facilities shall be provided per Municipal and Federal
Code requirements (e.g. clubhouse building).
10. As required by the General Plan, Applicant shall provide noise study by a qualified
acoustical engineer prior to issuance of building permit, to determine impacts to the
future residents from roadway noise from Washington Street and the future commercial
projects to the south surrounding residential zones and uses. The noise study shall
suggest mitigation measures which the City can require concerning the development of
the site.
11. The project shall comply with applicable Arts in Public Places Ordinance prior to
building permit issuance.
12. Final landscaping plans shall include approval stamps and signatures from the Riverside
County Agricultural Commissioners office and Coachella Valley Water District.
13. Construction shall comply with all local and State Building Code requirements in affect
at time of issuance of building permit as determined by the Building Official.
14.' Prior to-issuance. of a grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written
report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with those
conditions of approval which must be satisfied prior to issuance of a building permit.
Prior to a final building inspection approval, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a
written report demonstrating compliance with all remaining conditions of approval and
mitigation measures. The Planning and Development Director may require inspection
or other monitoring to assure such compliance.
CONAPRVL.097 2
Conditions of Approval
Plot Plan 93 -502, Jascorp
December 7, 1993
15. . That all conditions of the Design Review Board shall be complied with as follows:
A. The landscape program for Washington Street includes a variation of planting
materials such as: palm trees, accent shade trees, lawn, shrubs, and
groundcover. Unlighted trees or palms should be considered along Washington
Street. Incandescent light fixtures will be required (less than 160 watt). The
final landscaping plan should be reviewed by the Design Review Board during
plan check.
B. A meandering eight foot wide sidewalk shall be installed on Washington Street
along the frontage of the site. The sidewalk shall meander into the right -of -way
but not touch the curb.
C. A common area parking lighting plan shall be reviewed by the Planning and
Development Department prior to building plan check. A photometric study
should be developed with analysis of the lighting pattern on the project and meets
the City's Outdoor Lighting Ordinance provisions as explained in Chapter 9.210.
the height of the light poles should not exceed 10 feet in height.
*D. The screen wall along Washington Street and the, south side of the project shall
be a minimum height of 7'6" (i.e., 6' masonry wall on a 1'6" earthen mound)
feet high as measured from adjoining grade height. The wall shall be constructed
to match the recently installed privacy screen wall on the east side of the street
which was installed by the City in 1992, except the green ceramic tile does not
need to be installed. The wall shall be stepped or terraced to create an
architectural element on Washington Street which is consistent with the City's
Image Corridor design guidelines.
E. Both passive and active outdoor equipment shall be examined and the on -site
recreational facilities shall be approved by the Design Review Board during, final
plan review.
F. All dwelling units along Washington Street shall be a minimum of 30 feet from
the property line (landscape lot). The measurement shall be to the edge of any
building exclusive of building patios or eave overhangs.
G. The comments of the Riverside County Sheriff's Department (June 24, 1993)
shall be incorporated into the final design of the project.
H. The final construction plans shall be reviewed by the Planning and Development
Department during Building Department review.
I. Landscaping for each duplex unit shall comply with the following:
CONAPRVL.097 3
Conditions of Approval
Plot Plan 93 -502, Jascorp
December 7, 1993
1. The front and side yards of each duplex unit should be landscaped to
property line, edge of curb, sidewalk, or edge of street pavement,
whichever is furthest from the residence. Reaf yard landscaping shall be
provided for affordable housing units.
2. The front yard landscaping shall include trees (minimum three 15 -gallon
trees per duplex and three extra trees on the exterior sides of the corner'
units), shrubs, and groundcover and /or hardscape of sufficient size,
spacing, and variety to create an attractive and unifying appearance..
Landscaping shall be in substantial compliance with the standards set forth
in the Manual of Architectural Standards and the Manual on Landscaping
Standards as adopted by the Planning Commission.
3. A permanent water - efficient irrigation system shall be provided for all
areas required to be landscaped.
4. The landscaping shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and viable
condition by the property owner.
5. The developer shall be responsible to install all common irrigation piping
and landscaping prior to any occupancy permits being released in the
project. Each dwelling unit shall have front. ,yard irrigation and
landscaping prior to occupancy by the future homeowner. Additionally,
the rear yard areas, shall be irrigated and lawn shall be installed by the
developer for all very low and low income units. All landscaped areas
shall be irrigated by automatic systems.
The perimeter security fencing for the project (excluding Washington Street) shall
be masonry and painted to match the Washington Street wall (Item D). The fence
shall be six feet high.
K. The combination one story/two story duplex design shall be approved by the
Planning Commission on October 12, 1993, or the matter shall be returned to the
Design Review Board for final review.
L. The entry drive and gate shall be designed with adequate stacking room to ensure
that traffic from this development does not impede the flow of traffic into and out
of the development to the south. The entry gate design shall include a turn
around between the card reader and the gate. The final design shall require the
Fire Marshal, Engineering Department, and the Planning and Development
Department approval.
M. The driveway on Washington Street shall be a minimum width of 54 -feet (i.e. two
lanes in and two lanes out) or as determined by the City Engineer.
CONAPRVL.097 4
Conditions of Approval
Plot Plan 93 -502, Jascorp
December 7, 1993
CITY FIRE MARSHAL
16. The comments of the Riverside County Fire Department (September 20, 1993) shall be
incorporated into the final design of the project.
SPECIAL
17. The Environmental Fees of the State Fish and Game Department and the County of
Riverside shall be paid within 24 hours after review of the proposed by the Planning
Commission and /or City Council (i.e. $1,328.00).
18. All required improvements shall be completed prior to site occupancy of the proposed
development.
19. No roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be permitted unless screened from view by
. a building parapet. wall or other integral architectural 'feature per City ordinance.
20. All mitigation measures of Environmental Assessment 93 -267 shall be met.
21. - The City's Water Conservation Ordinance (Ordinance 220) shall be met.
22. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's
adopted Infrastructure Fee Program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits.
23. The on -street parking program shall be submitted to the Planning and Development
Department prior or during the Building and Safety Department plan check process.
* *24. The recreation building shall be a minimum size of 2,000 square feet and designed to
serve as a child care facility when the project is 70 percent complete.
CONAPRVL.097 5
- �- �IT -OY -CR VUINIA
� CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of La Quinta Council will hold a PUBLIC HEARING on December
7, 1993, at 7:00 p.m. in the La Quinta City Hall Council Chambers, 78 -495 Calle Tampico, on the
following item:
ITEM: CHANGE OF ZONE 91 -066, PLOT PLAN 93 -502
SPECIFIC PLAN 93 -023 & TENTATIVE TRACT 27854
(LA QUINTA VILLAGE)
APPLICANT: MR. JOSEPH A: SWAIN, PRESIDENT
(JASCORP)
LOCATION: 670+ FEET NORTH OF CALLE TAMPICO ON
THE WEST SIDE OF WASHINTON STREET
& SOUTH OF THE EVACUATION CHANNEL
REQUEST: 1. CHANGE OF ZONE 91 -066: TO REDESIGNATE
12+ ACRES FROM R -1 (ONE FAMILY DWELLING), R -2
8,000 (MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS) & C -P (GENERAL
COMMERCIAL) TO R -2 (MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS)
2. PLOT PLAN 93 -502, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 27854 AND SPECIFIC PLAN 93 -023: TO
DEVELOP 116 ZERO -LOT LINE CONDOMINIUM UNITS (ONE & TWO STORY UNITS) ON 12+
ACRES. THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WILL BE MARKET RATE WITH SOME AFFORDABLE
UNITS BEING OFFERED. THE PROPOSED UNITS WILL RANGE IN SIZE FROM 1,109
SQUARE FEET (2 BEDROOM) TO 1,232 SQUARE FEET (3 BEDROOM) ON 2,500+ SQUARE
FOOT LOTS.
LEGAL: SOUTH HALF OF NORTHWEST SECTION 6, T6S, R7E
APN : 769- 030 -039 & 040
The La Quinta Planning & Development Department has completed Environmental Assessment #93 -267.
Based upon this assessment, the project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment;
therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared. The La Quinta City Council will consider adoption
of the Negative Declaration along with the project at the Hearing.
Any person may submit written comments on this case to the Planning and Development Department prior
to the Hearing and /or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the project at the time of
the Hearing. If you challenge the decision of this case in court, you may be limited to raising only those
issues that you or someone else raised either at the Public Hearing or in written correspondence
delivered to the Planning and Development Department at, or prior to, the Public Hearing. The
proposed files) may be viewed by the public Monday through Friday 8:00 a. m. until 5:00 p.m. at the
Planning and Development Department, La Quinta City Hall, 78 -495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California.
In the City's efforts to comply with the requirements of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act
Of 1990, the City Clerk's Office requires that any person in need of any type of special equipment,
assistance or accommodations) in order to communicate at a City public meeting, must inform the City
Clerk's Office a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
PUBLISH ONCE ON NOVEMBER 16,1993
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78 -495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California
October 12, 1993 7:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairwoman Barrows who led
the flag salute.
U. ROLL CALL
A. Chairwoman Barrows requested the roll call. Present: Commissioners Adolph,
Ellson, Marrs, Abels, and Chairwoman Barrows.
C. Staff Present: Planning Director Jerry Herman, Principal Planner Stan Sawa,
Associate Planner Greg Trousdell, Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer, Parks and
Recreation Manager Clint Bohlen, and Department Secretary Betty Sawyer.
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Continued - Change of Zone_ 91 -066, Specific Plan 92 -023. Tentative Tract
27854, and Plot Plan 93 -022; a request of JASCORP for approval of a change of
zone designation for from R -1, R -2 *8,000, and C -P to R -2; a specific plan. to
develop design and architectural standards for a 124 unit planned unit
development project; a tentative tract map to subdivide 12± acres into .124 single
family lots; and a plot plan.to develop a low and moderate income zero lot line
single family home project.
1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in
the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and
Development Department. Staff stated the number of units had been
reduced to .116 from the original plan of 124, and the applicant had
submitted two options. Option B deleted a few units which were adjacent
to the Washington Street bridge which was a concern of the Planning
Commission on September 28, 1993, because of the City's future street
widening plans.
PC10 -12 1
Planning Commission Minutes
October 12, 1993
2. Commissioner Ellson questioned Condition #13 of the specific plan. She
requested that wood for the garage doors be omitted. Commissioner
Abels questions the possibility of requiring automatic garage door openers.
3. Commissioner Ellson asked if Condition #13 of the tentative tract needed
to be amended to add Sheriff's Department for providing access to the
gate. Discussion followed regarding the different type of gate keys, etc.,
as well as on- street parking.
4. Chairwoman Barrows asked if the security lighting proposed met the Dark
Sky Ordinance requirements. Staff stated they would be reviewed when
they were submitted for plan check. Commissioner Adolph asked if staff
recommended the high pressure lights. Discussion followed regarding the
different type of lights.
5. Chairwoman Barrows asked about Condition #8 and how the recycling
plan would fit in with the City. Staff stated. the City was in the process
of setting up a recycling program with Waste Management of the Desert,
but a recycling area would be added to the refuse area abutting the
clubhouse.
6. Commissioner Ellson asked if the recreation building was still going to be
a day care center and if so would the swimming pool be relocated and will
it be reviewed by the Planning Commission again. Staff stated the
recreation building would go back to the Design Review Board for their
approval. Discussion followed regarding relocating the building and /or
the swimming pool.
7. There being no further questions of staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened
the public hearing. Mr. Joe Swain, representing JASCORP, spoke
regarding the project. He stated .the recreation building use had not been
determined as of yet. He went on to introduce Mr. Joe DeCoster architect
for the project.
8. Mr. DeCoster went over the floor plans of the different units.
Commissioner Adolph asked what the size of the patio slabs would be.
Mr. DeCoster stated they would be no less than 6' X 8.'.
9. Commissioner Adolph asked if landscaping was going to be provided for
the affordable housing units. Mr. DeCoster stated the backyards would
be landscaped.
J
PC10 -12 2
Planning Commission Minutes
October 12, 1993
10. Ms. Rosaline Davis, resident-of Paloma Court, asked the Commission to
explain what affordable housing meant. Staff stated affordable housing
was based upon the income of the purchaser: A certain percentage would .
be medium income, a percentage low income, and a percentage very low
income. The County would determine who and how people would
qualify. Discussion followed regarding how affordable housing is
determined.
11. Ms. Davis asked if association fees were going to be charged how would
these people be able 'to pay it. In addition, she expressed concern for a
one car garage unit. Commissioner Marrs explained that the developer
would provide a two car garage option on the largest unit if the future
owner was interested and the lot could accommodate the additional garage.
12. There being no further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the
public hearing.
13. Chairwoman Barrows stated that the affordable housing locations in La
Quinta were limited and the City was required by the State to, provide
affordable housing. There are some affordable houses in the Cove but
more are needed. She further stated that this was a good location and -the
tract would be attractive when completed.
14. Commissioner Adolph asked how the City would control the CC & R's.
Staff stated the City does not enforce CC & R's but if the City's
Redevelopment Agency gets involved, the City will see that the houses are
maintained by the contracts that are drawn up between the homeowner and
the City. All other units are subject to control by the homeowners'
association. The Planning Commission will review the final CC & R's
before they are recorded.
15. Commissioner Adolph asked how many of the units the developer would
be affordable. Staff stated that number had not been determined yet.
Discussion followed regarding affordable housing requirements.
16. Commissioner Ables stated he felt the project was needed in La Quinta
but it was hard to find a location to accommodate such a project. He
further stated that with the changes that had been made to the project, that
homeowner pride of ownership would help to dictate the maintenance of
the project. Commissioners Marrs and Ellson agreed.
PC10 -12 3
Planning Commission Minutes
October 12, 1993
17. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Ellson /Marrs to adopt Planning Commission Resolution
93 -035 recommending to the City Council approval of Change of Zone
91 -066 and recommending concurrence with the proposed Negative
Declaration.
ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Adolph, Ellson,
Marrs, Abels, Chairwoman Barrows.
NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAINING: None.
Commissioners Ellson /Mans moved to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 93 -036 and 93 -037 recommending to the City Council approval
of .Specific Plan 93 -023 and Tentative Tract 27854 and recommending to
the City Council concurrence with the approval of the Negative
Declaration of the . Environmental Impact subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval with the modification of Condition #13 of the
specific plan to delete the use of wood doors, and Condition #13 of the
tentative.tract to read "Fire and Police access ", as shown in Exhibit "B ".
Exhibit "B" has 116 units and .a reduction in the number of units at the
Washington Street bridge.
ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Adolph, Ellson,
Marrs, Abels, Chairwoman Barrows.
NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAINING: None.
Commissioners Ellson /Adolph moved to adopt Minute Motion 93 -046
approving Plot Plan 93 -502, subject to the Conditions of Approval and as
shown in Exhibit "B ". Unanimously approved.
IV. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
V. BUSINESS SESSION:
A. Minor Temporary Outdoor Event 93 -057; a request of Thunderbird Artists (Judi
Combs) for approval of fine art shows at Plaza La Quinta from November 6,
1993 through April, 1994.
PC10 -12
1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the
staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development
Department.
4
•
•
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 93- Exhibit "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 93 -023 - JASCORP
OCTOBER 12, 1993
* . Modified by staff on 9 -29 -93 & 10 -7 -93
GENERAL:
1. The development shall comply with Exhibit B, the Specific Plan document for Specific
Plan 93 -023 and the following conditions, which shall take precedence in the event.of any
conflict with the provisions of Plot Plan 93 -502.
2. Public improvements shall be provided as required, by the Engineering Department and
Tentative Tract Map. 27854.
3. All dwelling units within 150 feet of the Washington Street right -of way shall be limited
to one story in height. All one story units in this area of the project shall be a maximum
of 19 feet in height with two story units in project a maximum of 24 feet in height.
4. A master landscaping plan for all perimeter street parkways shall be submitted and
approved by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission prior to issuance of a
building permit for the project. Landscaping materials to be native and drought tolerant.
Irrigation system to utilize emitter irrigation system where possible. Within 5 feet of
curb, no spray irrigation heads nor lawn shall be used. Within this area only emitters
and spreading. shrubs and groundcover may be used.
5. Landscaping and architectural plans for individual lots and dwellings shall be reviewed
and approved by staff. .
6. Lighting of permanent subdivision identification signs shall be permitted. All permanent
signs shall be approved by the Design Review Board.
*7. The maximum number of units for the project shall be 116. A minimum of 30 units
shall be sold to very low or low income families as required by Government Code
Section 65915. The units shall be guaranteed to remain affordable for a minimum of 30
years pursuant to contractual arrangements approved by either the La Quinta
Redevelopment Agency or City Council, prior to issuance of a building permit. 'The
units shall be intermixed within the project as determined by the City.
8. The minimum house size shall be 1,109 square feet, excluding garage area.
CONAPRVL.103 1
i °•
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: OCTOBER 12, 1993 (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 28, 1993)
PROJECT: CHANGE.OF ZONE 91 -066, SPECIFIC.PLAN 93 -023, TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP 27854 & PLOT PLAN 93 -502; LA QUINTA VILLAGE
APPLICANT: JASCORP (MR. JOSEPH A. SWAIN, PRESIDENT)
ARCHITECT: STOFFREGEN FULLER & ASSOCIATES; MR. JOE'DE COSTER
PROJECT
ENGINEER: HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES;
MR. BRUCE HUNSAKER & MR. STEPHEN MC CUTCHAN, AICP
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT: HORTON SHEPARDSON & ASSOCIATES (JOHN COSTANZA)
OWNER:' AMCOR CAPITAL INC. (MR. ROBERT WRIGHT)
ORIGINAL
REQUEST: CHANGE OF ZONE: THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A
CHANGE IN THE ZONING DESIGNATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 12
ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM R -1 (ONE FAMILY DWELLING), R -2
*8,000 (MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS), AND C -P (GENERAL
COMMERCIAL) TO R -2 (MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS) FOR
PROPERTY ON APPROXIMATELY 12 ACRES OF LAND ON THE WEST
SIDE OF WASHINGTON STREET, JUST SOUTH OF THE LA QUINTA
STORM CHANNEL /WASHINGTON STREET BRIDGE AND 700 FEET
NORTH OF CALLE TAMPICO.
SPECIFIC PLAN: TO DEVELOP DESIGN AND ARCHITECTURAL
STANDARDS FOR A 124 UNIT'(SINGLE FAMILY) PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP: TO SUBDIVIDE APPROXIMATELY 12
ACRES INTO 124 DEVELOPABLE LOTS FOR FUTURE ATTACHED
SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING AND OTHER COMMON LOTS FOR
STREETS, RECREATION OR LANDSCAPING PURPOSES. THE
REMAINDER PARCEL IS PROPOSED.
PLOT PLAN: TO DEVELOP 124 LOW AND MODERATE INCOME
ZERO LOT LINE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
BONUS
DENSITY: THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A DENSITY BONUS FOR THEIR
PROJECT BASED ON GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65915 BECAUSE
THE PROJECT WILL INCLUDE PROVISIONS FOR AFFORDABLE
HOUSING UNITS.
i
EXISTING ZONING: R -1 (ONE FAMILY DWELLING) & R -2 *8,000
(MULTI'PLE FAMILY DWELLINGS) & C- P. (GENERAL
COMMERCIAL)
STAFFRPT.006 /CS -1-
,/a rbt • •
BACKGROUND:
Planning Commission Discussion of September 28,.1993
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed 124 unit project on
September 28, 1993. A copy of the draft Planning Commission Minutes
is in the Planning Commission packet. The Planning Commission
discussed numerous features of the project, such as density, parking,
pedestrian access, clubhouse facilities, and other related topics. A
summary of those topics are noted below:
1. Parking - The Planning Commission felt the parking ratio of
three spaces per unit was not adequate for owners and guests. They
thought the project should maintain four spaces per unit, and any
on- street parking should be in addition to the required per unit
parking space requirements.
2. Project Density -
the developer should
statutes and whether
allowed based on the
units per the polici
requested that the
additional 10% bonus
The Planning Commission debated whether or not
be allowed a bonus density of 25% per the State
or not an additional 10% density bonus should be
architectural characteristics of the proposed
as of the existing General Plan. The Commission
developer redesign the project without the
density (or approximately 116 units) incentive.
3. Clubhouse Facilities - The Planning Commission asked that the
developer examine the outdoor recreation amenities which are proposed
at the clubhouse. The Commission questioned whether or not the
community pool was adequately sized for the project. The current
size of the pool is 20 -feet by 40 -feet.
4. Pedestrian Access - The Planning Commission discussed
eliminating the central open space strip to the west of the clubhouse
because the area would become a security problem. The Commission
thought the area should be given to the abutting single family lots.
The revision would allow a pedestrian sidewalk along the private
streets abutting the clubhouse area if the open space paseo was
eliminated: The Commission also requested that a "pedestrian gate"
be provided_ at the Washington Street entry so that residents could
easily get to the future Ralph's shopping center.
5. Washington Street Bridge Widening - The Engineering Department
explained that the existing bridge would probably be widened in the
next 10 years. The Commission thought the homes abutting the bridge
would be impacted by the future acoustic (retaining) wall and by the
future bridge widening improvements. They requested that the future
owners be notified during their purchase that the bridge will be
widened in the future. It might be appropriate to have a common
parking lot in this area to mitigate this future problem. .
6. Landscaping - The Planning Commission thought the developer
should landscape the front, side and rear yards of all the units
prior to building occupancy. However, after discussion with the
developer the Commission thought it was more appropriate to fully
landscape the affordable units because these owners would not likely
have the means to perform this task unless it was part of their
mortgage payment.
STAFFRPT.006 /CS -2-
". s
The developer said he would landscape the front yards, common lots,
and perimeter on all other areas.
7. .Private Streets - The Planning Commission questioned whether or
not the City should permit 32 -foot wide streets within.the project.
Some members felt.a greater width was necessary (i.e. 36- feet). No.
consensus was reached but the issue might not be as. important if the
project density is reduced and additional off - street parking is
provided.
8. Traffic Queing at the Main Gate - The Planning Commission
questioned whether or not the 3 -lane system would function
effectively and whether or not stacked traffic would impact the main
entry driveway into the development. Mr. Joe De Coster of
Stoffregren Fuller and Associates presented an 8 1/2" x 11" exhibit
of the entry design to the Planning Commission. Mr. Steve Speer,
Assistant City Engineer, stated the design would work, however, a
54 -foot wide lane was necessary leading from Washington Street to
allow four lanes of travel (two in and two out).. The Commission felt
the design could work but they instructed the developer to work with
staff on this issue.
9. Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC &R's) - The Planning
Commission wanted to be assured that the developer would customize
the CC &R's to the future needs of the residents since this project
will include both affordable units and market rate units. They
questioned how the developer would manage the future homeowner's
association and whether or not an on -site management firm would be
needed.
Developer Response
The developer stated he was will to examine the issues of the
Planning Commission since their concerns were his concerns too. He
said he would evaluate their comments and he would try to incorporate
them into a revised document plan (e.g. 116 units). Mr. Swain stated
that he is trying to develop a project that the City will be proud of
and he believes the units are designed to be compatible with
surrounding single family homes even though the unit sizes and lot
sizes are smaller. He stated that his marketing plan was to keep the
Homeowner's Association fees at a reasonable level so that the buyers
are not saddled with additional monthly costs. He thought his design
team had done a good job trying to meet the R -2 standards and the
City's General Plan policies.
Neighborhood Input
A few neighbors spoke in opposition to the project because they felt
it was not compatible with the area. They felt the project contains
too many units and parking would be a problem. A few. other
individuals spoke in favor of the project.
STAFFRPT.006 /CS
-3-
r
Jt
Planning Commission Action
The Planning Commission voted 4 -1 to have the developer revise the
124 unit project by reducing the number of units to approximately 116
units. The Commission stated they generally agreed that an
affordable project is appropriate for this area because it is
immediately adjacent to public transportation, a future commercial
shopping center and near the City's Civic Center complex.
Revised Submittal
On October 7, 1993, the developer submitted a new site plan, specific
plan text, and tentative tract map exhibit for the project pursuant
to the request of the Planning Commission of September 28, 1993. The
revised plan has 116 units plotted on 32 -foot and 36 -foot wide
streets. Additional parking spaces have been provided. The plans
are consistent with the discussions of September 28, 1993 except the
developer has chosen to retain the single story units abutting the
Washington Street bridge. However, Mr. Swain has stated to staff
that he will examine this matter further, 'and quite possibly, he will
present an alternative plan to the Commission on October 11th or 12th
depending on whether he can adjust the units to other on -site areas.
CONCLUSION:
The resolution headings- attached reflect the way the case was
advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper but depending on the actions
of the Planning Commission on October 12, 1993, staff will revise the
reports, Resolution and notices which would be transmitted to the
City Council for final approval (e.g. 116 units). .
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 93- recommending
to City Council approval of Change of Zone '91-066 from R -1 (One
Family Dwelling), R -2 *8,000 (Multiple Family Dwellings) and C -P
(General Commercial) to R -2 (Multiple Family Dwellings) and
recommending to the City Council.concurrence with the proposed
Negative Declaration.
2. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 93.- , and
Resolution 93- recommending to City. Council approval of
Specific Plan 93 -023 and Tentative Tract Map 27854 and
recommending to the the City Council concurrence with the
approval of the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact
subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
3. Staff also recommends that the Planning Commission approve Plot
Plan 93 -502, by Minute Motion 93- , subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval.
STAFFRPT.006 /CS
-4-
Attachments:
1. Location Map
f
2.. Planning Commission Report of September 28, 1993
3. Revised Exhibits dated October 7, 1993.(large).
4. Draft PC Resolutions for CZ 91 -066, SP 93 -023, TTM 27854
5. Draft Conditions of Approval for PP 93 -502
i
STAFFRPT.006 /CS -5=
b
pin
U U J PIE]
J JL
J111Cl-JLO C ] - F�V,
F� nFin Hnn AV I
1'J�LJLJLIULJLJULJ� ICALLE
innnnnnnnn
CITY OF LA QUINTA
LOCATION MAP:
ATTACHMENT
EjEff �J��
FRITZ BURNS f-
i
'S2
Plot Plan 93 -502 , Change of Zone 01- 066,Jentative
Tract Map 21854, and Specific Plan 93 -023
NORTH
SCALE.:les)000'
DATE:
PROJECT:
APPLICANT:
ARCHITECT:
PROJECT
ENGINEER:
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT:
OWNER:
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTACHMENT 2
SEPTEMBER 28, 1993 (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 14, 1993)
CHANGE OF ZONE 91 -066, SPECIFIC PLAN 93 -023, TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP 27854 & PLOT PLAN 93 -502; (LA QUINTA VILLAGE)
JASCORP (MR. JOSEPH A. SWAIN, PRESIDENT)
STOFFREGEN FULLER & ASSOCIATES; MR. ROGER DE COSTER
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES;
MR. BRUCE HUNSAKER & MR. STEPHEN MC CUTCHAN, AICP
HORTON SHEPARDSON & ASSOCIATES (JOHN COSTANZA)
AMCOR CAPITAL I.NC. (MR. ROBERT WRIGHT)
REQUEST: CHANGE OF ZONE: THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A
CHANGE IN THE ZONING DESIGNATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 12
ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM R -1 (ONE FAMILY DWELLING), R -2
*8,000 (MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS), AND C -P (GENERAL
COMMERCIAL) TO R -2 (MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS) FOR
PROPERTY ON APPROXIMATELY 12 ACRES OF LAND ON THE WEST
SIDE OF'WASHINGTON STREET, JUST SOUTH OF THE LA QUINTA
STORM CHANNEL /WASHINGTON STREET BRIDGE AND 700 FEET
NORTH OF CALLE TAMPICO.
SPECIFIC PLAN: TO DEVELOP DESIGN AND ARCHITECTURAL
STANDARDS FOR A 124 UNIT (SINGLE FAMILY) PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP: TO SUBDIVIDE APPROXIMATELY 12
ACRES INTO 124 DEVELOPABLE LOTS FOR FUTURE ATTACHED
SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING AND OTHER COMMON LOTS FOR
STREETS, RECREATION OR LANDSCAPING PURPOSES. THE
REMAINDER PARCEL IS PROPOSED.
PLOT PLAN: TO DEVELOP A 1.24 LOW AND MODERATE INCOME
ZERO LOT LINE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
BONUS
DENSITY: THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A DENSITY BONUS FOR THEIR
PROJECT BASED ON GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65915 BECAUSE
THE PROJECT WILL INCLUDE PROVISIONS FOR AFFORDABLE
HOUSING UNITS.
EXISTING ZONING: R -1 (ONE FAMILY DWELLING) & R -2 *8,000
(MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS). & C -P (GENERAL
COMMERCIAL)
SURROUNDING ZONING
& LAND USE: NORTH: R -3/R -2 8,000 MULTI- FAMILY /R1 SINGLE
FAMILY; LA QUINTA COUNTRY CLUB
(TENNIS RESORT)
SOUTH: C -P GENERAL COMMERCIAL; VACANT
(FUTURE RALPH'S SHOPPING CENTER)
EAST: SR SPECIAL RESIDENTIAL; SCATTERED
SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
WEST: R -3 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; VACANT
.DESCRIPTION
OF SITE: THE PROPOSED +12 ACRE SITE IS THE NORTHERLY HALF
OF A PORTION OF A 17.6 ACRE SITE (2 TAX LOTS). THE LOT
IS FLAT AND UNDEVELOPED AT THIS TIME. THE PROPERTY
HAS +680 FEET OF FRONTAGE ALONG WASHINGTON STREET AND
IS 740 FEET IN DEPTH. THE SITE ELEVATION ALONG
WASHINGTON STREET IS APPROXIMATELY 60 FEET ABOVE SEA
LEVEL.
.LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF WASHINGTON STREET AND SOUTH OF THE LA
QUINTA STORM CHANNEL AND APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET NORTH
OF CALLE TAMPICO
ON -SITE PARKING: PROVIDED (124 COVERED /258 UNCOVERED) = 382
REQUIRED (2 GARAGE SPACES /UNIT) + 2 DRIVEWAY
SPACES + ACCESSORY SPACES FOR THE CLUBHOUSE) = 508
BACKGROUND:
In 1991, the Planning Commission reviewed a low and moderate income
senior citizen apartment complex for this site (Plot Plan 91 -467).
The developer proposed approximately 550 square feet to 1,550 square
feet one story units. The original Applicant proposed 109 units on
approximately 9 acres. The developer had requested Redevelopment
Agency assistance, but an agreement could not be secured. On
November 19, 1991, the City Council tabled the case until later for
further review and consideration. No action has occurred on this
case since 1991.
On September 14, 1993, the Planning Commission continued JASCORP's
request to develop a 124 unit apartment complex at the site because
the Applicant was in the process of submitting a subdivision map and
specific plan for the project so the dwelling units could be sold
instead of rented. The Planning Commission continued the Change of
Zone'and Plot Plan applications to September 28, 1993.
SITE BACKGROUND
The site is improved with street improvements along Washington Street
but the site does not have permanent curb, gutter, and sidewalk
improvements at this time. The improvements along the frontage of
the site were installed by the City in 1992. The site will be
allowed access onto Washington Street pursuant' to the past
review /approval of the Ralph's Shopping Center project. This common
driveway will be signalized.
A secondary access point is proposed into the shopping center at the
southwest corner of the site at the cul -de -sac bulb.
SITE DESIGN
The design concept uses a mixture of one and two story (duplex style)
residential units around a 32 foot wide private street. The front
yards and the back yards will be for private recreation. A community
building and swimming pool and spa has been proposed at the main
gated entry.
MARKET CONCEPT
Approximately 40 units are planned for very low, low, and moderate
income families and the Developer is presently working with the
City's Redevelopment Agency on this matter as of the writing of this
report. The remaining units will be market rate units. The
developer will explain the marketing concept at the meeting. .
CIRCULATION /PARKING
As mentioned above, the site has one point of access onto Washington
Street which is a divided major arterial (120 -foot right -of -way).
The entry into the site is located at the southeast corner of the
property. The entry-is to be signalized and shared with the future
Ralph's Shopping Center to the south. The project will be a gated
community. The private streets will be 32- feet.wide and will permit
parking on one side of the street plus two -way travel.
SECONDARY ACCESS
The Riverside County'Fire Marshal has requested.that the project have
two points of access into the site. To accommodate the Fire
Department's. request an emergency access gate will be provided at the
southwest corner of the residential complex at the terminus of the
cul -de -sac bulb. The access point can be for either emergency
purposes or for on -site resident usage. The number of parking' spaces
on the Ralph's site will be reduced by 2 or 3 spaces to provide this
access. The design solution should be reviewed by Staff and the
Riverside County Fire'Marshal either prior to or during plan check.
LANDSCAPING /SCREENING
The landscape setback along the frontage of the site is approximately
20 feet (excluding the parkway right -of -way), and a meandering
sidewalk is shown along Washington Street. This sidewalk should be
eight feet wide to allow pedestrian and bikeway travel. Landscaping
will be interspersed throughout the site and a six foot wall will be
installed around the perimeter of the site for security purposes.
Decorative wall features are located at the main gated entry.
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
The proposed single and two story Mediterranean design of the
residential units and clubhouse is consistent with the City's design
guidelines.(e.g. tile roof, rough stucco exterior, and consistent
with the design standards of a low density condominium project,
etc.). The duplex units include a variation. in architectural
elements and color schemes.
The project architect has proposed four architectural styles for the
two story plan and two for the one story plan. The plans vary.the
roof design style by using a combination of hip roofs and gable
roofs. Additional embellishments include changes in textures, window
treatments, wing walls, column supports and other slight
architectural changes. The seven color schemes use a collection of
light desert color tones to accent each building type. However, the
concrete roofing material will be the same for each building (Espanz
Mission #108).
A one story clubhouse (approximately 1,436 square feet) for the
residents is also proposed. The design is consistent with the
overall design theme for the project.
UNIT SIZES
The Developer has proposed units which range in size from 1,109 to
1,232 square feet which is larger than the minimum 750 square foot
size required. These size units are consistent with the normal size
of a small single family home. All units will be two and three
bedroom units, therefore, staff believes the project will be geared
for small families, singles or senior citizens..
BUILDING HEIGHTS
One story buildings (approximately 18 1/2 feet high) have been
proposed along Washington Street because of the "low density" height
policy_ in the City's General Plan. The City's policy has been to
require one story units within 150 -feet of a major thoroughfare for
aesthetic purposes. The Applicant's plan meets this requirement. A
two story design has been used for a majority of the units
independent of the one story units along Washington Street. The two
story units are approximately 24 -feet in overall height. The R -2
Zone code standards permit 28- feet.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
A planned unit development (PUD) usually involves a mixture of
single - family residences, town houses, apartments, some commercial or
industrial uses. However, not all PUD's include nonresidential uses,
nor do all PUD's contain clustered. housing, but PUD's do involve
variation in building architectural styles and other design
standards. Planned unit. development controls are usually implemented
as part of a zoning ordinance, overlay zone, or specific plan. This
project outlines the general parameters'of the PUD in the proposed
Specific Plan.
DESCRIPTION OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 27854
The Tract Map request was submitted to staff on September 10, 1993,
in order to change the project from a multiple family apartment
complex into a zero -lot line planned unit development (attached
single family condominiums). The map proposes approximately 2,500
square foot lots or larger for each home on a private street
circulation system. The streets are 32 -feet wide. A remainder
parcel is shown but it will be used in the future Ralph's Shopping
Center (PP 91 -456), which was approved by the City in 1991 and
amended in 1992.
The PUD project will provide single -deed ownership (fee simple) to
each home to the boundaries of each lot. Each owner will be a member
of the incorporated homeowner's association to manage the common
lots, clubhouse, or other common facilities.
DESCRIPTION OF SPECIFIC PLAN 93 -023
The Specific Plan has been submitted because the developer would like
to develop and sell single family (zero -lot line) homes. The R -2
Zoning Code does not specifically address this type. of housing,
therefore, the Specific Plan document will guide development of the
site. It implements the local general plan by creating a bridge
between General Plan policies and individual development proposals.
It contains the locations and standards for land use densities,
streets, and other public facilities in greater detail than the
General ,Plan. The Specific Plan can supercede the provisions of the
Zoning Code as long as the standards 'do "not. run contrary to the
general plan.
The developer requests the following features or adjustments:
1) Lot Size: The minimum lot size.is 7,200 square feet for this
property. The Specific Plan proposes approximately 2,500 square
foot lots or larger because the homes will be sharing a common
property line (zero -lot line). Each private lot will be required
to meet the normal - setback requirements for the other three sides
of the lot.
Staff Comments:
Zero -lot line projects help create interest in a' project by
creating a larger building mass and eliminating one small side
yard which is common standard in detached single family housing.
The common property line building wall design has a number of
advantages both to the owner and builder. The owner's savings
are during the construction process and the future owner saves
money in monthly energy costs. Further, the State encourages
cities to provide incentives to the developer to assist in the
construction of affordable projects. A smaller lot size is one.
way to reduce the overall cost of the project. Large lot sizes
impede construction of smaller single family homes. Smaller lots
allow a higher net density to be achieved. Staff is more
receptive to this type of concession than reducing the City's
architectural standards to accommodate the proposed project.
0 0
2) Private Streets: The developer is proposing private streets
for the project which will be maintained by the future
Homeowner's Association. The streets are 32 feet wide and all
homes have either direct or indirect access to the circulation
system. Planned residential projects are permitted 32 foot wide
private streets.
However, items which can be discussed in the Specific Plan are:
1) whether the cul -de -sac bulbs need to be 90 -feet in diameter,
2) whether the lot frontages should be 60 -feet unless on a
cul -de -sac which is 35 -feet, 3) whether street sidewalks are
necessary, and 4) whether or not the minimum return radius of
25 -feet should be maintained.
Staff Comments:
The street design standards for the tract are not unusual for
condominium style projects since the focus is on creating common
recreation areas and private facilities with limited maintenance
for roadway areas. The 32 -foot wide streets will allow on- street.
parking on one side of the street. Thirty -two foot wide streets
have been allowed by the City in the past and they were permitted
in portions of the Tradition and Rancho La Quinta tracts. The
City would prefer 36 -foot wide streets because it adds some
additional space for two -way traffic movement, but the proposed
streets will provide adequate space for vehicular circulation.
Smaller street widths reduce direct capital costs for pavement
and cut and fill. It also reduces incidental costs associated
with utility installation and maintenance. These future cost
savings will be conveyed to the future buyers.
3) Architectural Character & Guidelines: The Specific Plan
proposes that all of the units of the project will be
architectural compatible. The project architecture is
representative of a California Mediterranean architecture (e.g.
tile roofing, heavy stucco, etc.), and included in the Specific
Plan text are examples of the proposed units.
Staff Comments:
The architectural characteristics of the one and two story units
is consistent with the existing single family homes in the
general area. The only difference is the project contains two
story units which are allowed in the R -2 Zone District but not
allowed in the SR zoned properties to the east. Staff supports
the two story units because they are not located on Washington
Street and they will assist in providing additional outdoor
recreation spaces for each home since the lots are smaller than
average for this area of the City.
4) Phasing: The Tract Map will not be phased, but the developer
might choose to phase the development during the building permit
process. Any phasing plans should be reviewed by the Director of
Planning and Development.
f �
5) On -Site Parking: The developer has requested that the City
permit single one car garages for the project instead of two -car
garages. The developer would like to substitute open parking
spaces in -lieu of the required second garage space.
Staff Comments:
Each unit will have three on -site parking spaces versus four, but
on- street parking is also proposed to make up for this
deficiency. The Specific Plan can provide for this adjustment
because the State Code encourages cities to permit parking
deviations to assist affordable projects. The parking
modification will reduce capital costs and avoid over consumption
of land otherwise available for housing. As referenced earlier,
on- street parking will supplement the on -site parking program.
Staff is not opposed to the Applicant's parking program since the
project is a private, gated facility.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
The Design Review Board met on August 4, 1993, to discuss this
application request. The Applicant's representative, Mr. Joe De
Coster, presented both the Applicant's marketing strategy and the
design program. Mr. De Coster stated that his client would like to
build an affordable project for empty- nesters, single parents, or
senior citizens and they anticipate a large portion of the project
will be first time home buyers.
The Board discussed initially the security features of the project
and some of the members felt the perimeter fencing should be
masonry. They thought a masonry wall would be more appropriate
because it would last longer than wood fencing and although it would
cost more, it would benefit the future residents both in security and
durability. The Board also discussed the pros and cons of masonry
fencing within the project for each respective unit.
Mr. De Coster stated that his client has proposed painted wood
fencing for the interior areas because they believe it will reduce
the development costs and will withstand the desert climate because
they are using clear heart redwood or cedar lumber. The Board
discussed whether or not the interior fencing should be masonry or
wood and whether the rear yard fencing abutting the passive greenbelt
recreation areas should be wrought iron (e.g. 2 -foot block with
wrought iron). Mr. De Coster stated that the fencing will be used
for both the confinement of animals or children.
The Board also discussed whether or not metal garage doors (sectional
or otherwise) should be considered in -lieu of wooden doors. The
Design Review Board thought that the doors would last longer than
wood, however, they recognized the possibility that if the doors were
hit the metal would be permanently dented. The applicant would
prefer the wood doors because they are-less expensive and can
withstand bumps better than metal doors. The Board debated whether
or not the future Homeowner's Association should maintain the doors
so that they are kept nice if the project should become an ownership
development.
h eft-
The Board thought the one and two story units were attractive and
that the exterior colors and materials were consistent with the
desert environment. The Board did debate whether or not one story
units should be used along the entry driveway into the project to
reduce the "tunnel" effect created by the two story units on the west
side of the private drive. Mr. De Coster stated that the two story
units along the first north/south-(east side) are stepped and do
create a pleasing exterior elevation in conjunction with the one
story units along Washington Street. He said he would be opposed to
this change.
The Washington Street wall was discussed because staff proposed that
the applicant duplicate the six foot wall design on the east side of
the street which was installed by the City last year. The
applicant's representative stated that they would like to build a
stuccoed masonry wall along their frontage but they did not -feel that
they should be responsible for the green ceramic tile band along the
top portion of the wall. This would be an.added expense to their
project and their wall is approximately 32 feet from the future
Washington Street curbing versus the 12 =1eet wall to the east.
Mr. De Coster stated their project landscaping would conceal a large
portion of the wall; therefore, the tile would not.be necessary. He
said he would work with staff to insure that the wall is "compatible"
with the wall across the street.
The Design Review Board also discussed the two -way access into the
development on Washington Street. The Board felt the existing plan
was.not adequate because the.signalized access would not allow
vehicle stacking at the card gate, and without this area future
traffic would be blocked either into the 124 unit project or the
Ralph's Shopping Center.
The members discussed a three lane access program for the site (e.g.
two lanes in with one lane out). Mr. De Coster stated he could meet
this requirement if the building along Washington Street were moved
closer together.
The Design Review Board voted to approve the project subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval enclosed herein. The vote was 5 -1
with Planning Commissioner Marion Ellson voting no because she felt
additional landscaping should be incorporated and the number of units
should be reduced (Boardmember Rice was absent).
BONUS DENSITY
The Developer has requested additional units over and above the
General Plan density standards. The maximum yield under the R -2
provisions would be 93 units, but the Applicant is desirous to have
23 extra units for this project because the project will have
affordable units. State Government Code (Section 65915) requires
local governments to exceed the density provision standards if the
project is restricted to persons for families with incomes below the
median for this area and the units shall remain affordable for a
specified time frame (e.g. 30 years). If these provisions can be
met, the City must grant a density increase, which shall be at least
258.
Ll
•
The Applicant is requesting the maximum allowed plus, an additional
10% increase based on their overall design and amenity package
(General Plan Policy 2- 1.1.3.). The Applicant is currently
negotiating with the Redevelopment Agency for affordable housing
assistance.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
A Medium Density Residential (MDR) category is established on the
Land Use Policy Diagram. The density standard for this category
ranges from 4 -8 DU/AC. The maximum density is 8 DU /AC. The general
residential product type is characterized by one to two - story, single
family detached homes on medium and small lots and /or one to
two - story, single family attached units in projects with open space,
subject to the conditions for varying residential use guidelines as
specified in Policy 2- 1.1.9. Appropriate locations of MDR uses
include the Cove area, near transportation arteries and in planned
communities. The general residential product type allowed within the
Cove is one -story single. family detached homes. (Policy 2- 1.1.6)
CONCLUSION
The project has been designed to encourage first time homeownership
by providing a smaller than average single family home on a small
lot. The outdoor spaces will be comparable to the homes being built
in the Cove except the project will have private streets and a
Homeowner's Association to maintain the common landscaping and
clubhouse building. The project will include both affordable units
and market rate units as determined by the City Council and State
Government Code 65915.
To keep the units more affordable, the developer proposes creative
site planning, and since the units share a common side lot line, this
facilitates unit density and allows for efficient use of the narrow
lots. To offset some of the disadvantages of higher density, the
development offers many site amenities, including common open space
and recreational facilities. The overall density will not create an
adverse impact on the area since the immediate area is planned for
medium density residential uses, neighborhood commercial uses, and
major community facilities (i.e. Civic Center Complex). Further, the
project has been conditioned to meet the architectural requirements
of the City.
The Change of Zone request is consistent with the City's long range
General Plan document which depicts this area'as an area Medium
Density (4 -8 Dwelling Units /Acre). Another reason to approve the
change is: 1) the development is in the downtown area and medium
density projects should be encouraged to provide housing for this
future employment area, 2) the property is serviced by public
transportation, and 3) the goals of the City's General Plan Housing
Element will be met (Implementation Policy 8.06).
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 93- recommending
to City Council approval of Change of Zone 91 -066 from R-1. (One
Family Dwelling), R -2 *8,000 (Multiple Family Dwellings) and C -P
(General Commercial) to R -2 (Multiple Family Dwellings) and
recommending to the City Council concurrence with the proposed
Negative. Declaration.
2. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 93- , and
Resolution 93- recommending to City Council approval of
Specific Plan 93 -023 and Tentative Tract Map 27854 and
recommending to the the City Council concurrence with the
approval of the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact
subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
3. Staff also recommends that the Planning Commission approve Plot
Plan 93 -502, by Minute Motion 93- subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval.
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Environmental Assessment 93 -267
3. Agency comments
4. Additional letters
5. Plan Exhibits (large)
6. Specific Plan Document
7. Design Review Board Minutes
8. Draft PC Resolutions for CZ 91 -066,
9. Draft Conditions of Approval for PP
SP 93 -023, TTM 27853
93 -502
0 - 0
j.. •�, S P2 NW. SEC'. 6 r60, R. M rN,s .►4p is ro*
i / \ AstsSrtan PV*^WS o&
or I
\ INorth
PAR. 3
3018 AC M
3090 AC16R.
Existing Vacant
Property
Future SMDDina Center
Asti
PROPERTY IN QUESTION
is ?
M" At
a
'v
o
h t°
6
z
r
LA-
�a
.d
r
v+
C
•r
N
rn
c
•r-
1J
N.
1 "
W
Z 0/
�Z
Z
�y
1 Q
New City Hall Site
P.M. /22/89.90 Puce/ Akp 19730
PAf 17511-2 • 27109 A, iq.S MAP fiX 769 AS 05
RIVERS /AE' "t�P!//l MO GALA.
R]
O
O
Y
IY f
TRA C321D1YI •w a� ro►
MAI. 070 •
I
Vacant Parcel r.r
•
kz
O
b
'O b
-
-A-
CALLL
TAMP /CO
—
a
'v
o
h t°
6
z
r
LA-
�a
.d
r
v+
C
•r
N
rn
c
•r-
1J
N.
1 "
W
Z 0/
�Z
Z
�y
1 Q
New City Hall Site
P.M. /22/89.90 Puce/ Akp 19730
PAf 17511-2 • 27109 A, iq.S MAP fiX 769 AS 05
RIVERS /AE' "t�P!//l MO GALA.
R]
(3)
1
EA 93 -267
z- CM or 4 QUIR4
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
I. BACKGROW
1. Nape of Proponent: Joseph A. Swain, Pres. -
Jascorp
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 79 -811 Crnmtry
Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201
r1uh Drive
3. Date of Checklist: Aug. 24, 1993
4. Agency Requiring Checklist: City of La Quinta
S. Name of Proposal, if applicable: La Quints Village
II. ENVIROh?ZNTAL IMPACTS
(Explanation of all "Yes" and "Maybe" answers is required
on attached sheets.)
1. Earth. Will the proposal 'result in:
Yes Maytie No
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in
geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or
overcovering of the soil?
c. Change in topography or ground surface
relief features?
{� .
d. The destruction, covering or modification of
any unique geologic or physical features?
_ {�
e. Any increases in wind or water erosion of soils,
either on or off the site?
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach, sands,
or changes'in siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a river or
stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay,
inlet or lake?
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud-
slides, ground failure; or similar hazards?
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of
ambient air quality?
_ .' ✓ _
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
L/
c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or
:
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally?
3. hater. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements, in either marine or fresh
waters?
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface water runoff?
_
c. Alterations to the. course_ of flow of flood
waters?
r/
d. Change in the amount of surface water in any
water body?
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality, in-
eluding but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity'.
1�
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow
of ground waters?
_ -Lee
g.. Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or with-
drawals, or through interception of an
✓
aquifer by cuts or excavations?
_
(3)
Yes Kaybe No
h. Substatial reduction in the aummt of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies?
i. Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding or
tidal waves?
4.
Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or number
of are species of plants (including trees,
shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic
plants)'
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare c: endangered species of plants?
c. Introcljction of new species of plants into
an area, or result in a barrier to the
norma.: replenishment of existing species?
_ V
d. Reduc -tion in acreage of any agricultural .
crop?
S.
Animal Lire. Will the proposal result in:
a.. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers
of aac species of animals (birds, land animals,
inclucing reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms, insects or microfauna)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare,
or e::-Angered species of animals?
_ V
c. Intrccaction of new species of animals into an '
area, or result in a barrier to the migration
or ao'cement of animals?
L/
d. Deter :Dration.to existing fish or wildlife
habitat?
6.
Noise. W_11 the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. Expos=e of people to severe noise levels?
7..
Li t and Glare. Will the proposal produce new
-
light or glare?
I/
S.
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial
alteratioc of the present or planned land use of an
area?
9.
Natural i4 sources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of any use of any natural
resoic-ces?
b. Substattial depletion of any renewable
natural resource?
10.
Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk
67 an_exp:asion or the release of hazardous sub-
stances (including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides. chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
11..
Po ulatioc. Will the proposal alter the location,
istri utuan, density, or growth rate of the:
human population of an area?
12.
Housin . Vi11'the proposal affect existing housing,
or create a demand for additional housing?
13.
Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
AOOOO
. vehic=Iar movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking?
fdl
c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation
systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation
or movement of people and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to ar..:; vehicles,
bicyclists or.pedestrians?
14. ' Public Services. Will the proposal Lyre an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or'a:.ered govern-
mental services in any of the follor�.=j areas:
a. Fire protection?
b.. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational faci:it_es?
e. ..Maintenance of public facilities, _:luding
roads?
f. Other governmental services?
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuc: cr energy?
b. Substantial increase in denand u ;c existing
sources of energy, or require the .e elopment
of new sources of energy?
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result ;_-. a need
for new systems, or substantial alte:n =:ins to
the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
17, Human Health.. Will the proposal resu:t in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or ?o:ential
health hazard (excluding mental health)?
b. Exposure of people to potential hea: h hazards?
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result —;- the
obstruction of any scenic vista or vier men to
the public, or will the proposal resu:: Ln the
creation of an aesthetically offensive site open
to public view?
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact
upon the quality or quantity of exist:=i recrea-
tional opportunities?
20. Archeological/Historical. Will the przpcsal result
in an alteration of a significant arcbeoiogical
or historical site, structure, object ar building?
21. Mandatory Finding of Significance.
a. Does the project have the potentia: to degrade
the quality of the environment, substm ti.ally re-
duce the habitat of a fish'or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below.
self sustaining levels, threaten to elindmate a
plan or animal community, reduce the n=t;er or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examp:es of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
(S)
Yes Maybe no
— Je�
_k_
t/
Ileo,
t•
J�
L'
—
L/
KI
b, Does the project have the potential to achieve
short -term, to the disadvantage of long -term, on-
vironmental goals? (A short -term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a relatively
brief, definitive period of time while long -term
impacts will endure well into the future.)
c. Does the project have.impacts which are indi-
vidually limited, but cumiulatively considerable?
(A project may i=a ct on two or more separate
resources where t'e impaction each resource is
relatively small, 'ut where the effect of the
total of those is :cts on the environment is
significant.)
d,. Does the pro;e•zt have environmental effects
which will cause s-.:bstantial adverse effects on
human beings, a er directly or indirectly?
III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIR.- MENTAL EVALUATION
IV. DETEMINATION
(To be com—,Ieted by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of th is.initial evaluation:
•
Yes Lk� No
I find t=e proposed project COULD NOT have a. significant
effect cz :`.e environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepare:.
I find t.a: although the proposed project could have a
significant effect on the environment. there will not be
a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added
to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION MILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect
on the ens- ronment, and an ENVIRONIMh ?AL rMPACT REPORT is
required.
Date: 8 2 14 " r2.,�
.V___ .
4
0
•
CITY OF LA QUINTA
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
CASE NOS. CZ 91 -066, SP 93 -023, TTM 27854 and PP93 -502 (EA93 -267)
JASCORP
GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
The applicant has proposed a very low, low, moderate and market
rate Zero -lot (PUD) single family subdivision (124 units) on +12
acres on property Zoned R1 (One Family Dwelling), R2 *8,000
(Multiple Family Dwellings), and C -P General Commercial. The
property is located on the west side of Washington Street, just
south of the La Quinta Evacuation Storm Channel.
The applicant has requested that the City redesignate the site to
R2 verses the existing R1, R2 and C -P Zone categories.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
.EXPLANATION OF "YES" AND "MAYBE" QUESTIONS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
1. EARTH:
a. Unstable Earth Conditions or Changes in Geologic
Substructures? (Checked "Maybe ")
The soil on this property has been classified as Myoma
Fine Sand and Coachella Sand /Loam: This type of soil has rapid
permeability and can be used for crop production or homesite
development. The site is vacant (never developed) and the
applicant is desirous to pursue development of the site with urban
services (i.e. single family dwellings). The development of the
site will involve grading. and recontouring of the existing land
features. However, all work will be done in conformance with the
final Geotechnical Report required by the Engineering Department
during final plan review. The site is protected from seasonal
storm water by an earthen levee (to the north).
b. Disruption, Displacement, and Compaction of Soil. (Checked
"Yes ")
Earth moving to support the project will be done as part
of the grading plan, and no on -site work shall be done until a
study has been prepared which identifies the cut and-fill needs of
the site.
C. Change in Topography or Relief Features (Checked "Yes)
• •
The general elevation of the site is approximately 40 to
60 feet above sea level. The site is in a Zone 3 Seismic /Geologic
Hazard area as noted by the City's General Plan. A Zone 3 is an
area with moderate shaking qualities but less severe than a Zone 12
(highest level). It is categorized as: "effect on people: felt by
most people indoors. Some can estimate duration of shaking. But
many may not recognize shaking of building as' caused by an
earthquake, the shaking is like that caused by the passing of light
trucks.
,Earth moving to support the project will be done as part
of the grading plan, and no on-site work shall be done until a
study has been prepared which identifies the cut and fill,needs of
the site.
d. Modification of Unique Physical Features (Checked "No ")
No unique physical characteristics exist at the site.
e. Increase in Soil Erosion (Checked "Maybe ")
Preventative measures to minimize seasonal flooding and
erosion should be incorporated into site grading plans (e.g.
phasing of grading) and provisions shall be made with the Coachella
Valley Water District and the City regarding on or off -site
drainage.
f. Effects on Beach Sands, Channels, Rivers, Streams, Ocean,
Bay, Inlet, or Lake (Check "No ")
The site is adjacent to the.La Quinta Evacuation Channel
(earthen levee) which is to the north of the site. The developer
can request that CVWD allow them access to the channel for off -site
drainage needs, however, these provisions ,are usually worked out
with. the water district and the developer. 'The City is not
actively involved with these negotiations, and it is the
responsibility of the developer to work out this solutions during
plan check.
g. Exposure to Geologic Hazards (Checked "Maybe ")
The project site is not located within an Alquist - Priolo
Special Study Zone,.but it could be affected by potentially active
faults nearby since this site lies within the Riverside County
Ground Shaking Zone 3 based on distance from causative faults and
soil types. The effects of ground shaking will be mitigated by
seismic design requirements and procedures outlined in the City's
Uniform 'Building Code, and the future developer .prepared
Geotechnical Report.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
1): Grading of the site shall occur pursuant to_the approval of
the future grading plan as specified by the City's Engineering
Department. All work shall be conducted in.a manner so. that it
does not disturb other abutting properties unless off -site
agreements have been made and /or approved. The grading quantities
have not been submitted, but it is assumed that most of the earth
moving at the site (contouring) will occur on the premises and that
importation will also occur to develop the single family pad sites.
2). The site is greater than 5 acres,. therefore, a National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit is required
prior to any on -site grading. The permit process was enacted in
1992 by the State Water Resources Control Board to insure that any
storm discharges. associated with a construction activity was
examined by the Board. The permit requires all property owners
to: eliminate or reduce non -storm water discharges to storm sewer
systems or other waters, develop an implement a storm water
pollution prevention plan, and perform inspections of storm water
pollution prevention measures (control practices).
3). The site shall meet the provisions of Uniform Building Code
Section 2312 (d) 2 because the project lies within a Seismic Zone
4. It is recommended that all structures be designed according to
current Uniform Building Code requirements.
4). Levee improvements (i.e. concrete) shall be required if deemed
necessary by the Coachella Valley Water District.
2.
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air
quality? (Checked "Maybe ")
The City's Environmental Hazards Element identifies on-
site soils as being a wind erosion hazard. This is a concern as
the Coachella Valley exceeds federal air quality standards for
particulate matter.
In accordance with the City's Air Quality Element, the project was
evaluated-to determine if the project would have *a significant
adverse impact on air quality. The South Coast Air Quality
Management District's significance threshold includes. residential
projects of 160 or more units or, 177 acres per day. As the
proposed project involves construction of a smaller project than
noted above, it does not exceed the significance criteria threshold
for air quality impacts.
The project site is located within the Southeast Desert Air
Basin (SEDAB) and is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD). With the proposed
construction, there may be air pollutant sources which may
deteriorate ambient air quality. These sources are stationary and
mobile sources. Stationary source considerations include emission
from on -site construction activities and natural gas combustion.
• •
Mobile source consideration include exhaust emissions resulting
from short term construction activities and long term generation
associated with the project.
It could be anticipated that with the construction of the proposed
project there will be a reduction in the overall mobile emission
releases because the location. of the apartment complex is
convenient to local downtown services.
b. The creation of objectionable odors? (Checked "No ".)
The project is not of a type which would create,
objectionable odors. No impacts are anticipated.
C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature or
any change in climate, either locally or regionally? (Checked "No ")
The single family subdivision is not of a type, design or
density which would significantly alter air movement, moisture, or
temperature. It is anticipated that the climate would not be
either locally or regionally altered.
MITIGATION,MEASURES:
1). Adequate watering techniques shall be employed to partially
mitigate the impact of the construction generated dust.
2). Areas graded but not immediately constructed on shall be
planted with a temporary ground cover to reduce the amount of open
space subject to wind erosion.
3). Grading and construction shall comply with all applicable City
Ordinances (PM10) and the requirements of the Air Quality
Management.Plan (Rule 403).
3. WATER: *********************** * * * * * *t * * # * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
a. Change in currents or the course of direction of water
movements, in either marine or fresh waters? (Checked "No ")
None are proposed by the development of.the site.
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (Checked "Yes ")
With the proposed construction it can be expected that
there will be.a change in the absorption rate (due to impervious
surfaces), drainage patterns and amount and rate of surface water
run -off. The pro.ject proponent will provide an on or off -site
retention /detention basin (off -site if approved by the City
'Engineer) for the collection of storm water and nuisance water run-
off ,and, special measures will be needed to assure the earthen
levee to the north, is adequate to protect the property from storm
water flows..
0'. •
This area might be subject to liquefaction. Liquefaction is the
term which is used when the ground water table is very close to the
surface, and during an earthquake the ground has a tendency to
vibrate building structures from their respective foundations and,
thus causing failure and other adverse side - effects:
The site has an AO flood insurance rating (FIRM). This means that
the area is within the 100 year flood plain and special measures
are necessary to insure that any site improvements are designed to
prevent damage to any structure or building by periodic flooding.
C.. Alteration of Flood Water (Checked "No ")
The project will not modify or alter the existing La
Quinta Evacuation channel to the north of the site.
d. Change in the Amount of Surface Water (Checked "No ")
Similar to existing conditions, after project
construction surface water runoff will be captured either on -site
or diverted off -site through engineered designs. Thus, the change
in the amount of surface water is not expected to be significant.
e. Alteration of Surface Water Quality (Checked "No ")
Stormwater runoff project improvements may contain small
traces of urban pollutants (e.g. oil, fertilizer., etc.) which can
be accepted into the on or off -site retention basins) or accepted
off -site provided CVWD is agreeable to this solution. All
solutions shall be prepared by the licensed engineer and approved
by the City and the local water agency.
f. Alteration of Groundwater Direction (Checked "No ")
The project would not alter the direction of existing
groundwater resources nor impact its flow rate.
g. Change in Groundwater Quantity (Checked 'Maybe")
The proposed' residential development would cause an
incremental increase in the demand for.groundwater, which would be
provided by CVWD via an existing distribution system. The
additional withdrawals are not considered to be significant.
h. Reduction in Public Water (Checked "Maybe ")
The development of the site will reduce the amount of
water available.for public consumption. It is assumed that each
unit can or will consume approximately 350 gals. /day which means
the project could use 43,400 gals. /day based on 124 units. If the
number of units is reduced, the amount of water used would be
reduced too. However, these amounts are not inconsistent with -
other types of residential developments in the City and nothing
unusual is anticipated by the development of the site with an
residential project.
i. Exposure to people or property related hazards such. as
flooding or tidal waves (Checked "Maybe ")
The project will not modify or alter the existing La
Quinta Evacuation channel to the north of the site.
This area'might be subject to liquefaction. Liquefaction is the
term which is used when the ground water table is very close to the
surface, and during an earthquake the ground has a tendency to
vibrate building structures from their respective foundations and,
thus causing failure and other adverse side - effects.
The site has an AO flood insurance' rating (FIRM) . This means that
the area is within the 1.00 year flood plain and special measures
are necessary to insure that any site improvements are designed to
prevent damage to any structure or building by periodic flooding.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
1. The project shall comply with all applicable City requirements
regarding storm water and nuisance water. The developer shall
complete a hydrology study, prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer.
The study will identify the increased water. run -off quantities
which will be generated at the site by analyzing the assumed
quantities in an undeveloped state and factoring this against the
development proposal. Based on this study, the project engineer
shall design the necessary on or off -site drainage basins
(retention /detention) which will contain storm water run -off from
the property and allow gradual dissipation of the water into the
ground. A draft hydrology study has not been prepared and it. is
staff's understanding that the project proponent would like to work
with the City to develop an off -site retention basin for this
project. Furthermore., the developer will be required to insure
that earthen levee to the north of the site is adequate. to assure
the safety of the future occupants of the complex. Measures
which might-be warranted are: a concrete levee, elevated building
pads, etc.
2. Very low flow (1.6 gallon) toilets shall be installed pursuant
to Public Health Code Section 17921.3.
4. PLANT LIFE:
a. Change in the diversity of, species, or number of any
species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops,
microflora and aquatic plants? (Checked "No ")
The subject site is presently vacant and void of any
significant plant life. No impact is anticipated. by the
development of this site.
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
0' 0
endangered species of plants? (Checked "Maybe")
The City adopted a Master Environmental Report in 1992, and in this
document, the adopted plan has indicated that the site might have
the California Ditaxis (flora) present on this property or other
property in the general area. The Ditaxis is a special interest
plant and determined to be "Endangered" by'the State Department of
Fish and Game. Staff would recommend that the City require.the
applicant to perform an on -site field review of the site to
determine if the Ditaxis exists on the property. Staff is unaware
of. any other significant plant life existing at the site at this
time. No impact is anticipated by the development of' this site
provided a horticulturist examines the site prior to on -site
grading.
C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area,.or
result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals?
(Checked "No ")
The subject site is presently vacant and void of any
significant animal life. The area is not used in the migration of
animals from one part of the City* to another. No impact is
anticipated by the development of this site.
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat?
(Checked "No ")
The subject site is presently vacant and void of any
significant fish or wildlife species. No impact is anticipated by
the development of this site.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None required except the applicant shall
have a horticulturist examine the site to ascertain whether or not
the California Ditaxis is present on the 12 ac. site. The
findings of the field study shall be submitted to staff prior to
any on -site grading..
5. Animal Life:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or.numbers of any
species of animals (birds, land animals, including reptiles, fish
and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? (Checked
"No")
No protected animal species exist on the property at this
time which would hinder the development of the site. This is based
on the City's (city -wide) adopted Master Environmental Assessment
prepared for the City in 1992.
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or
endangered species of animals? (Checked "No ")
The subject site is not.located in an area defined as a
Fringed -Toed Lizard Habitat area (a Federally protected species).
It has been therefore determined that mitigation fees shall not be
0 0
required of the applicant to develop this site.
C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or
result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals?
(Checked "No ")
The development of the site with residential units will
bring the introduction of domestic animals into this area.
However, the types of animals will be similar to those normally
associated with urban living (e.g. cats, dogs, etc.). No unusual
species are proposed and, therefore, no impact is expected by.the
development of this site.
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat?
(Checked "No")
No impacts are anticipated by the development of the site
on either fish or wildlife habitats because the site is not in the
Fringed -Toed Lizard Habitat area nor, are there any. marine animals
on the property.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None required except the provision of.
the Municipal Code shall be complied with.
6. NOISE:
a. Increases in existing noise levels? (Checked "Maybe ").
Because of the proposed construction and subsequent operation of
the residential complex, it can be expected that there will be some
increase in the existing noise levels* on the site.. Most of the
noise generated will be from motorized traffic coming to and from
the site. The developer has proposed a six foot high masonry wall'
along the frontage of the site for security purposes but the wall .
will also benefit the noise reduction to the units which are in
close proximity to Washington Street.
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (Checked
"Maybe ")
The existing noise levels along Washington Street are generally
over 60dba. This measurement was taken in 1992'during the General
Plan Update. Levels. greater than 60 Db (CNEL) require mitigation
by the developer in order to bring the project into the required
City standard of less than 60' dB for outdoor areas and less than 45
dB for inside areas.. A noise study has not been prepared, but
the Applicant will be required to provide a study prior to any on-
site construction.
MITIGATION MEASURES: As required by the General Plan, this
project shall prepare a noise analysis to minimize noise impacts on
surrounding land uses. The City's - General Plan Guidelines for
'indoor and outdoor noise shall be met. A comprehensive study shall
be submitted to staff for review prior to the issuance of any
building permit. The study shall use existing and projected
traffic levels along Washington Street to project noise levels, and
then determine ways to reduce road noise impacts on the future
residents. Possible mitigation measures can include: berming,
landscaping, acoustic walls, or other measures deemed necessary by
the licensed acoustic engineer. The final mitigation plan shall
be reviewed by the Planning Department.
7. LIGHT AND GLARE•************** * * * * * *+t :re * * *t * * * * *t # * * * * * * * *�
Will the proposal produce new light and glare? (Checked "Yes ")
It is anticipated that the building(s) and /or parking
lot /landscaping will include lighting. However, at this time, much
of the material has not been submitted to staff. During the plan
check process of this case in the future the applicant will be
required to gain approval of this material from the City's Design
Review Board and the Planning and Building Department prior to
construction permit issuance.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
1). All lighting will have to comply with the City's "Dark Sky
Ordinance°. Additionally, light sources shall be shielded to
eliminate light glare and off -site spillage onto abutting vacant or
developed properties.
2). A lighting plan shall be submitted for the on -site parking
lot. The plan shall include a photometric study of the lighting
which analyzes the necessary footcandle light intensity,' height and
spaces of the light poles, type of lighting fixtures, and any other
pertinent information which is necessary to assure City compliance
(i.e. Dark Sky Ordinance). The light poles should be less than 10
feet in overall height.
8. LAND USE(S):
Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the
present or planned land use of an area? (Checked "Maybe")
The General Plan has designated the property as Medium Density
Residential (4 -8 units per acres) and the existing Zoning.of the
site is R1 (Single Family ) and R2 (Multiple Family). The
southerly side of the site is Zone C -P (General Commercial).
The Applicant has requested that the City redesignate the 12 acre
site to R2 (Multiple Family).
In 1991, the City processed a Change of Zone request for this area
(CZ 91 -066) for a different developer but the case was tabled based
on the City'Council's action of November 19, 1991. The current
applicant has requested that the City reprocess this request based
on. their new development plan (i.e. R1 and CP property to R2).
The change will require by the Planning Commission and City
Council.
• •
MITIGATION MEASURES: None is required. . However, it is
necessary that the City. Council approve the land use designation
change in order for the applicant. to develop the project to the
density proposed. .If this does not occur, the site'is to remain
vacant until other land use plans can be reviewed and it is
determined they will meet the intent of the City's existing General
Plan and Zoning Code provisions. The project density will be
adjusted accordingly. The Planning Commission must also address
the applicant's request to allow additional dwelling units on the
site (bonus units) because affordable units are being proposed
(State Code 65915).
9. NATURAL. RESOURCES: *********** * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
a. Increase in the rate of any use of any natural resources?
(Checked "Yes ")
As with any development, the project would require water, natural
gas, and electricity, which are all considered natural resources.
The proposed project, however, would not increase the rate of use
of these resources more than any other similar residential and
commercial development. The project is not of type, size (124
units) or density that could substantially deplete any non-
renewable natural resource.
No major adverse_ impacts are anticipated with by the construction
of this project.
b. Substantial depletion of any renewable natural resource?
(Checked "No ")
The project is not large enough to substantially deplete any non-
renewable natural resource based on the attached local agency
transmittals.. Therefore, no major adverse impacts are anticipated
with the construction of this housing project.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None required. However, the applicant
.shall. meet all necessary requirements of the local serving agencies
as outlined in the attached agency comments or as mandated during
construction plan implementation. Building energy conservation
will largely be achieved by compliance with Title 20 and 24 of the
- .California Administrative Code. These standards are handled by
the Building and Safety Department during construction plan check
review.
10. RISK OF
Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the
release of hazards substances (including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset conditions? ('Checked "No")
No adverse impact is anticipated due to explosion or release of
hazardous substances.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None required. However, all
construction activities whether or not they are permanent or
temporary shall meet all necessary safety standards of the Federal,
State and local government requirements.
11. POPULATION:***************** * * * * * * * ****** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** **
Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density,
or growth rate of the -human population of an area? (Checked "Yea")
The developer is proposing 124 units which are 1,100 to 1,200 sq.
ft. All units are two or three.bedroom dwellings. The sizes of
the units are comparable to normal smaller homes or townhouse
condominiums.
It is not anticipated that the proposed project will have an
adverse or significant impact on population distribution, density
or growth rate in the area. The developer's intent is to provide
attached single family housing. Some of the units will be for
people who have income levels less than median as established by
the County of Riverside and HUD (Housing and Urban Development) if
the bonus density provisions are allowed by the City. Currently,
the City's population per household is approximately 2.85
people /household. Therefore, it can be assume that the. project
will support approximately 353+ people living in the single family
subdivision.
MITIGATION. MEASURES: The developer shall be required to meet
all the HUD income level standards if the developer pursues the
density bonus units, as requested, plus the number of people per
unit shall be based on the Uniform Building Code provisions.
12. HOUSING:********************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * : : * **
Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand
for additional housing? (Checked "No")
The development of the site as a single family (attached)
affordable housing complex is consistent with the policies of the
City's General Plan. The City encourages this type of project in
order for the City to meet its fair -share regional housing needs,
as required by the Southern California- Association of Governments
and the City's'General Plan Housing Element. The- SCAG plan
requires both cities and counties to provide different types of
housing units (i.e. single family and multiple family units) and to
accommodate low /moderate income families. Cities or counties can
examine either rental assisted housing, sweat equity self help
housing, or grant assisted housing pursuant to their redevelopment
guidelines. The City's Redevelopment. Agency can examine whether
or not to assist the project with their set -aside RDA monies or in
other ways which can reduce the burden on the developer (i.e. off -
site development improvements).
It is assumed that only minor. incremental demands on City services
will be generated by the possible development of the site with
single family units; therefore, the development of the site would
have insignificant affects on the City. Further, the City has an
over surplus of land designated and planned for detached single
family housing thus the City is in need of rental housing or
subsidized units at this time. This project will help the City
meet its fair -share housing requirements.
The developer has also requested bonus apartment units pursuant to
State statues (Bonus Density) pursuant Gov., Code Section 65915.
The City is allowed to assist the developer is increasing his
project density if the project is designed and rented or sold to
low income persons and, the project remains affordable.
Generally, the units are kept affordable for between 15 to 30 years
depending on the type of project.
MITIGATION MEASURES: The City should insure that the housing
units which are for the very low or low income families are
retained for 15 to 30 years as below market units to accommodate
this section of the population which is in need of proper housing.
The City should examine whether or not the project warrants
consideration for additional units per Government Code Section
65915. The Planning Commission and City Council will examine this
issue and act accordingly on the request.
13. TRANSPORTATION / CIRCULATION•***** * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement?
(Checked "Maybe ")
With the proposed project it can be anticipated that there will be
a generation of additional vehicular traffic movement in the
immediate area. The City's Trip Generation book (1987, ITE Manual)
indicates that attached single family housing generates on the
average between 8 -10 vehicle trips per day. However, car ownership
is not as important for first time homeowners if public
transportation (bus or mini -bus) is available or needs services are
in close proximity to their residence. The site is located along
Route f4 of the Sunline Transit, therefore, public transportation
is available.
The developer will be required to install ultimate street
improvements along Washington Street. The improvements will
include: curb, gutter, street median, sidewalks, etc. The
developer will also be required to assist in paying for a portion
of the new traffic signal proposed for this project site and the
future shopping center to the south (Ralph's Shopping Center /Koenig
Development Company).
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new
parking? (Checked "Yes ")
The developer is proposing on -site parking spaces for the project
which is not consistent with the City's Off - street. Parking Code
0. 0
since only one garage parking space will be provided per unit.
However, the proposed specific plan document can make an adjustment
to this deficiency in order to provide affordable housing units.
Both garage parking and open parking spaces will be provided in
close proximity to each proposed unit. If parking should occur
within the private street inside the development, this type of
parking will not impact the abutting projects to the south since
all parked cars will be on private property.
c. thru f - Effects upon existing transportion, movement of
people and /or goods, etc. (Checked "No")
MITIGATION MEASURES:
1). Compliance with all applicable City requirements regarding
street improvements of adjacent street(s). The level of off -site
improvements shall be commensurate to the magnitude of the project.
2). The developer shall provide adequate on -site parking spaces to
accommodate the proposed use per the. requirements of the City's
Off- street Parking Ordinance or unless dictated otherwise in the
Specific Plan document.
3). An eight foot wide sidewalk shall be provided on Washington
Street (major arterial) for pedestrian /bike traffic.
4).. A bus stop and shelter shall be install along the frontage-of
the site on Washington Street. The location shall be approved by
Sunline Transit and the City Engineering Department. If a separate
bus turn -out is required, the turn -out shall not affect traffic
movement and it shall be recessed within the street parkway.
5).' A traffic signal shall be installed when warranted at the two -
way access. driveway on Washington Street as required by the
Engineering Department. The signal will service this site and the
future project to the south (Ralph's Market Shopping Center).
The Engineering Department shall determine the fair- share.of the
signal costs for the developer during review of the project with
the Planning Commission.
6). A second point of access into the project shall be required
unless otherwise determined by the City Engineer, the Planning
Commission or the City Council.
14. PUBLIC SERVICES• ************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for
new or altered governmental services (e.g. fire, police, schools,
parks or recreation, maintenance of public facilities, or other
governmental services)? (Checked "Maybe ")
The project may create a need for additional fire protection,
police protection and maintenance of public roads in the area.
However, it is anticipated that any increases in this area will be
0 0
incremental, and further, should only have negligible impacts on
existing personnel or services. The site is approximately 1/2 mile
from Fire.Station. #32. Response times to the facility should be
within acceptable levels as prescribed by the fire personnel.
MITIGATION MEASURES: The applicant will be required to pays impact
fees which are in effect prior to the issuance of a building permit
for any of the-future units.
15. ENERGY:******, r**************** * * * * # *,r * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *� * **
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? (Checked
"Maybe ")
The project will consume 641,328 kWh of electricity per year. This
number or amount is consistent with normal per unit figures for
this type -.of development. The Imperial Irrigation District
(provider) has not indicated that they cannot service the project
based on the applicant's request. However, the project will.have
an incremental increase in the amount of available energy if the
project is completed.
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of
energy, or require the development of new sources of energy?
(Checked "No ")
The project is not large enough to substantially deplete any non-
renewable natural resource. No significant impacts are
anticipated.
MITIGATION MEASURES: The applicant shall be responsible to submit
plans as required by each respective local agency and install the
future facilities as required to meet all safety standards in
affect at the time of the application.
16. UTILITIES:***************t**** * * * * * *f * * * # * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * : * **
Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power /Natural Gas? (Checked "No") - Power and natural gas
services are available at the subject site. IID power lines are
currently located on the. east side of Washington Street, and power
will be provided to the site based on IID requirements. All on-
site electric facilities will be placed underground from the source
to each new apartment building. I The new facilities will not
substantially alter or affect any of the existing off -site
utilities.
.b. Communications? (Checked . "No") - Telephone and cable
services will be available from extensions from.nearby existing or
planned neighborhoods. Significant service alterations will not
be necessary.
c. Water? (Checked "No ") - Project implementation will not
require significant upgrades or extensions .to water facilities.
The project will comply with all water service extension measures
required by CVWD and no significant impacts are anticipated because
the project is not designed to use more water than other types of
multi - family apartment projects. .
d. Sewer /Septic? (Checked "No ") - The project will be
connected to the CVWD's forced main, which will convey wastewater
to the Mid -Vally Water Reclamation Plant. The 124 unit project 4s
expected to generate 200 -300 gallons per dwelling unit per day.
Substantial alterations or extensions of existing systems will not
be necessary. The project will be required to meet all
requirements of CVWD. No significant impacts are anticipated.
e. Storm water drainage? (Checked "Maybe") - The Applicant
has not addressed how they will manage storm water drainage.
However, based on the plans, an off -site program will be needed to
handle any water generated by the development of the site. The
Applicant will be required to submit a hydrology plan to the City
Engineer for his review and approval. All storm drainage
facilities shall be developed by the developer or by the City with
the developer reimbursing the City for its.costs.
f. Solid waste? (Checked "No ") - Project implementation will
not generate amounts of solid wastes which would require
substantial alterations to collection services and disposal
facilities. Each unit is expected to generate 9 lbs. /day which
1,116 lbs. /day for the entire complex. No significant impacts
will occur.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
1).. All necessary infrastructure improvements as mandated by the
City or any other public agency shall be met as part of the
development of this site. As mentioned before, the site will be
required to install appropriate drainage facilities which will
house storm water run -off during seasonal rain storms or to contain
nuisance water from both irrigation and surfaced areas (i.e.
parking lots, buildings, etc.). Off -site drainage will be allowed
if approved by the City Engineer.
2). Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant will
be required to pay the City's Infrastructure Fee. This fee will
help mitigate impacts as noted above.
3). The project shall comply with all requirements of the Fire
Marshal and the Riverside County Sheriffs Department. The School
District'.s mitigation fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of
a building permit.
4). Water, sewer, and electric service provisions shall be made
and secured prior to securing building permits.
0 . 9
5). On -site curb recycling programs shall be established_ for the
project similar to existing recycling programs -which are on -going
in the Cove.
X17. HUMAN
a. and b. - Creation of hazards or exposure to people of
potential hazards? (Checked "No")
No additional hazards are contemplated other than those
identified in Section 3 (water).
18. AESTHETICS:******************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
Will the proposal result in the. obstruction of any scenic
vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in
the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public
view? (Checked "No ")
The site is presently vacant. The construction of buildings will
disrupt the site and change the existing views of the Santa Rosa
Mountains. However, in.order to reduce this impact, the developer
has proposed single story buildings within 150 feet of Washington
Street. The two story buildings are located westerly of the one
story apartment units. The developer's plan creates diversity
because of the height variation. .(1,81 vs. 241) and the different
styles of architecture- proposed for each prototype duplex unit.
The proposal is compatible with the surrounding area 'and the
development should not impact or affect the surrounding residential
properties to the east (across Washington Street).
MITIGATION MEASURES:
1). The height of the apartment building(s) should be single story
along Washington Street (first 1501) to meet the policy provisions
of the City's General Plan. Two story units should be allowed on
the other portions of the'site per the R2 standards.
2). The development of the on and off -site landscaping program
should take into consideration the unique setting of this property
as it relates, to the downtown area. The developer should consider
vertical type plant material (Palm trees, etc.) and the use of
accent type trees (Jacarandas, etc.) which will create view
"windows" into the project but accentuate the mountains to the west
of the proposed buildings. Native landscaping. should be pursued
and accent lighting on the landscaping should be encouraged.
Parking lot lighting should be discouraged wherever possible.
18. RECREATION•******************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or
quantity of existing recreational opportunities? (Checked "No")
No significant adverse impacts are anticipated in this area because
•
.7
the applicant is proposing a central recreation building with pool
for the future residents. Passive walking .trails are also
included.
MITIGATION MEASURES: No, major impact is anticipated because
the development will have its own recreation facilities for the
tenants. However, the will be required to contribute the City's
park fees to assist off -site development of community facilities
which can benefit this development (or others in the City) as
required by the City's Subdivision Ordinance. This issue will be
evaluated further prior to recordation of the Subdivision Map with
the City Council, as required.
20.', ARCHEOLOGICAL / HISTORICAL:******* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
a. . Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the
destruction of 'a prehistoric or historic archaeological site?
(Checked "Maybe ")
Due to the historical nature of the City, there may be an adverse
impact created by the construction of the project.
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic
effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object?
(Checked "Maybe ")
Due to the historical nature of the City, there may be adverse
impact created by the, construction of the project on prehistoric
features buried in the earth. No known historic buildings are
currently located at the site since it is vacant. However, buried
remains are possible.
c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical
change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (Checked
"Maybe ")
Due to the historical nature of the City, there may be an adverse
impact created by the construction of the project.
d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred
uses within the potential impact area?
Due to the historical nature of the City, there may be an adverse
impact created by the construction of the project.'
MITIGATION MEASURES: An archaeological survey of the site by
qualified archaeologists will need to be completed prior to
activities which would disturb the site (i.e. site grading).
Compliance with the results of the archaeological survey will be
required.
21. MANDATORY FINDINGS: It is not anticipated that there will be
any adverse impacts by the project in the areas of plant and animal
life, long term environmental goals, cumulative impacts, or impacts
on human beings as long as the proposed mitigation measures are
incorporated into the conditions for the project.
Attached: Agency Comments
Developer's Letter n
:STAKISHM IN 1918 As A FU" A"NCT
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
POST OFFICE SOX lobo • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 22236 • TELEPHONE f11191 396=1
OCf01ls
TELLISCOOEKIIt. PRfS10ENT
OFncEn
E I.M.6OMM MANAf. *W Dr PI 1
PAY~ R. RUMMONDS. VIM PK$10M �=
,"W.WAMN Jute 28, 1993 y�ppp� a"�'
WODDRE M. D� ?� ; .i .I�fDNIIE ANC : 1 J ATTORIEI4 FM
Pile: Z-9
Planning Coamission �UC 0 2
City of La Quinta
Post Office Box 1504yT _
Sri 1 :.i :J . • �:..:.:
La Quinta, California 92253 p�, ►:;� ;.�
Gentlemen:
Subject: Plot Plan 93 -502, Portion of the
Northwest Quarter of Section 6, Township 6
South, Range 7 East, San Bernardino Meridian
This area is shown to be subject to shallow flooding and is designated Zone A0,
depth one foot on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps wbich are in effect at this
time.
The district will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area An
accordance with the current regulations of this district. These regulations
provide for the payment of certain fees and charges by the subdivider and said
fees and charges are.subject to change.
This area shall be annexed to Improvement District No. SS of Coachella Valley
Water District for sanitation service.
There are existing district facilities not shown on the development plans.
There may be conflicts with these facilities. We request the appropriate public
agency to withhold the issuance of a building permit until arrangements have
been made with the district for the relocation of these facilities.
Plans for grading, landscaping, and irrigation systems shall be submitted to
Coachella Valley Water District for review. This review is for ensuring
efficient water management.
If you have any questions please call Bob Meleg, stormwater engineer,
extension 264.
Yours very t y,
om Levy
General Manager -Chi Engineer
RF:lmf /eIPP93502
cc: Don Park
Riverside County Department
of Public Health
TRUE CONSERVATION
IPCC wATCO UMCCI v
SunLine Transit Agency
MEMBER AGENCIES
Cathedral City
Coachella
Desert Hot Springs
Indian Wells
Indio
La Ouinta
Palm Desert
Palm Springs
Rancho Mirage
Riverside County
Kr. Greg Trousdell
Associate Planner
City of La Quinta
78 -105 Calle Estado
La Quinta, CA 92263
RE: Plot. Plan 93 -502; Jascorp
Dear Greg:
JUN 2 8 10
UTY Of LA CUKTA
01 lwa% : W- PAR71AFVT
Thank you for allowing SunLine Transit Agency to review the plans
for the low and moderate income housing. project to be located on
Washington Street north of Calle Tanpico. SunLine does operate
services in the vicinity of this project. As projects of this
size and nature develop, the pressure for transit services
increases. Therefore, we request the city's assistance in
placing the following mitigation measure on the developer in'the
conditions of approval:
"The developer shall provide a bus turnout (to . SunLine
.
standards), a passenger waiting area with seating space, wind
protection and sunshade, a trash barrel, and utility connections,
includinngq electricity and telephone at each bus stop location.
in addition, the developer must receive approval from SunLine on
the design of the improvements to the bus stop(s)."
For this project, we recommend the bus stop be placed at one
location: on Washington street far -side of the entrance to the
project. If a second exit is, created on Washington Street,,-we
recommend that the turnout be centered between the two exits.
SunLine Transit Agency is willing to work with the developer and
the-city to design a mutually acceptable bus stop. Please let me
know if You have any questions on these comments.
Yours Very Truly,
S LINE TRANSIT AGENCY
W
Debra Astin
Director of Planning
. �cbuN Y RIVERSIDE COUNTY
oF
l' R/VERSIDErA.., � FIRE DEPARTMENT
J. M. HARRIS 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE • PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370 9 (909) 657 -3183
FIRE CHIEF
September 209 1993
To: City of La Quinta
Planning Division
Attn: Greg .Trousdel.1 SEP ? ? 1993
Re: Tentative Tract No. 27854 +TY`"
mow,
Please be advised that the following corrections are required:"'`'
1. Provide secondary or emergency access..
2. P.rov.ide adequate, turning radius at intersections.
3. Provide improvement plans for gated entrance.
For your information, 32. foot wide streets allow for parking on one
side only.
Previous conditions for this project do not apply. Once the above
corrections are made, conditions will be set and a letter issued.
All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be
referred to the Fire Department Planning Engineering Staff at (619)
863 -8886.
Sincerely,
RAY REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
' Tom Hutchison
Fire Safety Specialist
JP /th
O RIVERSIDE OFFICE
3760 12th Street, Riverside, CA 92501'
(909) 275 -4777 • FAX (909) 369 -7451.
a
FIRE PREVENTION DIVISION
PLANNING SECTION
0
01 INDIO OFFICE
79 -733 Country Club Drive, Suite F, Indio; CA 92201
(619) 863 -8886 • FAX (619) 863 -7072
p —d - -c)-W pw'�q C'
•
J. M. HARRIS
FIRE CHEF
To: City of La Duinta
Planning Division
Attn: Greg Trousdell
Re: Plot Plan 93 -502
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
210 WEST SAN )ACWTO AVENUE 0 FERRIS. CALIFORNIA 92370 • (909) 6374183
June 289 1993
JUN 2 a 1993
PI.ANNIM DEP< . ENT
Please be advised that the following-corrections are required.
1. Provide secondary or emergency access.
2. Provide adequate turning radius at the street adjacent to the
entrace gate.
All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be
referred to the .Fire Department Planning Engineering Staff at
(619) 863 -8886.
By
JPilth
O RIVERSIDE OFFICE
Sincerely,
RAY REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
Tom Hutchison
Fire Safety Specialist
FIRE PREVENTION DIVISION
P"NNING SECTION
e10 INDIO OFFICE
1..A rl';W 4ite r
k
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
CO1S BYRD, SHERIFF
0.1
City of La Quinta
Planning A Development Division
78 -105 Cane Estado
La Quinta CA 92253
Attention: Greg Trousdell
Associate Planner
Dear Mr. Trousdell:
Sheriff
- - mmmnmw"O� 82.695 DR. CARREON BLVD. & INDIO, G 92201 • (619) 342 -8990
June 24, 1993
JUN 2 q ty<
M. PP 93- 5021JASCORP
We have the following comments concerning the above project:
Regarding Police Stogy(, -S: Increase in population result in an increase of called for services.
The projected population increase will also impact traffic conditions by increasing daily round
trips in the area.
Regarding Pro'ecl t Desigit: We recommend that address numbers be mounted on. contrasting
background. ?he numbers should be of sufficient site to be legible from the roadway and should
be.situated near the roofl ne on the corner of the residence. This will reduce the response time
of emergency vehicle to the residence.
Streets, security walls and parking areas should be well lighted to provide a safer environment
for the residents and to dissuade would -be criminals from targeting the area for illegal activities.
High pressure sodium lights are recommended as they provide the greatest amount of light per
kilowatt and are the least expensive to operate.
All residential doors should have an industrial quality key and latch system. Deadbolt locks are
suggested for all exterior -doors. 77re locks should be installed using three inch set screws to
provide maximum benefit. All exterior doors, without windows, should have a peephole installed
in order to allow good visibility of the outside area without having to open the door. Windows
should not be placed close enough, to the'doors, which would allow a person to break the glass
and unlock the door by hand
• e
Page 2
EIR 193 -502
June 24, 1993
Shrubbery and bushes should be trimmed low to the ground to eliminate hiding places for
criminals and allow better visibility from the street for patrolmen. Windows should never be
concealed by vegetation.
The crime prevention measures outlined in this letter are merely suggestions and are not required.
as a prerequisite for plan approval. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the project
from a law enforcement point of view.
Sincerely;
COLS BYRD, SHERIFF
.
�Rona�IdFo
D
Indio Station Commander
CB:RD.gt
® 0
f 0
ulldincorp sOw �
July 8,. 1993
La Quinta Planning Dept.
P.O. Box 1504
78 -105 Calle Estado
La Quinta, CA 92253
Attn: Gary Trousdell
Dear Mr. Trousdell,
0
D
JUL 08 Z. `
Thank you for responding to our submittal and application for
our. affordable housing community located on the N/W corner of
the intersection of Washington and Tampico (just north of the
proposed Ralphs Shopping Center.
The community is envisioned to include 124 homes within a
gated and carefully landscaped environment that will also
share a recreation center for small get togethers with.
adjoining pool b perhaps bar -b -que area.
The community is intended to provide affordable housing
without compromise to the pride of ownership quality expected
of the young professional or.the mature move down buyers we
encounter today.
The homes are designed by the architectural firm of
Stoffregen /Fuller a licensed architect with offices located
both in Palm Desert and the Orange County area. The .smart
design has allowed fora popular duplex configuration of
single story units as well as side by side two story units
(vs. Jones below /Smith above). All homes include a generous
single car garage with a driveway that will accommodate 2
more cars to insure off street parking.
Common areas are
yards fenced on
front courtyard
intended to be kept
property lines along
and side yard areas.
to..a minimum with rear
with a variation of
.
We are sensitive to the standard R -2 zoning which allows for
a density of 8 units per acre. The affordable aspect df the
project as I understand allows a 25% density bonus (or 2
units per acre) this brings us to 10 units per acre. The
design may bring an additional 10% bonus (or 1 unit per acre)
bringing the total density to 11 units per acre. As we have
11.68 net acres, this could equate to 128 units. We propose
124 units,
The financing for this project-anticipates state and federal
tax exempt bond status as the developer looksto the city of
La Quinta to provide a letter of inducement resolution to be
issued for procurement of bonds. The bonds are.quaranteed
through a letter of credit placed.by our local financial
institution guaranteed by the developer.
We trust this will provide you with a better understanding of
our La Quinta Village project. Should you have any further
questions please don't hesitate to give us a call.
Regards,
.off
Bob Wright Joseph Swain
Partner Partner
cc: Dennis Moran
s •
RUPERT E. YESSAYIAN
Box 251
LA C JWTA. CA 9a253
September 14, 1993
La Quinta Planning Commission
City of La Quinta
La Quinta, California
RE: Plot Plan 93 -502
Change of Zone 91 -066
Commissioners:
PLi
W
hli,,'.�!G:
`;
= -tiT
I represent the majority of the property owners
in Desert Club Tract Unit #5,' which is across
Washington Street from the proposed project.
We protested the assessment for the wall along
the east side of Washington St. in the belief
that the property owners on the west side of
Washington St. were responsible for its cost.
Our efforts were unsuccessful and the very ex-
pensive wall is now being paid for by us, raising
our taxes considerably.
Our argument is that 'the Ralph's center and the
project which is before you tonight should pay
their fair share for the buffer wall, since they
both are receiving changes of zone and other con-
cessions from the city. We request therefore, that
as .a condition . of approval for Change of Zone 91-
066 and Plot Plan 93 -502, that provision be made
for the developer to pay a fair share for the ex-
pense of the beforementioned wall.
Thank you for your consideration.
REY /ss
f
A •
Design Review Board Minutes
August 4, 1993
16. Boardmember Campbell stated ad strong objections to react to
without seeing all four si i
17.. After further d' ssion on the review process, dmembers
Anderson/W r6with ' withdrew the motiland moved to rove Public Use
Permit 9 a recommenion that paste drawings be
compl for Phase I and Phase 11 d if lanning Commission so
d Inditions to refer the project back to the Review Board, subject to the
of Approval with the ad ' n of anon- reflective alternative
meta be submitted. The motion unanimously. r
Plot Plan 93 -502 and Change of Zone 91 -M; a request of Jascorp for approval
to develop a 124 unit one and two. story apartment complex on the west side of
Washington Street south of the La Quinta Storm Channel/Washington Street
bridge and 700 feet north of Calle Tampico, along with a change of zone from
R -1, R -2, and C -P to R -2.
1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in
the Staff report, a copy of , which is on file in the Planning and
Development Department:
2. Boardmember Anderson asked if the material board was acceptable to
staff. Staff stated they were.
3. Mr. Joe DeCoster, applicant, gave a lengthy detailed description of the
project. Chairman Curtis asked if the applicant had any objection to the
Conditions of Approval. Mr. DeCoster stated no except they would be,
applying to for a variance to the parking requirement.
4. Boardmember Wright 'asked for clarification on the variance. Mr.
DeCoster stated they would be asking for approval to allow a third
parking space to be the tandem parking of behind the garage door.
Discussion followed regarding the parking space.
5. Commissioner Ellson asked.- what .the market would be, apartments or
condominiums. The applicant stated they would be selling condominiums
but they have not filed a subdivision. map with staff.
6. Boardmember Wright asked if they would be low income. Mr. DeCoster
stated they would be affordable units (i.e., low and moderate income
units).
DRB8 -4 4
Design Review Board Minutes
August 4, 1993
7. Commissioner Ellson asked what would happen to the project if Ralph's
shopping center did not go in. Mr. DeCoster stated it would stand alone.
Commissioner Ellson asked what fences would be built between the units
and would the perimeter fence be a block wall. She stated she preferred
an open landscaped area that would give amore open feeling for -the green
belt areas. Mr. DeCoster stated the market they were targeting was the
low income group which normally have children and the fencing would .
give them privacy. Discussion followed regarding alternate locations for
block wall fencing, wrought iron fencing, and wood fencing.
8. Boardmember Wright asked if there would be a problem if Ralph's was .
not built with a second access for the project and especially a fire truck
entry . Staff clarified that the land is owned by the same individual and
therefore an easement for the access will be provided. Boardmember
Wright asked if the second entrance would-be a crash gate. Staff stated
it would be.
9. Boardmember Wright asked whether the garage door would be wood or
a metal (roll -up vs. swing). He was concerned there would not be enough
clearance to open the door if a car was parked behind the garage. Mr.
DeCoster stated he preferred the metal roll -up because they were attractive.
but the expense was a problem. He further stated there was enough
distance to park the car and open the door and not have the car in the
_ street. Discussion followed regarding the garage -door type and material.
DR88 -4
10. Boardmember Wright asked the applicant to show the Board where the
two story units would be placed. He felt the units adjacent to the
recreation building should be single story so not to create a cavity effect.
Discussion followed regarding the location of the two story units.
11. Chairman Curtis asked for clarification that the perimeter wall would be
a block wall and would he have any objection to making it comparable to
the wall on the east side of Washington Street: Mr. DeCoster stated it
would be a block wall but he felt the 204eet of landscaping would be
more attractive than duplicating the east wall (i.e., file rap). Following
discussion, the Board determined the 20 -feet of landscaping was preferable
to the file treatment. Further clarification was made that the block wall
would be stuccoed on Washington Street and painted block walls would
be used for the perimeter areas.
12. Planning Commissioner Ellson asked how much stacking there would be
at the entrance.. She felt two or three car stacking was needed and there
S
Design Review Board Minutes
August 4, 1.993 .
did not appear to be enough room. Following discussion regarding
different alternatives, Chairman Curtis suggested that the entrance be
widened and stripped to allow two lanes in and one lane out (e.g., 36 -feet
wide). '
13. Boardmember Anderson stated his concern. for the wood fencing between
the units and strongly suggested that block walls be used and possibly
relocated to the rear portion of each unit. He felt that anything less than
this would detract from the overall look of the project.. Mr. DeCoster
stated this would be a budget determination by the owners and those that
have been constructed in other projects have been attractive.
14. Mr. DeCoster asked for clarification of Condition #6 in that the 20 -feet
of landscaping is included in . the 30 -foot setback. Staff stated it was
included.
15. Following discussion, it was moved and seconded by Boardmembers
Anderson /Harbison to recommend approval as submitted subject to staff
conditions, and as amended as follows:
a. The applicant would submit to the Planning Commission elevations
for the half two story half one story unit for their approval.
b... Condition #4: The block wall on Washington Street shall be
stucco and compatible with the east wall (without the green tile.
C. Condition #10: The perimeter wall with the exception of
Washington Street shall be painted block wall to match the stucco
color on Washington Street.
d. The driveway should be 36 -feet wide on Washington Street with
two lanes in and one lane out'.
.VOTE: AYES: Boardmembers Anderson, Harbison, Wright,
Campbell, Chairman Curtis. NOES: Planning
Commissioner Ellson. ABSENT: . Boardmember Rice.
ABSTAINING: None.
C. Plan 93-505; a Teqlkt of Forecast Homes ! approval of archi tural plans
for gle family residenck located on the north %de of Miles Aven , east of
1. As ate Planner Greg T sdell presented the ormation contain
the Smq,, report, a copy. o which is on file i the Planning
Develop t Department.
DRBB -4 6
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 93 -.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL. OF CHANGE OF ZONE 91-
066
CASE NO. CZ 91 -066 - LA QUINTA VILLAGE
JASCORP
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did,
on the 14th day of September, 1993, 28th day of September, 1993, and the 12th day of October,
1993, hold duly noticed Public Hearings to consider .the request of JASCORP for a Change of
Zone from R -1 (One Family Dwelling), R -2* 8,000 (Multiple Family Residential), and C -P
(General Commercial) to R -2 (Multi- Family Dwellings) on ± 12 acres, located on the west side
of Washington Street, ±700 feet north of Calle Tampico, more particularly described as:
APN: 769 - 030 -039, AND 040 (NORTH PORTION) SOUTH 1/2
OF THE NORTHWEST SECTION 6, T.6.S., R.7.E., S.B.B.M.
WHEREAS, said Change of Zone request has complied with the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (as amended), and adopted .by City Council
Resolution 83 -68, in that the Planning and Development Department has completed an
Environmental Assessment/Negative Declaration, which has been reviewed and considered by
the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta.
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission
did find. the following facts and reasons to justify the recommendation for approval of said
Change of Zone. '
1. The proposed .Change of Zone, as requested, will not adversely affect the goals and
policies of the La Quinta General Plana
2. The proposed zoning is consistent with.the La Quinta General Plan.
3. The proposed zoning is consistent and compatible with surrounding land use and zoning
designations.
4. Approval of this proposal will not result in a significant adverse impact, on the
environment due to mitigation measures contained in the proposed Negative Declaration.
RESOPC.11'3 1
v
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California as follows:
1. That the above. recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
Commission in this case.
' 2. That it does hereby recommend adoption of the Negative Declaration pursuant to the
attached Environmental Assessment.
3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of Change of Zone 91 -066
for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as illustrated in the map labeled Exhibit
"A ", attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of-the La Quinta
Planning Commission, held on this 12th day of October, 1993, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
KATIE BARROWS, Chairwoman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director
City of La Quinta, California
RESOPC.113 2
ZONING
IT
01
YA�A a
ROPOSED ZONING: R2. PROPOSED ZONING: R2
ULTIPLE FAMILY MULTIPLE FAMILY
DWELLINGS. DWELLINGS
EXISTING ZONING: R1 EXISTING ZONING: R2*
VACANT SINGIE FAMILY (8,000) MULTIPLE
DWELLING FAMILY DWELLINGS W
R -3 N
ZONING / Z
Ir .1' 73$091
PROPOSED ZONING: R -2 (MULTIPLE
FAMILY DWELLINGS EXISTING ZON NG:
c C -P GENERAL C
EXISTING ZONING: C -P GENERAL
COMMERCIAL
�Z
N
3
i
I
I
WASHINGTON
STREET
BRIDGE
S -R
ZONING
SINGLE FAMILY
i
NORTH
SCALE: 1 ". = 200'
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 93-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN 93 -023
CASE NO. SP 93 -023 - JASCORP (LA QUINTA VILLAGE)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the 28th.
day of September, 1993, and the 12th day of October, 1993, hold a duly noticed Public Hearings
to consider the request of Jascorp to develop design standards for a ± 124 -unit zero lot line
single family residential project on ± 12 acres in the R -1, R -2, and C -P Zones on property
located in ±700 feet north of Calle Tampico, on the west side of Washington Street, more
particularly described as:
THE SOUTH ONE HALF OF THE NORTHWEST SECTION.6, T.6.S., R.7.E.
(APN: 769 - 030 -039 & 040)
WHEREAS, said Specific Plan request 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 Planning Director has proposed a Negative Declaration for the
project to mitigate any impact the project may have on the area. The Planning Commission will
evaluate the proposed Negative Declaration on September 28, 1993; 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 to justify recommending approval of said Specific Plan:
1. The proposed specific plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta
General Plan.
2. The project will include provisions for affordable housing which will assist the City in
its fair -share regional housing needs pursuant to the goals and policies of the Housing
Element. The project will include a percentage of very low or low income families as
required by Government Code Section 65915 (Bonus Density).
3. - The specific plan is compatible with the existing an anticipated area development.
4. The project will be provided with adequate utilities and public services to ensure public
health and safety.
5. Approval of this proposal will not result in a significant adverse impact on the
environment due to mitigation measures contained in the proposed Negative Declaration.
RESOPC.117 1
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby recommend adoption of the Negative Declaration by the City Council .
pursuant to the attached Environmental Assessment.
3. That it does hereby recommend approval of Specific Plan 93 -023 with conditions as set
forth in this Resolution, labeled. Exhibit "A ", attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission, held on this 12th day of October 1993, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
KATIE BARROWS, Chairwoman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director
City of La Quinta, California
RESOPC.117 2
•
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 93- Exhibit "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 93 -023 - JASCORP
OCTOBER 12, 1993
* Modified by staff on. 9 -29 -93 & 10 -7 793
GENERAL:
1. The development shall comply with Exhibit B, the Specific Plan document for Specific
Plan 93 -023 and the following conditions, which shall take precedence in the event of any
conflict with the provisions of Plot Plan 93 -502.
2. Public improvements shall be provided as required by the Engineering Department and
Tentative Tract Map' 27854.
3. All dwelling units within 150 feet of the Washington Street right -of way shall be limited
to one story in height. All one story units in this area of the project shall be a maximum
of 19 feet in height with two story units in project a maximum of 24 feet in .height.
4. A master landscaping plan for all perimeter street parkways shall'be submitted and
approved by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission prior to issuance of a
building permit for the project. Landscaping materials to be native and drought tolerant.
Irrigation system to utilize emitter irrigation system where possible. Within 5 feet of
curb, no spray irrigation heads nor lawn shall be used. Within this area only emitters
and spreading shrubs and groundcover may be used.
5. Landscaping and architectural plans for individual lots and dwellings shall be reviewed
and approved by staff.
6. Lighting of permanent subdivision identification signs shall be permitted. All permanent
signs shall be approved by the Design Review Board.
*7. The maximum number of units for the project shall be 116. A minimum of 30 units
shall be sold to very low or low income families as required by Government Code
Section 65915. The units shall be guaranteed to remain affordable for a minimum of 30
years pursuant to contractual arrangements approved by either the La Quinta
Redevelopment Agency or City . Council, prior to issuance of a building permit. The
units shall be intermixed within the project as determined by the City.
8. The minimum house size shall be 1,109 square feet, excluding garage area.
i
CONAPRVL.103 1
r
Conditions of Approval
Specific Plan 93 -023
October 12, 1993
9. The minimum setbacks for each home shall be:
a.
Front
- 20 feet
b.
Rear.
- 10 feet+
C.
Side (interior)
- 0 feet (zero lot yard)
d.
Side (exterior)
- 5 feet (one story)
- 7.5 feet (two story)
e.
Street side
- 10 feet
+ Patio covers which are open on three (3) sides may extend to within five feet of the
rear yard property line.
10. Architectural variety: exterior building elevations shall make provisions for architectural
variety by using different colors, styles, roof treatments, window treatments, garage door
treatments, and similar methods. A mediterranean design theme shall be used.
11. The minimum lot area shall be 2,500 square feet.
12. Each single family home shall have a single garage parking space (with tandem driveway
parking space) and a second open concrete parking space immediately. adjacent to the
concrete driveway for the garage. The garage size shall not be less than 12 feet by 20
feet (inside dimensions). The garage space shall remain clear of mechanical equipment
or appliances.
('J 13. The doors for each garage space shall be either made of wood or metal. If metal is used,
sectional doors shall be installed. Automatic garage door openers shall be optional.
14. Internally illuminated or externally illuminated mounted building numbers shall be no less
than three inches in height and be of a color contrasting to the background in a prominent
location. The illumination source for the address sign shall be controlled by a photocell
sensor or a timer.
15. A centralized or gang -box mailbox delivery system shall be used for the project pursuant
to the provisions and requirements of the U. S. Postal Service.
16. The applicant shall establish a Design Review Committee to review and approve all
development within Tentative Tract 27854. The main objectives of this Committee shall
be to assure that building architecture, building materials and colors, building height and
setbacks, and landscape design follow appropriate design themes throughout the tract.
Procedures and operation of the committee shall be set forth in the Tract's CC & R's.
CONAPRVL.103 - 2
Conditions of Approval
Specific Plan 93 -023
October 12, 1993
*17. Applicant shall establish within the CC &R's site design standards appropriate for the zero
lot line homes pursuant to Condition //9, including but not limited to front, side, and rear
setbacks, lot coverage, etc. Standards shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning
and Development Department and Planning Commission as part of its review of the
CC &R's, but be no less restrictive than the R -2 Zone standards, as appropriate.
18. Property lines and perimeter walls for all residential units shall be located at the top of
the graded slope for each parcel.
19. All roofing material within the project shall be concrete barrel tile (i.e., Lifetile Espana
Mission 6108).
20. Restroom facilities for the groundskeepers shall be provided at the clubhouse.- The
restroom can be a separate attached or detached building which has a toilet and lavatory
And/or storage facilities.
21. Height- of fences and walls constructed as acoustical. barriers shall be subject to the
approval of the Planning Director. All other fences or walls shall be limited to six feet
in height unless they are attached to a main building and are an architectural design
element, in which case they may exceed' six feet subject to. approval of the Planning
Director.
22. This specific plan approval shall not be effective until and'unless Change of Zone 91 -066
is granted.
23. The specific. plan document approval period shall run concurrently 'with both of its
compan ion cases (e.g., TTM 27854 and PP 93 -502).
*24. The clubhouse swimming pool and spa shall be handicap accessible and meet all the.
requirements of the Building and. Safety Department and the State of California. All
recreation facilities defined on the site plan and in the specific plan document shall be
built and constructed prior to any release of occupancy within the subdivision. The
swimming pool and spa shall be enclosed by a minimum five foot high wrought iron
fence.
25. Attached or detached second units (e.g. Granny Housing and /or guest houses) shall not
be permitted within the single family development.
26. All fencing within the project shall be decorative. No chain link, agricultural` fencing or
wood fencing will be allowed.
27. The applicant shall be required to enter into an agreement with the City to provide
reciprocal access to the property to the south via the private driveway on Washington
Street:
CONAPRVL.103 3
C7
•
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 93-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY' COUNCIL CONCURRENCE WITH THE
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AND APPROVAL OF A
TENTATIVE TRACT TO ALLOW A 124 LOT SINGLE
FAMILY SUBDIVISION ON A 12± ACRE SITE
CASE NO. TT 27854 - LA QUINTA VILLAGE ( JASCORP)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did,
on the 28th day of September, 1993, and *the 12th day of October, 1993, hold a duly - noticed
Public Hearings, to consider the request of JASCORP to subdivide 12± acres into ± 124 single-
family lots, and other miscellaneous lots, generally located on the west side of Washington
Street, 700± feet north of Calle Tampico, more particularly described as:
A PORTION OF SECTION 6,
T6S, R7E, S.B.B.M.
WHEREAS, said tentative map has complied'with the requirements of "The Rules
to Implement the California Environmental .Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution No.
83 -68), in that the. Planning Director conducted an initial study, and has determined that the
proposed tentative tract will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and,
WHEREAS, mitigation of various physical impacts have been identified and will
be incorporated into the approval conditions for Tentative Tract 27854 in conjunction with this
tentative tract, thereby requiring that monitoring of those mitigation measures be undertaken to
assure compliance with them; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission
did find the following facts to justify the recommendation for approval of said tentative tract
map:
1. That Tentative tract 27854, as conditionally recommended, is generally consistent with
.the goals, policies, and intent of the La Quinta General Plan for land use density, unit
type, circulation requirements, R -2 zoning district development standards, and design
requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance.
2. That the subject site will have a flat topography. The proposed circulation design and
single- family lot layouts as conditioned are, therefore, suitable for the proposed land
division.
RESOPC.119 1
3. That the design of Tentative Tract Map 27854 will not cause substantial environmental
damage or injury to the wildlife.
4. That the design of the subdivision, as conditionally recommended, will be developed with
public sewers and water, and, therefore, is not likely to cause serious public health
problems.
5. That the design of Tentative Tract, Map 27854 will not conflict with easements acquired
by the public at large for access through the project, since alternate easements for access
and for use. have been provided that are substantially equivalent to those previously
acquired by the public.
61, That the proposed Tentative Tract 27854; as recommended, provides for adequate
maintenance of the landscape buffer areas.
7. That the proposed Tentative Tract 27854, as recommended, provides on- and off -site
storm water retention, park in -lieu fees, and noise mitigation.
8.. That general impacts from the proposed tract were considered within the MEA prepared
and adopted in_ conjunction with the La Quinta General Plan.
WHEREAS, in the review of this Tentative Tract Map, the Planning Commission
has considered the effect ' of the contemplated action of the housing needs of the region for
purposes of balancing the needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City of
La Quinta and its environs with available fiscal and environmental resources;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
I. 'That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of Environmental Assessment 93 -267 relative
to the environmental concerns of this tentative tract;
3. That it does hereby recommend approval to the City Council of the subject Tentative
Tract Map 27854 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached
conditions.
PASSED', APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta-
Planning Commission, held on this 12th day of October, 1993, by the following vote, to wit:
F.
RESOPC.119 2
•
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director
City of La Quinta, California
•
KATIE BARROWS, Chairwoman
City of La. Quinta, California
l
RESOPC.119 3'
d
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 27854, JASCORP
OCTOBER 12, 1993
e
* Modified by Staff on 9 -29 -93 & 10 -7 -93
GENERAL
L. Tentative Tract 27854 shall comply with the requirements and standards of the State
Subdivision Map Act and the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance, unless
otherwise modified by the following conditions.
2. This approval shall expire and become void within two years unless extended pursuant
to- the City's Subdivision Ordinance.
3. Tract phasing plans, including phasing of public improvements, shall be submitted for -
review and approval by the City Engineer and the Planning and Development Department
prior to recordation of any final map under this tentative map. The applicant shall
develop tract phases in the order of the approval phasing plan so that improvements
required of each final map are complete prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy
within subsequent final maps.
4. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit for construction of any building or
use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall obtain permits and /or clearances
from the following public agencies:
- City Fire Marshal
Public Works Department
- Planning and Development Department
Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
Desert Sands Unified School District
Coachella Valley Water District
Imperial Irrigation District
California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit)
- 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 approvals and signatures on the
plans.
Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above mentioned agencies shall be
presented to the Building and Safety Department at the time of the application for a
building permit for the use contemplated herewith.
CONAPRVL.106 1
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract 27854, Jascorp
October 12, 1993
5. As required by the General Plan, Applicant shall provide noise study by a qualified
acoustical engineer prior to issuance of building permit, to determine impacts to the
future residents from roadway noise from Washington Street and the future .commercial
projects to the south surrounding residential zones and uses. The noise study shall
suggest mitigation measures which the City can require concerning the development of
the site.
6. The developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist (with the Developer to pay costs), to
prepare a mitigation and monitoring plan for artifact location and recovery. Prior to
archaeological studies for this site as well as other unrecorded information, shall be
analyzed prior to the preparation of the plan. The Planning Director shall approve the
individual or firm retained to prepare the work prior to any on -site activities.
The plan shall be submitted to the Coachella Valley Archaeological Society (CVAS) for
a two -week review and comment period. At a minimum, the plan shall: 1) identify the
means for digging test pits; 2) allow sharing the information with the CVAS; and 3)
provide for further testing if the preliminary result show significant materials are present.
The final plan shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for final
review and approval.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall have retained a qualified
cultural resources management firm and completed the testing and data recovery as noted
in the plan.. The management firm shall monitor the grading activity as required by the
plan or testing results.
.A list of the qualified archaeological monitor(s), cultural resources management firm.
employees, and any assistant(s) /representative(s); shall be submitted to the Planning and
Development Department. The list shall provide the current address and phone number
for each monitor., The designated .monitors may be changed from time to time, but no
such change shall be effective unless served by registered or certified mail on the
Planning and Development Department.
The designated monitors or their authorized representatives shall have the authority to
temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of resources. In
the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains, there shall be'no further
grading, excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby areas reasonably suspected
to overlie adjacent human remains until appropriate mitigation measures are completed.
CONAPRVL.106 2
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract.27854, Jascorp
October 12, 1993
Upon completion of the data recovery, the Developer shall cause three copies of the final
report containing the data analysis to be prepared and published and submitted to the
Planning and Development Department.
7. Final landscaping plans shall include approval stamps and signatures from the Riverside
County Agricultural Commissioners office and Coachella Valley Water District.
8. Prior to issuance of a grading permit,- the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written
report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with those
conditions of approval which must be satisfied prior to issuance of a building permit.
Prior to a final building inspection approval, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a
written report demonstrating compliance with all remaining conditions of approval and
mitigation measures. The Planning and Development Director may require inspection
or other monitoring to assure such compliance.
CITY FIRE MARSHAL
9. Provide secondary or emergency access to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal.
10. Provide adequate turning radius at intersections. Street improvement plan to be reviewed
by the Fire Marshal prior to plans approval.
11. Provide improvement plans for gated entrance for review and approval of the Fire
Marshal prior to issuance of -a building permit.
* 12. Parking will be allowed on only one side of all 32 -foot wide private streets.
13. Gates installed to restrict access shall be power operated and equipped with a Fire
U Department override system. Improvement plans for the entry street and gates shall be
'�V submitted to the Fire Department for review /approval prior to installation..
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
14. The applicant shall construct, or enter into a secured agreement to construct, the on and
off -site grading, streets, utilities, landscaping, on -site common area improvements,. and
any other improvements required by these conditions before approval of any final map(s)
under this tentative tract map.
Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing structures
or obstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements.
CONAPRVL.106 3
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract 27854, Jascorp
October 12, 1993
15. If development improvements are phased with multiple maps, off -site improvements (ie:
streets) and tract -wide improvements (ie: perimeter walls, common -area and setback
landscaping; and gates) shall be constructed or secured prior to approval of the first map
unless otherwise approved by the engineer. .
The City Engineer may consider proposals by the applicant to stage the installation of
off-site and. tract -wide improvements with development of two or more phases within the
tentative map.
16. The .applicant shall pay cash or provide security in guarantee of cash payment for.
required improvements which are deferred for future construction by others.
Deferred improvements for this project include a traffic signal on Washington Street at
entry drive - 50 %. of the cost to design and construct and the completion and landscaping
of the Washington Street median island - 100% of the cost to design and construct.
The applicant's responsibility for deferred improvements may be satisfied through
participation in a City major thoroughfare improvement program if this development
becomes subject to such a program.
17. The applicant shall dedicate public 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.
Dedications required of this tract include:
* - A. Washington Street - 90 -foot half width (special half width section).
Street right -of -way 'geometry for cul -de -sacs, knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall
conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #800, #801, and #805 respectively
unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
18. The applicant shall dedicate common -area setback lots, of minimum width as noted,
adjacent to the following street rights -of -way on Washington Street - 20'
Minimum widths may be used as average widths for meandering wall designs.
Where sidewalks and /or bikepaths are required, the applicant shall dedicate blanket
easements over the setback lots for those purposes.
CONAPRVL.106 4
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract 27854, Jascorp
October 12, 1993
19. The applicant shall vacate vehicle access rights to the following streets from lots abutting .
the street(s):
Washington Street
Access to this street shall be restricted to street intersections and approved emergency
access locations.
20. The applicant shall dedicate any easements necessary for placement of and access to
utility lines and structures, park lands, drainage basins,' common areas, and mailbox
clusters.
21. The Applicant shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any portion of
this property between the date of the approval 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.
TRACT DESIGN
22. The requirements of the City's off - street parking ordinance shall be met concerning all
supplemental accessory facilities.
GRADING
23. 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 6.10, La Quinta "Municipal Code. In accordance with said Chapter, 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.
24. A thorough preliminary engineering, geological and soils engineering investigation shall
be conducted. The report of the investigation ( "the soils report") shall be submitted with
the grading plan.
25. A grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer. The plan must meet the
approval of the City Engineer prior to approval of any final map(s).
The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report and shall
be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or an .engineering geologist. A statement
shall appear on the final map(s), if any are required of this development, that a soils
report has been prepared pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health and Safety Code.
CONAPRVL.106 5
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract 27854, Jascorp
October 12,,1993
Prior to issuance of any building permit the applicant shall provide a separate document
bearing the seal and signature of a California registered civil engineer, geotechnical
engineer, or surveyor that lists actual building pad elevations. The document shall, for
each building pad in the project, state the pad elevation approved on the grading plan,
the as -built elevation, and shall clearly identify the difference, if any. The data shall be
organized by tract phase and lot number and shall be cumulative if the data is submitted
at different times.
DRAINAGE
26. The tract shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention capacity to flow out
of the project through a designated overflow outlet and into the historic drainage relief
route. The tract shall be graded to receive storm flow from adjoining property at
locations that have historically received flow.
27. Storm water runoff produced in 24 hours during a 100 -year storm shall be retained in on-
site retention facilities unless the developer participates in .off -site facilities sized to
accommodate runoff from this development. The tributary drainage area for which the
applicant is responsible shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets.
28. In design of on -site retention facilities, the percolation rate shall be considered to be zero
unless site - specific data indicates otherwise.
A trickling sand filter and leachfield of a design approved by the City' Engineer shall be
installed to percolate nuisance water.. The sand filter and leach field shall be sized to
percolate 22 gallons per day per 1,000 square feet of drainage area.
Retention basin slopes shall not exceed 3:1. If retention is on individual lots, the
retention depth shall not exceed two. feet. If retention is in one or more common
retention basins, the retention depth shall not exceed six feet.
29. The design of the tract shall not cause any change in flood_ boundaries, levels or
frequencies in any area outside the tract.
UTILITIES
30. All existing and proposed utilities adjacent to or within the proposed development shall
be installed underground. High- voltage'power lines which the power authority will not
accept underground are exempt from this requirement.
CONAPRVL.106 6
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract.27854, Jascorp
October 12,'1993
31. In areas where hardscape surface improvements are planned, underground utilities shall
be installed. prior to construction of the surface improvements. The applicant shall
provide certified reports of utility trench .compaction tests. for approval of the City
Engineer.
STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
32. The City is contemplating adoption of a major thoroughfare improvement program. If
the program is in effect 60 days prior to recordation of any final map for this
development,. the development shall be subject to the provisions of the ordinance.
If this development is not.subject to a major thoroughfare improvement program, the
applicant shall design and, construct street improvements as listed below.
33. Improvement plans for all on- and off -site streets and access gates shall be prepared by
a registered civil engineer.. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in
accordance with the La Quints Municipal Code, adopted Standard Drawings, and as
approved by the City Engineer.
Street pavement sections shall be based on a Caltrans design procedure for a 20 -year life
and shall consider soil strength and anticipated traffic loading. The minimum pavement
sections shall be as follows:
Residential 3.0" a.c. /4.50" 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"
If. the applicant proposes to construct a partial pavement section for use during
development of the tract, the partial section shall be designed for projected traffic
loadings during the temporary condition or shall have a strength equivalent to the 20 -year
design strength. -
34. Improvements shall include all appurtenances such as traffic- signs, channelization
markings, raised medians if required, street name signs, sidewalks, and mailbox clusters
approved in design and location by the U.S. Post Office and the City Engineer. Mid -
block street lighting is not required.
35. The City Engineer may require miscellaneous incidental improvements and enhancements
to existing improvements as necessary to integrate the new work with existing
improvements and provide a finished product conforming with City . standards and
practices. This may include, but is not limited to, street width transitions extending
beyond tract boundaries.
CONAPRVL.106 7
0
•
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract 27854, Jascorp
October 12, 1993
36. The following street improvements shall be constructed to conform with the General Plan
street type noted in parentheses:
OFF -SITE STREETS
Washington Street - Major Arterial' (96' curb to. curb). Complete street
improvements on the west side and fully landscape the existing median island.
ON -SITE STREETS
* Private Residential - 32 feet wide for Lots "E" and "B" and 36 feet wide for Lots
"A ", "C ", and "D ". Four feet wide sidewalk shall only be required on one side
of each private street.
37. Access points and turning movements of traffic shall be restricted as follows:
Single full -turn access at signalized intersection. of Washington Street and access drive
shared with development to the south.
The entry drive and gate shall be designed with. adequate stacking room to ensure that
traffic from this development does not impede the flow of traffic into and out of the
development to the south. The entry gate design shall include a turn-around between the
guard house or card reader and the gate.
LANDSCAPING
38. The applicant shall provide landscape improvements in the setback lots along Washington
Street. The applicant is encouraged to minimize steep slope designs within the perimeter
landscaping setback areas. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or spray
irrigation within 5 -feet of street curb.
39: Landscape and irrigation plans for the Washington Street median island, landscaped lots,
common retention basins and park facilities shall be prepared by a licensed .landscape
architect. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the
requirements of the City Engineer. Common basins and park areas shall be designed
with a turf grass surface which can be mowed with standard tractor - mounted equipment.
Landscape and irrigation plans shall meet the requirements of and be signed by the
Planning Director, the City Engineer, the Coachella Valley Water District, and the
Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner.
CONAPRVL.106 8
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract 27854, Jascorp
October 12, 1993
40. The applicant shall insure that landscaping plans and utility plans are coordinated to
provide visual screening of above - ground utility structures.
PUBLIC SERVICES
41. 'The applicant shall provide public transit amenities as required by Sunline Transit and /or
the City Engineer. These amenities shall include, as a minimum, a bus turnout location
and passenger waiting shelter on Washington Street.
The precise location and character of the turnout and shelter shall be as determined by
Sunline Transit and the City Engineer.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
42. The City is contemplating adoption of a quality- assurance program for privately- funded
construction. If the program is adopted prior to the issuance of permits for construction
of the improvements required of this map, the applicant shall fully comply with the
quality- assurance program.
If the quality- assurance program has, not been adopted, the applicant shall employ
construction quality- assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer.
43. The applicant shall employ or retain California registered civil engineers, geotechnical
engineers, or surveyors, as appropriate, who will provide, or have his or her agents
provide, sufficient supervision and verification of the construction to be able to furnish
and sign accurate record drawings and certify compliance of all work with approved
plans, specifications and applicable codes. '
44. Upon. completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record
drawings of all plans signed by the City Engineer. Each sheet of the drawings shall have
the words "Record Drawings ", "As- Built ", or "As- Constructed" clearly marked on each
sheet and be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy
of the drawings.
MAINTENANCE
45. The applicant shall maintain the landscaped areas of the subdivision such as common
lots, landscaped setbacks and retention basins until those areas have been accepted for
maintenance by the City's Landscape and Lighting District or a homeowners' association
(HOA). The applicant shall maintain all other improvements until final acceptance of
tract improvements by the City Council.
CONAPRVL.106 9
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract 27854, Jascorp
October 12, 1993
FEES AND DEPOSITS
46. The applicant shall pay all deposits and fees required by the city for plan checking and
construction inspection. Deposit and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the
applicant makes application for the plan checks and permits.
MISCELLANEOUS
47. All mitigation measures of Environmental Assessment 93 -267 shall be met.
48. An on -site field study shall be conducted by a qualified horticulturist to determine if the
California Ditaxis plant species exists on the property. A written summary of the field
study shall be submitted to staff prior to any on -site grading. The work shall be paid for
by the applicant or developer.
49. The City's Water Conservation Ordinance (Ordinance 220) shall be met.
50. Approval of this tentative tract map shall be subject to final approval of Change of Zone
91 -066; Plot Plan 93 -502, and Specific Plan 93 -023.
51. The appropriate Planning approval shall be secured prior to .establishing any of the
following uses:
a. Temporary construction facilities.
b. Sales facilities, including their appurtenant signage.
C. On -site advertising /construction signs.
52. Prior to final map approval by the City Council, the Applicant shall meet the parkland
dedication requirements as set forth in Section 13.24.030, La .Quinta Municipal Code,
by paying parkland fees in lieu, as may be determined in accordance with said Section.
53. Design and architectural standards for the single family homes shall be submitted to the
Director of Planning & Development for review and approval prior to final map
recordation. All approved Specific Plan (SP 93 -023) standards shall be included in the
CC &R's. A copy of the CC &R's shall, be submitted to the Planning Department for
review. The final documents shall require City Attorney approval.
54. Grading, drainage, street, lighting, landscaping and irrigation, .park, gate, and perimeter
wall plans are not approved for construction until they have been' signed by the City
Engineer.
CONAPRVL.106 10
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract 27854, Jascorp
October 12, 1993
55. Prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for buildings within the tract, the applicant
shall install traffic control devices and street name signs along access roads to those
buildings.
SPECIAL
*56. All future home-buyers shall be given proper disclosure information during the sales
proposal that the City will be widening.the Washington Street bridge in the next five to
fifteen years and that this future Capital Improvement Project. could be a temporary
inconvenience, to them because of noise, dust, or other construction activities. The City
will notify the future home owners of the project at such time that the City Council
chooses to pursue construction of the bridge widening program. ' The notice will define
the improvements to be installed, the length. of time construction will occur, and any
other information that is deemed necessary to inform the owners of the widening
program.
CONAPRVL.106 11
u
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
PLOT PLAN 93 =502, JASCORP
OCTOBER 12, 1993
* Modified by staff on 9 -29 -93
GENERAL
1. Phasing plans, including phasing of public improvements, shall be submitted for review
and approval by.the City Engineer and the Planning and Development Department prior
to the issuance of a building permit.
2. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit for construction of any building or
use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall obtain permits and /or clearances,
from the following public agencies:
- City Fire Marshal
- Public Works Department
Planning and Development Department
Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
- Desert Sands Unified School District
Coachella Valley Water District
Imperial Irrigation District
California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit)
Sunline Transit
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 approvals. and signatures on the
.plans.
Evidence of said permits. or clearances from the above mentioned agencies shall be
presented to the Building and Safety Department at the time of the application for a
building permit for the use contemplated herewith.
3. . The development of the property shall be generally be in conformance with the exhibits
contained in the file for PP ' 93-502, unless amended otherwise by- the following
conditions or.by Tentative Parcel Map 27854 and Specific Plan 93 -023.
4. The approved plot plan shall be used within two years of the final approval date;
otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. "Be used" means
the beginning of substantial construction which is contemplated by this approval, -not
including grading which is begun within the one year period and. is thereafter diligently
CONAPRVL.097 1
4
Conditions of Approval
Plot Plan 93 -502, Jascorp
October 12, 1993
pursued until completion. The plot plan case shall run concurrently with Tentative Tract
Map 27854 and Specific Plan 93 -023 once approved.
5. Approval of this plot plan shall be subject to final approval of Change of Zone. 91-066,
Specific Plan 93 -023, and Tentative Tract Map 27854.
6. There shall be no outdoor storage of boats, trailers, or RV's without specific approval
of the Planning Commission.
7. All exterior lighting shall be shielded and directed so as not to. shine directly on
surrounding adjoining properties or public rights -of -way. Light standard type with
recessed light source shall also be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director.
Exterior lighting shall comply with Outdoor Light Control Ordinance and off - street
parking requirements.
8. A decorative trash enclosure shall be built for the proposed clubhouse building. The.
structure shall be designed with pedestrian access that does not require opening the doors, .
and provided with opaque metal doors. Plans for trash enclosures to be reviewed and
CJ approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance'of a building permit. Applicant shall
�e- contact local waste management company to insure that enclosure design, size, and
location is adequate.
9.. Handicapped parking spaces and facilities shall be provided per Municipal and Federal
Code requirements (e.g. clubhouse building).
10. As required by the General Plan, Applicant shall provide noise study by a qualified
acoustical engineer prior to issuance of building permit, to determine impacts to the
future residents from roadway noise from Washington Street and the future commercial
projects to the south surrounding residential zones and uses. The noise study shall
suggest mitigation measures which the City can require concerning the development of
the site.
11. The project shall comply with applicable Arts in Public Places Ordinance prior to
building permit issuance.
12. Final landscaping plans shall include approval stamps and signatures from the Riverside
County Agricultural Commissioners office and Coachella Valley Water District.
13. Construction shall comply with all local and State Building Code requirements in affect
at time of issuance of building permit as determined by the Building Official.
CONAPRVL.097 2
Conditions of Approval
Plot Plan 93 -502, Jascorp
October 12, 1993
14. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written
report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with those
conditions of approval which must be satisfied prior to issuance of a building permit.
Prior to a final building 'inspection approval, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a
written report demonstrating compliance with all remaining conditions of approval and
mitigation measures. The Planning and Development Director may require inspection
or other monitoring to assure such compliance.
15. That all conditions of the Design Review Board shall be complied with as follows:
A. The landscape program for Washington Street includes a variation of planting
materials such as: palm trees, accent shade trees, lawn, shrubs, and
groundcover. Unlighted trees or palms should be considered along Washington
Street. Incandescent ' light fixtures will be required. (less than 160 watt). The
final landscaping plan should be reviewed by the Design Review Board during
plan check.
B. A meandering eight. foot wide sidewalk shall be installed on Washington Street
along the frontage of the site. The sidewalk shall meander into the right -of -way
but not touch the curb.
C. A common area parking lighting plan shall be reviewed by the Planning and
Development Department prior to building plan check. A photometric study
should be developed with analysis of the lighting pattern on the project and meets
the City's Outdoor Lighting Ordinance provisions as explained in Chapter 9.210.
the height of the light poles should not exceed 10 feet in height.
D. The screen wall along Washington Street shall be a minimum height of six feet
high as measured from adjoining grade height and the wall shall be constructed
to match the recently installed privacy screen wall on the east side of the street
which was installed by the City in 1992, except the green ceramic tile does not
need to . be installed. The wall should be stepped or terraced to create an
architectural element on Washington Street which is consistent with the City's
Image Corridor design guidelines.
E. Both passive and active outdoor equipment shall be examined and the on -site
recreational facilities shall be approved by the Design. Review Board during final '
plan review.
F. All dwelling units along Washington Street shall be a minimum of 30 feet from
the property line (landscape lot). The measurement shall be to the edge of any
CONAPRVL.097 3
Conditions of Approval
Plot Plan 93 -502, Jascorp
October 12, 1993
building exclusive of building patios or eave overhangs.
G. The comments of the Riverside County Sheriffs Department (June 24, 1993)
shall be incorporated into the final design of the project.
H. The final construction plans shall be reviewed by the Planning and Development
Department during Building Department review.
I. Landscaping for each duplex unit shall comply with the following:
*1. The front and side yards of each duplex unit should be landscaped to
property line, edge of curb, sidewalk, or edge of street pavement,
whichever is furthest from the residence. Rear yard landscaping shall be
provided for affordable housing units:
2. The front yard landscaping shall include trees (minimum three 15- gallon
trees per duplex and three extra trees on the exterior sides of the corner
units), shrubs, and groundcover and /or hardscape of sufficient size,
spacing, and variety to create an attractive and unifying appearance.
Landscaping shall be in substantial compliance with the standards set forth
in the Manual of Architectural Standards and the Manual on Landscaping
'Standards as adopted by the Planning Commission.
3. A permanent water-efficient- irrigation system shall be provided for all
areas required to be landscaped.
4. The landscaping shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and viable
condition by the property owner.
*5. The developer shall be responsible to install all common irrigation piping
and landscaping prior to any occupancy permits being released in the
project. Each dwelling unit shall have front yard , irrigation and
landscaping prior to occupancy by the future homeowner. Additionally,
the rear yard areas shall be irrigated and lawn shall be installed by the
developer for all very low and low income units. All landscaped areas
shall be irrigated by automatic systems.
J. The perimeter security fencing for the project (excluding Washington Street) shall
be masonry and painted to match the Washington Street wall (Item D). The fence
shall be six feet high. '
CONAPRVL.097 4
Yv
Conditions of Approval
Plot Plan 93 -502, Jascorp
October 12, 1993
*K. The ' combination one story/two story duplex design' shall be approved by the
Planning Commission on October 12, 1993, or the matter shall be returned to the
Design Review Board for final review.
L. The entry dri ve and gate shall be designed with adequate stacking room to ensure
that traffic from this development does not impede the flow of traffic into and out
of the development to the south. The entry gate design shall include a turn
around between the card reader and the gate. The final design shall require the
Fire Marshal, Engineering Department, and the Planning and Development
Department approval.
*M. The driveway on Washington Street shall be a minimum width of 54 -feet (i.e. two
lanes in and two lanes out) or as determined by the City Engineer.
CITY FIRE MARSHAL
16. The comments of the Riverside County Fire Department (September 20, 1993) shall be
incorporated into the final design of the project.
SPECIAL
17. The Environmental Fees of the State Fish and Game Department and the County of
Riverside shall be paid within 24 hours after review of the proposed by the Planning
Commission and /or City Council (i.e. $1,328.00).
18. All required improvements shall be completed prior to site occupancy of the proposed
development.
19. No roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be permitted unless screened from view by
a building parapet wall or other integral architectural feature per City ordinance.
20. All mitigation measures of Environmental Assessment 93 -267 shall be met.
21. The City.'s Water Conservation Ordinance (Ordinance 220) shall be met.
-22. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's
adopted Infrastructure Fee Program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits.
*23. The on- street parking program shall be submitted to the Planning and .Development
Department prior or during the Building and Safety Department plan check process.
CONAPRVL.097 5
s
,:5� — S ldo&
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78 -495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California
September 28, 1993 7:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairwoman Barrows who led
the flag salute.
H. ROLL CALL
A. Chairwoman Barrows requested the roll call. Present: Commissioners Adolph,
Ellson, Marrs, Abels, and Chairwoman Barrows.
C. Staff Present: Planning Director Jerry Herman, Principal Planner Stan Sawa,
Associate Planner Greg Trousdell, Assistant City . Engineer Steve. Speer, and
Department Secretary Betty Sawyer.
Commissioner Ellson moved to add the discussion of R -1 zoning and the completion of
incomplete tracts to the agenda. Commissioner Adolph seconded the motion and it was
unanimously approved.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
B. Continued - Change of Zone 91 -066, Specific Plan 92 -023, Tentative Tract
27854, and Plot Plan 93 -022; a request of JASCORP for approval of a change of
zone designation for from R -1, R -2 *8,000, and C -P to R -2; a specific plan to
develop design and architectural standards for a 124 unit planned unit
development project; a tentative tract map to subdivide 12± acres into 124 single
family lots; and a plot plan to develop a low and moderate income zero lot line
single family home project.
1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in
the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and
Development Department.
PCM9 -28 1
0
Planning Commission Minutes
September 28, 1993
2. Commissioner Marrs questioned the parking requirements as he was
concerned with the width of the streets being able to accommodate street
parking. Commissioners discussed with staff the problem of parking.
3. Chairwoman Barrows asked staff where the sidewalk space would come
from. Staff stated the sidewalk would encroach into the front setback or
they would have to reduce the rear yard setback.
4. Commissioner Ellson stated her desire for an internal sidewalk system.
She felt that when the rear property line block walls were built, the open
corridor area would become a safety hazard. She would like to see these
units back to back and an internal circulation pattern created along the
streets. In addition, she asked how the tenants of the project would exit
the project if walking.
5. Commissioner Marrs, asked if the houses on the west side boundary would
be restricted to one story. Staff stated they would have to comply with
the R -2 regulations which would allow two story units up to 28 -feet. The
developer proposes one and two units in this area.
6. There being no further questions of staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened
the public hearing. Mr. Joe Swain,. applicant addressed the Commission
regarding the project. Mr. Swain stated they reduced the garage size as
they felt a two car garage was not needed for this type of project. -He
further stated that in reference to the "sidewalk alley" between the rear
property line walls, they had originally envisioned this backyard area as
having a 30" high wrought iron fence, but felt that Commissioner Ellson's
idea would be better and it would help them gain extra space.
7. Commissioner Ellson inquired whether the trash would be picked up at
one location or at the individual homes. Mr. Swain stated they would be
picked up at the individual homes.
8. Commissioner Ellson questioned the problem of stacking at the entrance
for the non - resident drivers. She felt there should be a minimum of two
cars stacking. Mr. Swain stated there were two lanes as well as a turn
around area for those not entering. Commissioner Ellson questioned
where school bus pick -up was provided. Mr. Swain stated there was a
need for a deceleration lane at the bottom of the bridge on Washington to
accommodate this.
PCM9 -28 2
s
9 ,
Planning Commission Minutes
September.28, 1993
10. Commissioner Ellson asked how the tenants would exit the project if
walking to the shopping center. Mr. Swain stated there would be a
pedestrian gate provided at the entry on Washington Street.
11. Commissioner Ellson asked if restrooms were provided for the gardeners.
Mr. Swain .stated they would be provided as part . of the recreation
building. Commissioner Ellson asked about the drainage area at the end
of the westerly north /south street. Mr. Swain stated it would drain into
an off -site open space/retention area.
12. Commissioner Adolph asked if a pool and spa would be installed. Mr.
Swain stated the pool and spa would be built and in addition the use of the
recreation room was optional, it could be used as a child care facility.
Commissioner Adolph asked if the houses would look as they are drawn
on the detailed elevations. Mr. Swain stated he would have his architect
address this question.
13. Commissioner Adolph stated the front yards would be landscaped and
irrigated but questioned the rear and side yards. He felt that as these were
low income homes, that the owners would not be able to afford to install
lawns and irrigation systems immediately and perhaps the builder could
do this.. Mr. Swain stated he had no objection as long as it was for the
low income homes only (40 units).
14. Commissioner Marrs asked if the applicant was aware of the impact to the
northerly lot when the bridge on Washington Street is widened. Mr.
Swain stated he was not aware of the bridge widening, but the lot would
be elevated three feet and the house another six inches and it would have
retaining walls. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer explained the height
of the retaining wall and the wall in addition to the retaining wall. He
further stated this was not in the current City's Five Year Capital
Improvement Plan but hopefully. it would be widened within ten. years.
Commissioner Marrs expressed his concern that these property owners
receive a disclosure regarding the bridge during any future sales program.
Mr. Swain agreed.
15. Mr. Steve McCutchan, Hunsaker & Associates, engineers for the project,
discussed the retaining wall and perimeter wall with the Commission and
staff. Mr. Speer stated the walls will be in place upon completion of the
project even though the bridge would not be widened at this time.
PCM9 -28 3
•
Planning Commission Minutes
September 28, 1993
16. Commissioner Ellson asked Mr. McCutchan if he could address the
stacking at the entrance to the project. Mr. McCutchan stated there would
be enough room for two car stacking as there were two lanes going into
the project and one exiting. Discussion followed as to the number of
lanes and the location of the entrance phone. Mr. Speer interjected that
the width of the shared driveway to Washington Street would have to be
a total of 54-feet. Commissioner Adolph asked if the shopping center
would have its own entrance further south. Mr. Speer stated it would and
this would alleviate some of the pressure on this entrance.
17.. Mr. Joe DeCoster, building designer for the project addressed
Commissioner Adolph's question regarding the working drawings looking
exactly as the detailed elevation drawings. He further stated that
restrooms were designed for the gardeners as a separate facility attached
to the recreation building.
18. Commissioner Adolph questioned who would be controlling the CC & R's
once the project was built. Mr. Swain stated a board would be set up
consisting of developers representatives as well as homeowners.
19. Commissioner Ellson asked if pets would be allowed. Mr. Swain stated
they would be allowed. She also asked if there would be a resident
manager during business hours. Mr. Swain stated they would probably
hire a homeowners association management company to enforce the CC
& R's, but did not feel the project warranted an on -site staff person.
20. Mr. Mike Horton, Horton Shepardson & Associates, landscape architects
.for the project, described the proposed landscaping. Commissioner
Adolph asked if the trees would be deciduous or evergreen and what size
was proposed to be planted. Mr. Horton stated they were intending to use
evergreen trees and they would be a minimum of 15 gallon and in some
instances 24" box where the budget would permit.
21. Commissioner Ellson asked that the developer consider a pedestrian
sidewalk be installed to provide on one side of the street around the entire
project. Mr. Swain had no problem with the idea.
22. Chairwoman Barrows asked that Mr. Swain keep the play area the same
size even if he did need to relocate or reconfigure.
PCM9 -28 4
Planning Commission Minutes -,
September 28, 1993._
23. Commissioner Abels stated his concern that one pool would not be
sufficient for this size of project. Mr. Swain stated that due to the type
of project and cost, the. pool would be built to the size that would
adequately accommodate the project.
24. Mr. John Koenig, Koenig Companies, addressed the Commission in favor
of the project.
25. Mr. Bruce Cathcart, Sr., resident to the east, stated his concern about the
project as well as his concern that the bridge would not be widened for ten
years. With so many people plus the shopping center this would cause
additional traffic problems. Mr. Cathcart felt the project did not belong
in this location. `
26. Mr. Dane Hooper, Tujunga, expressed his concern about the project. He
did not feel there was enough parking and this was a classic design for a
walled .ghetto. He asked that the Commission deny the project.
27. Mr. Dennis Moran, representing the landowner of the project (AMCOR),
expressed his objection to the project being classified as to the type of
people that would buy in the project. He felt it was a quality project and
one that was needed in La Quinta and they intended to built ' a quality
project.
28. Mr. Don Session, Quito homeowner, stated his objection to the project as
it was too dense.
29. There being no further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the
public hearing.
30. Commissioner Abels stated he felt the project was well thought out and .
designed very well but, the density was to much and it should be located
in a different location.
31. Commissioner Ellson asked staff what the density would be without the
change of zone. Staff stated it would be 50± units for the nine acres
zoned for residential units. Staff went on to explain the bonus density
program and parking. Discussion followed between staff and the
Commission regarding the parking and density.
PCM9 -28 5
•
Planning Commission Minutes
September 28, 1993
PCM9 -28
32. Commissioner Adolph asked if this area was zoned for low income
housing. Staff stated that according to the General Plan and Housing
Element affordable housing is required and was allowed in the Village
area since it was designed to handle multi - family units (e.g., Medium
Density Residential 4 -8 du's /ac).
33. Commissioner Abels asked staff when the last traffic study was done.
Staff stated they were done during the General Plan Update (1992)'and the
figures were based on the projected growth of the City for ±20 years.
Discussion followed regarding growth caused improvements.
34. Commissioner Ellson stated her concurrence with the location because of
its was close proximity to so many amenities. She still was concerned
with the density and parking and would like to see more open space.
35. Chairwoman Barrows stated she agreed with Commissioner Ellson and
reminded everyone that a project of this nature had been planned for this
area for a number of years. She felt that by placing the project in this
location it might help to mitigate some of the traffic problems on
Washington by having the project so close to the shopping and City
services. She too was concerned with the parking problem.
36. Commissioner Marrs stated he felt the project was well laid out but it was
too dense. He was in favor of denying the 10% bonus but allowing the
25 % bonus and reducing the density to ± 116 units. This would give the
project more room for off -street parking. Discussion followed regarding
the 10% (architectural bonus) and 25% density bonus.
37. Following the discussion staff explained the Commission's options: 1)
deny the project; 2) approve the project but deny both the 10% and 25%
bonus and continue the project to allow staff to determine findings to
allow the denial of the bonuses; or 3) approve the project by denying the
10% bonus and request that the applicant resubmit a new plot plan.
38. Commissioner Abels moved to continue the project to allow staff time to
determine findings for denial of the 10% and 25% bonus. The motion
died for a lack of a second.
39. Following discussion, Commissioner Marrs moved to continue the project
with approval of the 25 % bonus only and require the applicant to resubmit
a new site plan redesign with 116 units. Commissioner Ellson seconded
the motion and it carried on a 4 -1 vote (Commissioner Abels voting no).
Planning Commission Minutes
September 28, 1993
IV. PUBLIC COMMENT: None-:
V. BUSINESS SESSION:
A. Commissioner Ellson asked that the Planning Commission be given some input
into the discussion regarding R -1 zoning changes. She stated the current R -1
zoning requirements for Rancho Mirage and Indio and asked that this item be
placed on the nexvPlanning Commission agenda.
VI. CONSENT 'CALENDAR
A. There being no corrections to the Minutes of September 14, 1993, Commissioners
Abels / Ellson. moved and seconded a motion to approve the Minutes as submitted.
Unanimously approved.
VII. OTHER - None
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made and seconded by Commissioners Abels /Marrs to adjourn this regular
meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on
October 12, 1993, at 7:00 P.M. at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chambers. This meeting
of the La Quinta Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:29 P.M., September 28., 1993.
PCM9 -28 7
CITY OF LA QUINTA
MEMARAND UM
TO: HONORABLE CHAIRWOMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: SEPTEMBER 28, 1993
SUBJECT: MODIFICATIONS TO THE DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FOR THE LA QUINTA VILLAGE PROJECT
PLOT PLAN
1. Add Condition 15.1I.51: The developer shall be responsible to install all common
irrigation piping and landscaping prior to any occupancy permits being released in the -
project. Each dwelling unit shall have'front yard irrigation and landscaping prior to
occupancy by the future homeowner. Additionally, the rear yard areas shall be irrigated
and lawn shall be installed by the developer. All landscaped areas shall be irrigated by
automatic systems.
2. Add Condition #23: The on- street parking program shall be submitted to the Planning
and- Development Department prior or during the Building and Safety Department plan
check process.
SPECIFIC PLAN
3. Amend Condition ' #24: The clubhouse swimming pool and spa shall be handicap
accessible and meet all the requirements of the Building and Safety Department and the
State of California. All recreation facilities defined on the site plan and in the specific
plan document shall be built and constructed prior to any release of occupancy within
the subdivision. The swimming pool and spa shall be enclosed by a minimum five foot
high wrought iron fence.
4. Amend Condition #17 (second paragraph): Standards shall be' reviewed and approved
by the Planning and Development Department and Planning Commission as part of its
review of the CC & R's, but be no less restrictive than the R -2 Zone standards, as
appropriate.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
5. Amend Condition #36 (on -site streets): Private residential 32 -feet wide; four feet wide
sidewalk shall be required along Lots "A ", "B ", "D ", "E" in order to link the recreation
area with the abutting single family lots. The sidewalk shall only be required on one -side
of the private street(s).
C�
C�
CITY OF LA Q UINTA
MEMORANDUM
TO: HONORABLE CHAIRWOMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: SEPTEMBER 28, 1993
SUBJECT: MODIFICATIONS TO THE DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FOR THE LA QUINTA VILLAGE PROJECT
PLOT PLAN
o
1. Add Condition 15.(1.5.): The developer shall be responsible to install all common V'
irrigation piping and landscaping prior to any occupancy permits being released in the J
project. Each dwelling unit shall have front yard irrigation and landscaping prior to
occupancy by the future homeowner. Additionally, the rear yard areas shall be irrigat�
and lawn shall be installed by the developer. -All landscaped areas shall be irrigated by
automatic systems.
2. Add Condition #23: The on- street parking program shall be submitted to the Planning
and Development Department prior or during the Building and Safety Department plan
check process.
SPECIFIC PLAN
3. Amend Condition #24:. The clubhouse swimming pool and spa shall be handicap
accessible and meet all the requirements of the Building and Safety Department and the
State of California. All recreation facilities defined on the site plan and in the specific
plan document shall be built and constructed prior to any release of occupancy within
the subdivision. ?he swimming pool and spa shall be enclosed. by a minimum five foot
high wrought iron fence.
4. Amend Condition #17 (second paragraph): Standards shall be reviewed and approved
by the Planning and Development Department and Planning Commission as part of its
review of the CC & R's, but be no less restrictive than the R -2 Zone standards, as
appropriate.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
5. Amend Condition #36 (on -site streets): Private residential 32 -feet wide; four feet wide
sidewalk,shall be required along Lots "A ", "B, "D ", "E" in order to link the recreation
area with the abutting single family lots. The sidewalk shall only be required on one -side
of the private street(s).
•
elle ly d/ ya 1 2 a ti �L llL
PLAT UNG COIMXSSXON
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall Council Chambers
78 -495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California
September 28, 1993
7:00 P.M.
* *NOTE **
ALL AGENDA ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. MAY BE CONTINUED
TO THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING
Beginning Resolution, 93 -035
Beginning Minute Motion 93-046
CALL TO ORDER - Flag Salute
ROLL CALL
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Item ............... CHANGE OF ZONE 91 -066, SPECIFIC PLAN 93 -023;
TENTATIVE TRACT 27854, AND PLOT PLAN 93 -022
Applicant .......... JASCORP
Location ........... ±700 feet north of Calle Tampico on the west side. of
Washington Street.
Request ............ Approval of a change of zone designation for from R -1, R-
248,000, and C -P to R -2; a specific plan to develop design
and architectural standards for a 124 unit planned unit
development roject; a tentative tract map to subdivide 12±
acres into 124 single family lots; and a plot plan to develop
a low and moderate income zero lot line single family home
project..
Action ............. Resolution 93- Resolution 93- Resolution 93-
, and Minutewfotion 93-
PC /AGENDA
1
PUBLIC COMMENT
This is the time set aside for citizens to address the Planning Commission on matters
relating to City planning and zoning which are not Agenda items. When addressing the
Planning Commission, please state your name and address.
BUSINESS SESSION - None
CONSENT CALENDAR
Approval of the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of September 14, 1993.
OTHER
ADJOURNMENT
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
1. All Agenda items.
STUDY SESSION
MONDAY, September 27, 1993
4:00 P.M.
PC /AGENDA 2
t•
. MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78 -495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California
September 14, 1993 7:00 P.M.
L. CALL TO ORDER ,
A. The meeting was called to order at 7:04 P.M. by Chairwoman Barrows.
Commissioner Ellson led the flag salute.
H. ROLL CALL
A. Chairwoman Barrows requested the roll call. Present: Commissioners Ellson,
Marrs, Abels, and Chairwoman Barrows.
B. Commissioners Abels /Marrs moved and seconded a motion to excuse
Commissioner Adolph. Unanimously approved.
C. Staff Present: . Planning Director Jerry Herman, Principal Planner Stan Sawa,
Associate Planners Greg Trousdell and Leslie Mouriquand- Cherry, and
Department Secretary Betty Sawyer.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
B. Continued Tentative Tract 27840; a request of TO Desert Development (Chuck
Strother) for. approval of a tentative tract map to create 127 single family
residential lots and miscellaneous lots on 55 + acres.
1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the
Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development
Department.
2. Commissioner Marrs asked staff to clarify the changes to the Conditions
of Approval staff was requesting.
3. There being no further comment, Chairwoman Barrows opened the public
hearing. Chuck Strother, applicant, addressed the Commission regarding
his project and asked for clarification on Condition #37, last paragraph,
PC9 -14 1
•
Planning Commission Minutes
September 14, 1993
regarding off -site street improvements which were recommended by the
Engineering Department. Mr. Strother then question Condition #20 and
went on to explain to the Commission why the condition was being
required and gave his reasoning as to his alternative to Condition #20.
4. Chairwoman Barrows asked staff to clarify the alternatives offered for
Condition #20. Staff explained that Condition #20 was recommended for
amendment by the Engineering Department. The condition deals with
acquisition and dedication of street right -of -ways. Presently at the
southwest corner of the site adjacent to Washington Street, there is a
triangular shape piece of land which is privately owned and needed to
widen Washington Street. This property is in front of the subject property
but under a separate ownership not associated with the project. Staff
explained that the Engineering and Planning and Development staff met
with Mr. Strother prior to the Planning Commission meeting to discuss
acquisition of this triangular shape piece of land. Based upon a review of
the Development Agreement, it was staff .s position the applicant should
acquire the land and deed or dedicate the right -of -way to the City for
street improvements. The applicant did not agree with staff's
interpretation of the Development Agreement and wanted the City to
acquire this piece of land and then he would construct the required street
improvements. A third option of sharing the costs was being presented
to the Planning Commission for their recommendation.
5. Following discussion with staff and there being no further questions,
Chairwoman Barrows closed the public hearing.
6. Commissioner Ellson asked if the agricultural requirement _was the
standard requirement. Staff stated it was.
7. Commissioner Marrs asked if staff had any comment on Condition #37.
Staff stated the condition requires was intended to provide for incidental
improvements to make a safe and finished road transition. Commissioners
asked staff to modify this condition to reflect this transition.
8. The Engineering Department and Planning and Development Department
did recommend further conditions be added and /or amended. Condition
#38.A.2. was amended clarifying the extent of the half- street
improvements along Washington Street. The condition noted that the
improvements must be between Avenue 48 on the north and the southern
boundary adjacent to Park La Quinta, including the triangular shaped
piece of land which is under the ownership of a separate individual.
PC9 -14 2
Planning Commission Minutes
September 14, 1993
Condition #38.A.3. was modified regarding. signal costs. Since the
specific plan specified the extent of the costs it- was deleted from this
condition as part of the tentative tract map. Condition #38.A.4. was
amended to include Adams Street improvement requirements. Condition
#38.B.1 -3. were added to stipulate on -site street widths. The on -site street
widths were not previously noted in the draft conditions. Condition #67
was added to require a stripped golf cart lane along the main collector
road as required by the specific plan. Condition #68 was added to require
a pedestrian and bicycle path system within the project. This condition
was also required as a result of the specific plan requirements. The
conditions and requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District were
added as Condition #69. The Coachella Valley Water District conditions
were for the most part, relatively standard. A flooding easement for the
portion of the golf course, which will act as an evacuation channel, will
be required. Additionally, the applicant will need to provide other
facilities for the expansion of the domestic water system, such as wells,
reservoirs, and booster pumping stations. Lastly, the landscaping and
irrigation plans will need to be submitted to the District for review to
insure efficient water management. The applicant stated 'he had no
objection with these revisions.
9. Commissioners discussed with staff the alternatives to Condition #20.,
Following this discussion, the Commission recommended the third option
which would require the City and applicant to share in the acquisition of
the land. Under this option, the applicant will be responsible to front all.
costs for acquiring the land. One third of the cost of the acquisition of the
property shall be the applicant's responsibility (one third is needed for the
street improvements). The City will grant a credit to the applicant in the
amount of two thirds of the cost of acquisition. The credit will be made
against the applicant's other obligations (i.e., fees, etc.) with respect to
this development. The means of granting this credit is to be determined
at a later date. There shall be 'no out -of- pocket expense to the City in
acquiring the needed right -of -way or future credits.
10. Following discussion, it was moved /seconded by Commissioners
Mans / Abels to adopt Resolution 93 -032 recommending approval of
Tentative Tract 27840 subject to the modified conditions as stated above.
ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Ellson,
Marrs, Abels & Chairwoman
Barrows. NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Adolph.
ABSTAINING: None.
PC9 -14
•
•
Planning Commission Minutes
September 14, 1993
B. Continuing Change of Zone 91 -066 and Plot Plan 93 -502; a request of Jascorp
for a Change of Zone from R -1, R -2 *8,000 and C -P to R -2 for approximately 12
acres, and a Plot Plan to develop a 124 unit one and two story low and moderate
income apartment complex.
1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell stated the applicant had requested a
continuance of the project to September 28, 1993. The public hearing was
opened by Chairwoman Barrows. There being no discussion, it was
moved and seconded by Commissioners Marrs /Ellson to continue Change
of Zone 91 -066 and Plot Plan 93 -502 to September 28, 1993.
Unanimously approved.
C. Vesting Tentative Tract 27031 (Minor Change, Amendment #1); a request of Mr.
E. George Marzicola on behalf of the Washington Square property owners for a
one year time extension.
1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in
the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and
Development Department.
2. Commissioner Ellson asked staff to clarify the Avenue 47 access.
3. There being no further questions of staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened
the public hearing. Mr. George Marzicola addressed the Commission
regarding the request.
4. There being no further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the
public hearing.
5. Commissioners Ellson /Abels moved and seconded a motion to adopt
Resolution 93 -033 recommending approval of Tentative Tract 27031
(Minor Change, Amendment #1) first extension of time, subject to
conditions.
ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Ellson,
Marrs, Abels & Chairwoman
Barrows. NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Adolph.
ABSTAINING: None.
D. Public Use Permit 93 -016; a request of Bernardo Gouthier for approval of a
sculpture park with- an art school, garden gallery, and administrative offices.
PC9 -14 4
I
Planning Commission Minutes
September 14, 1993
1. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand -Cherry presented the information
contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning
and Development Department.
2. Commissioner Marrs asked staff to clarify the width of the exit and the
purpose of the shuttle system. Staff stated they were requiring the exit to
be 15 -feet and the shuttle system was to transport the students to the
school and keep the parking lot close to the street.
3. Commissioner Ellson asked if there was any problem with the waste
disposal company getting access. Staff stated Waste Management of the
Desert had no problem.
4. Commissioner Ellson asked if the entire caretakers facility would be
constructed in the first phase. Staff referred the matter to the applicant.
5. There being no further questions of staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened
the public hearing. Mr. Bernardo Gouthier, in answer to Commissioner
Ellson question, stated the first phase would consist of only the
highlighted area. Commissioner Ellson then pointed out that the restroom
facilities for the caretaker were not included in that portion. Mr. Gouthier
amended his stated and included the complete building in the first phase.
6. Mr. Gouthier asked for clarification on Condition #32: Staff. stated Mr.
Gouthier's street improvements existed and he would have no off -street
requirements except for landscaping. Following discussion, it was
recommended that Condition #32 be deleted.
7. There being no further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the
public hearing. Commissioners Ellson /Abels moved and seconded a
motion to adopt Minute Motion 93 -042 recommending approval of Public
Use Permit 93 -016, subject to the deletion of Condition #32, the
increasing of Phase I to include. the entire classroom, storage, and
caretakers facility, and Condition #35.A.1 being changed to 15 -feet.
Unanimously approved.
IV. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
V. BUSINESS SESSION:
PC9 -14
A. Continued Tentative Tract 23913 (Quinterra ) -Phase II; a request of Forecast
Homes for approval of architectural plans for single family residences.
5
•
•
N
Planning Commission Minutes
September 14, 1993
1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in
the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and
Development Department.
2. There being no questions of staff, Chairwoman Barrows asked that only
those who had something new to add to the previous comments address
the Commission at this time.
3. Mr. Ed Kibbey, representing Building Industry Association stated that the
building industry depends upon builders being able to process their
projects through the City process according to their established
regulations. This was also true for the property owners as well. He felt
the City should base their decision on what the Code called for.
4. Mr. Russell Robertson, representing Quinterra, submitted additional
petitions to the Commission and stated he felt that any units approved for
development should be compatible with the existing homes. He submitted
a picture comparison of ' the existing homes and those built by Forecast
Homes in Moreno Valley.
5. Mr. Michael Damson, Cactus Flower, stated his opposition to the project
based on incompatibility.
6. Mr. Dwight Robb, La Quinta Vistas, stated his objection and fear that
what was happening to Quinterra would happen in his project. He felt
there must be an alternative to the smaller units being mixed with the
larger.
7. Mr. David Alpert, Acacia, stated his opposition to the project. He has
invested his life savings in his home and he had purchased a certain life
style by buying in the Acacia development. He further stated he was
losing equity due to the economy, why should the developer profit from
Ns misfortune.
8. Mr. Doug Phillips, attorney for Quinterra (Best, Best & Krieger),
reviewed the letter submitted by the property owner (Pri Merit Bank) on
behalf of Forecast Homes. He stated that even though the banks can't
afford to build a larger unit, the property owners can't afford to lose any
more equity in their homes. He went on to reiterate that the City Zoning
regulations stated that if a project was not in harmony or compatible with
the existing homes, then the Planning Commission was required to deny
the project.
PC9 -14 6
N
Planning Commission Minutes
September 14, 1993 "
PC9 -14
9. Mr. Lance Eldred, Topaz, stated his desire to see the City adopt a
protective ordinance on how to deal with this issue which will be repeated
in every unfinished tract. He did not feel there was a solution to the
problem and Forecast Homes should conform to the Zoning Ordinance.
The units did not fit.
10. Mr. Bruce Strickland, applicant, gave the Commission some comparison
figures relative to the surrounding tract house sizes. He stated he was not
changing the density of the area, and the units were compatible. He went
on to discuss the issues raised regarding the photograph display submitted
by Mr. Robertson. He further stated that no where in the Zoning
Ordinance does it state that a unit is incompatible due to size. He stated
that the City doesn't guarantee an investment to the property owners.
There were fundamental rights on both sides of this issue and the
Commission needed to address those issues.
11. There being no further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows asked the
Commission for their comments. Commissioner Abels stated the City was
in the process of refining its Zoning Ordinance and he felt it necessary to
deny the project at this time. He felt the issue needed to be resolved with
new City regulations. He stated the City was very much for growth, he
would like to see the tracts as they were originally planned.
12. Commissioner Ellson stated her agreement with keeping the tracts as they
are.. She empathized with the homeowners as they are the City. She went
on to share what she felt was an average house size for the area.
Following, discussion with the Commissioners it was felt that no more than
a 30% differential in house sizes should be allowed within an existing
tract.
13. Commissioner Marrs expressed his concern that a solution could not be
reached. He felt a builder should be able to build on his property. He
felt there was no reason why a decision on 'a minimum house size could
not be reached to bring the project in -conformance with the existing
homes. Commissioners Ellson and Abels stated their agreement.
14. Chairwoman Barrows stated her agreement with the 30% differential on
the size of the homes to be built. She stated her empathy for both sides
and felt there needed to be a reasonable compromise on both sides.
7
• •
Planning Commission Minutes
September 14, 1993
15. Commissioner Ellson stated the Zoning Ordinance did not address the size
of a home to be built within an existing tract. She felt the architectural
review within the existing tracts needed to address the existing homes
(i.e., CC & R's document).
16. Following an agreement between the Commissioners that the project
should be approved, Commissioners discussed with staff the Conditions
of Approval. Conditions were amended as follows:
a. Condition #13: block wall would be required for all fencing of
perimeter and interior walls.
b. . Condition #15: Metal roll -up doors would be required for all
garages.
C. Condition #7: Plans for the 1,868 square foot unit or larger would
be required next to or adjacent to any existing units.
d. Condition 14: 18" overhangs would be required.
e. Condition 9: Gray roof tile would be deleted from the color
board.
f. Condition #16: The minimum house size would be 1,650 square
feet.
g. Condition 17: All additional house plans not already approved by
the Planning Commission would be resubmitted for Planning
Commission approval.
h. Condition #12: the use of River Rock and the new "red" brick
would not be allowed.
17. Following the discussion regarding the conditions, Commissioners
Abels /Marrs moved to adopt Minute Motion 93 -043 approving Tentative
Tract 23913, Phase II subject to the amended conditions as stated above.
Unanimously approved.
18. Planning Director Jerry Herman discussed with the Commission their
findings to base their approval on. They are as follows:
PC9 -14 8
r
Planning Commission Minutes
September 14, 1993
a. The Conditions of Approval for Tract 23913 grant the authority to
the Planning Commission for review and approval of the
architectural residential units proposed for construction within the
development. .
b. The Planning Commission has reviewed and approved the
architectural residential style and size of . the homes to be
constructed within the tract on December 11, 1990.
C. The development contains 116 lots of which 18 homes have been
constructed per the approved architectural residential style.
e. The proposed smaller residential units are not in harmony,
conformance, or compatible in size or architectural style with the
existing developed units or the units approved by the Planning
Commission.
f. The Planning Commission further finds that the minimum house
size shall be 1,650 square feet which is in harmony, conformance,
and is compatible with the existing development.
19. Commissioners Abels /Ellson moved to adopt Minute Motion 93 -044
approving the findings as stated above. Unanimously approved.
20. The Commissioners asked staff to relay to the Council their request to
review the Zoning Ordinance as it relates to minimum house sizes to
include a stipulation that would protect homeowners within an existing
tract.
Chairwoman Barrows excused the Commission for a ten minute break. The Commission broke
at 9:25 P.M. and reconvened at 9:35 P.M.
B. Street Name Change 93 -003; a request of La Quinta Golf Properties for approval
of a Resolution Intent to set a public hearing to consider a street name change
from Schwabacker Road to Quarry Lane.
1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the
Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development
Department.
PC9 -14 9
0
Planning Commission Minutes
September 14, 1993
2. There being no questions of staff, Commissioners Abels /Ellson moved to
adopt Resolution 93 -034. approving the Resolution of Intent to set October.
26, 1993, as the date for a public hearing on Street Name Change 93 -003.
Unanimously approved.
C. General Plan Consistency Finding; a request of Coachella Valley Water District
for approval of General Plan consistency findings for water and sanitation projects .
throughout the City.
1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information, contained in the
Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development
Department.
2. There being no questions of staff, Commissioners Ellson / Abels moved to
adopt Minute Motion 93 -045 approving the proposed Coachella Valley
Water District projects as being in compliance with the La Quints General
Plan. Unanimously approved.
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Commissioners Ellson asked that the minutes be amended on Page 6, Item #26,
the word "objection" should be changed to "opinion "; Page 3, Item #8, should
be "La Quinta Del Oro" not "La Quinta Del Rey ". There being no further
corrections Commissioners Abels /Ellson moved and seconded a motion to
approve the Minutes of August 24, 1993 as corrected. Unanimously approved.
VII. OTHER - None
VIII. ADJOURNMENT.
A motion was made and seconded by Commissioners Abels /Marrs to adjourn this regular
meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on
September 28, 1993, at 7:00 P.M. at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chambers. This meeting
of the La Quinta Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:36 P.M., September 14, 1993.
PC9 -14 10
t
•
LA QUINTA VILLAGE
SPECIFIC PLAN
PREPARED FOR:
CITY OF LA QUINTA
78 -495 CALLE TAMPICO
LA QUINTA, CA 92253
ATTN: GREG TROUSDELL
ASSOCIATE PLANNER
SUBMITTED BY:
JASCORP
79 -811 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE
SUITE A
BERMUDA DUNES, CA 92201
ATTN: JOE SWAIN
PREPARED BY:
DRAFT
t: ctober 6, 1993
APPROVED
LA QUINT NNING COMMI�SSION �
RY
H UNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
78 -150 CALLE TAMPICO
SUITE 210
LA QUINTA, CA 92253
ATTN: STEVE McCUTCHAN, AICP
(619),771-0011
EXHIBIT _
_CASE N
October 6, 1993
APPROVED By CITY COUNCIL
ON 1 .2 '1-` 1 -
OCT 0 7 7:1993
PLAMI G DEPARINIEN'T
• DRAFT
October 6, 1993
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ............. ..............:...............1
1.1
LOCATION ........................ ..................1
1.2
PURPOSE .............. ..............................1
1.3
AUTHORITY AND SCOPE .. ...............................
2
1.4
APPLICABILITY TO OTHER CODES AND REGULATIONS .............
2
2 LAND
USE PLAN ..... ...... ..............................2
2.1
RESIDENTIAL UNIT TYPES .. ...............................
2
2.2
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM ..........................
3
2.3
SITE PLAN .............. ..............................4
2.3.1 RESIDENTIAL LOTTING AND SITING .....................
4
2.3.1.1 LOT AREA AND DIMENSIONS .................
4
2.3.1.2 YARDS AND SETBACKS .....................
4
2.3.2 PRIVATE STREETS .. ...............................
5
2.3.3 PARKING .......... ..............................5
2.3.4 RECREATION AREA . ...............................
6
2.3.5 LANDSCAPING AND INTERIOR FENCING ..................
6
LA QUINTA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN
i
DRAFT"
October 6, 1993
1 INTRODUCTION
The La Quinta Village Specific Plan has been prepared to guide the development of a -116
single family attached residential planned unit development located in the City of La Quinta.
The purpose of the Specific Plan is to provide unique standards for the project that are
required to permit development consistent with City policy, but not necessarily all City
statutes and ordinances. The City recognizes that deviations from standard codes and
requirements are appropriate, in as much as the deviations are consistent with overall City
goals and objectives.
1.1 LOCATION
The project site comprises 12 acres located west of Washington Avenue and 500 feet
north of Calle Tampico in the City of La Quinta. The location.of the project site and
it's boundary are illustrated in Figures 1 and 2, the Regional and Local Vicinity Maps.
1.2 PURPOSE
The purpose of the La Quinta Village
Specific Plan is to permit the
development of a 116 single family
attached residential planned unit
development. The specific plan is
required to permit the project to deviate
from requirements of the City of La
Quinta Zoning and Subdivisions
Ordinances. The deviation from certain
requirements as outlined herein is
necessary because it permits the
following:
0
INDM wEU.a
W I LADUINTA 00AC ELIA
KM
Figure 1: Regional Vicinity
• The development of single family attached units on individual lots less than the
standard minimum lot area requirements.
• The development of affordable housing intermingled with market -rate housing.
• The development of a more attractive neighborhood through the use of
alternative design standards for streets that place more area within private yard
areas.
LA QUINTA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN
1
DRAFT
October 6, 1993
1.3 AUTHORITY AND SCOPE
The authority and scope to permit the implementation of the La Quinta Village Specific
Plan is based upon the provisions of the California Government Code and La Quinta
City Ordinances.
The approval of the La Quinta Specific Plan is authorized by the California Government
Code, Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 8 Sections 65450 through 65457.
1.4 APPLICABILITY TO OTHER CITY CODES AND REGULATIONS
The La Quinta Village Specific Plan is intended as a guide for the development of La
Quinta Village. Therefore, the standards and design criteria included herein take
precedence over existing or future City of La Quinta codes and regulations. Those
areas not specifically described in the following are subject to existing or future La
Quinta codes and regulations.
2 LAND USE PLAN
La Quinta Village proposes the development of 116 single family attached residential units
on 12 acres near the intersection of Washington Street and Calle Tampico. The La Quinta
Village Land Use Plan, as illustrated in Figure 3.
2.1 RESIDENTIAL UNIT TYPES
• Development of 116 single family attached residential units including one and
two story product types.
• Three floor plans in the following configurations:
FLOOR PLAN STORIES HOUSE S.F. GARAGE S.F. TOTAL S.F.
1 1 1109 257 1366
2 2 1141 261 1402
3 2 1232 279 1511
• Figures 4, 5 and 6 illustrate the floor plans proposed.
• Three basic building configurations that contain two attached units of the same
floor plan, excepting one building where two floor plans (1 and 3) are mixed.
• , Figures 7 and 8 illustrate the elevations proposed for the three building types.
LA QUINTA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN
F
DRAFT
October 6, 1993
• One of the principal objectives of the Land Use Plan is to incorporate as much
of the site area in private open space as possible.'. The Land Use Plan illustrates
that most of the site has been subdivided to permit the ownership of private
open spaces instead of the common ownership of passive open spaces. A
single, common recreational area has been included.
The benefits of private open space are:
• Greater use of private open space areas by the residents than would
normally be anticipated for common passive open space areas.
• Reduced costs of common open space area maintenance thus reducing
the costs of home ownership and providing more affordable units.
• Home buyers are more interested in purchasing single family attached
units on residential lots than air -space condominium units, particularly
when the units are more affordable than comparable condominium -type
units.
2.2 AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM
La Quinta Village proposes to incorporate affordable housing into the mix of residential
units. Of the 116 units proposed by the project, the following number and distribution
of units are affordable:
• 20 units are being set aside for very low income families (families earning less
than 50% of the Riverside County Median Income)
• 10 units are being set aside for low income families (families earning less than
80% of the Riverside County Median Income)
• 9 units are being set aside for moderate income families (families earning less
than 120% of the Riverside County Median Income).
39 units, or 33% of the units proposed by La Quinta Village will be set aside and
made available to families meeting the requirements of affordable housing.
The homeowner selection and purchase program shall be performed in concert with
the City's Redevelopment Agency. The terms and conditions of the method of sales
shall be established by agreement with the Redevelopment Agency prior to the
offering of the units for sale.
LA QUINTA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN
M
0 0
DRAFT
October 6, 1993
2.3 SITE PLAN
The Site Plan, Figure 9, illustrates the layout of residential units, private streets,
parking and the common recreation area.
2.3.1 RESIDENTIAL LOTTING AND SITING
La Quinta Village proposes the concept of single family attached residential lot
ownership rather than condominium ownership. Each unit is located on a
separate lot. Common ownership includes the recreation area and the private
streets.
The purpose for the development of a single family attached residential project
versus an air -space condominium is two fold.
• Homeowner association fees can be dramatically lowered by placing the
ownership and responsibility for the maintenance of the residence and
immediate surroundings in the hands of the homeowner /resident. This
makes the project more affordable by replacing higher homeowner
association fees with homeowner "sweat equity ".
• Marketing studies have shown that homeowners want to purchase single
family attached residential units located on a lot over an air space
condominium.
2.3.1.1 LOT AREA AND DIMENSIONS
Lots are a minimum 2500 square feet with a minimum width of 25 feet
measured at the front yard setback line and a minimum depth of 85 feet.
2.3.1.2 . YARDS AND SETBACKS
Front: The minimum front yard setback shall be 20 feet.
Side: A zero side yard is permitted on one side of each lot. The
minimum exterior side yard setback shall be 5 feet for a
one -story building and. 7.5 feet for a two -story building.
The minimum street side yards shall be a 10 feet.
Rear:, The minimum rear yard setback shall be 10 feet except that
a patio cover, open on a minimum of three (3) sides, may
extend up to three (3) feet of a rear yard setback.
Figure 10 illustrates a typical residential siting plan including lot dimensions and
yard setbacks.
LA QUINTA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN
EJ
• 0
DRAFT
October 6, 1993
2.3.2 PRIVATE STREETS
La Quinta Village proposes a system of private streets within a gated and
private community. The streets are proposed to be 36 and 32 feet in width
from curb -to -curb. Sidewalks are proposed on one side of the 36 foot wide
streets and will be located within an easement. Residential property lines will
be contiguous with the back of the curbs.
Non - standard knuckles have been proposed as part of this specific plan.
Knuckles are in the form of curved streets with a minimum centerline radius of
35 feet. Two non - standard cul -de -sacs are proposed with curbline radii of 35
and 45 feet. Some of the intersections also propose less than 90 degrees
angles.
2.3.3 PARKING
Each residential unit will have a fully enclosed single car garage. In addition,
each residential lot will have space for two additional parking spaces within the
driveway area. One space will be offset from the garage door and the other
will be in the driveway as a tandem space in line with the garage door.
28 additional off - street visitor parking spaces have been provided. The 36 foot
wide streets also permit parking on both sides. There are 53 parking spaces
on the 36 foot wide streets.
There are ten (10) parking spaces dedicated for use by the recreational area.
These spaces are adjacent to the recreational area.
The number of parking spaces is as follows:
Garage Parking Spaces 116
Driveway Parking Spaces 232
Off - Street Visitor Parking Spaces 28
On- Street Parking (36' Streets) 53
Recreation Area Parking 10
Total 439
Under current code requirements, the project would be required two and one -
half spaces per residential, or 290 spaces. These spaces could be a
combination of garages and off - street parking. Excluding the spaces for the
recreation area (10), 429 spaces have been designed for residential use.
LA QUINTA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN
J
• DRAFT
October 6, 1993
The parking plan proposed for La Quinta Village meets the intent of the current
off - street parking code in the following:'
• Two encumbered spaces lone in the garage and the other to the side of
the driveway) are provided for each unit. This should provide adequate
parking for the residence occupants.
• A third driveway space is provided in tandem with the garage to provide
off - street guest parking.
• Additional off - street parking will relieve need for visitor parking.
• On- street parking is provided on the 36 foot wide streets.
• Ten spaces are provided for the recreational building. This should
provide adequate parking for its use that may be independent of the
residences.
• The residences are primarily first time homebuyer units. The units will
be principally occupied by single adults and young or small families. It
is likely that most homeowners will have no more than two automobiles
and some may have only one. The number of parking spaces appears
appropriate for the type of units and homeowners.
2.3.4 RECREATION AREA
A common recreation area is proposed. The recreation area will include a
recreation building and a pool /spa area. The recreation building is proposed to
include a recreation room, a sitting room, an office, bathrooms and a lobby
area. The building will be 1436 square feet in floor area. The floor plan and
elevations of the recreation building are included as Figures 11 and 12.
2.3.5 LANDSCAPING AND INTERIOR FENCING
All common areas, the recreation area and the front yards of all residential units
will be landscaped by the project developer. All interior yard landscaping is to
be provided by the homeowner.
Interior fencing in the form of building side -to -side will be provided. The
fencing should be constructed of masonry or wood frame with stucco. In
either case, the fencing should complement the exterior of the adjoining units.
LA QUINTA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN
A
� ' ) MlNSAKrIt t A�OiG /A1Z5
,�,,,►� .6nyr�hq . . 5
NTS a t� nsar
LAND USE PLAN
PI6URZ S
LA OUINTA \/ILLAGr=
A DLM=LO"W Or JASGORP
40
0
KWSAKEIR 8 ASSOC/AMS
des
NTS 2L ;.v.= �=-M"
HALL
PLAN I FLOOR PLAN I
FIGURE 4 1
HOUSE 1109 SO.FT.
GARAGE 257 SOFT.
TOTAL 1366 SO.FT.
LA'GUINTA VILLAGE
A DEVELOPMENT BY JASCORF
0
0 �
MAOTIN 090ROON
LIVING
KWSAKEIR 8 ASSOC/AMS
des
NTS 2L ;.v.= �=-M"
HALL
PLAN I FLOOR PLAN I
FIGURE 4 1
HOUSE 1109 SO.FT.
GARAGE 257 SOFT.
TOTAL 1366 SO.FT.
LA'GUINTA VILLAGE
A DEVELOPMENT BY JASCORF
0
0 �
l
� �4LR -IN
NARTtN RlDROON
� _ .ran•
II 1
i
NAIL
L [mil
J TN, -�
SECOND FLOOR
yanurKr"A>rK.ER t Au 54 IA
GS
PoIa'" 0 5rwtnc 0 6009
NT5
�sx6A�vnsw
1ST FLOOR 612 SOFT.
,2ND FLOOR 629 SOFT. .
TOTAL LIVING 11 +1 SOFT.
GARAGE 261 SOFT.
TOTAL SLD'G 1102 SG. FT.
PLAN 2 FLOOR PLAN
FIGURES
.FIRST FLOOR
LA ' QU I NTA \/I LLAGE
A DEVELOPMENT BY JASCO
.I
SECOND STORY
® HLW5AKER t AS50 IATES
�.� ��f aPs
: ►q .
3 s ee ur r�rM A..� a aGV Hiroo
NT
1ST FLOOR 009 SOFT.
2ND FLOOR 023 SOFT.
TOTAL LIVING 1232 SOFT.
GARAGE 279 SOFT.
TOTAL SLD'G. 1511 SG.FT.
PLAN 3 FLOOR PLAN
FIGURE b
FIRST STORY
LAS QUINTAL VILLAH
A DEVELOPMENT BY JA50ORP
0,
(1';1 1':�"
TYFIGAL 5UILDINC7 ELEVATIONS
FIGURE 7
ITA r� �T'T{1�1(It•'�1 fr1iIPlpr t�
.:
.T Y• .,,. .el,. T ' ,� L1 .. Imo�•}s.. ,j ,J �� j�� / I ^,
���1� •l"Y' � � .I -- - - --' -- - -_• -•-- -- iii --- `-:. -:� - • 1 i,a f ��•1 ,a'•I't 1
1A
3A
( ) ®hNYSAKrR I A5_vOGlAr rs
, s,•s
Nrs rp'"
LA GU I NTA VILLAGE
A DEVELOPMENT BY JA5GORP
0 �
LA
-s
TYPICAL BUILDING ELEVATIONS
FIGURE 8
t!P�Lm * AS-91"IAMS
plappi
NTS r aqpii� #40
3B
dog`
j
LA GUINTA VILLAGE
A DEVELOPMENT BY JA50ORP
49 �
0 �
TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL SITING PLAN
Pi6uRE 10
( ) rudsArceR ,4ssx�Arrs
! r,,,»,9 .�rr� ►►qq . ."
LA QUINTA VILLAGE
A DEVELOPMENT OP JASGORP
0
RECREATION BUILDING FLOOR
( ' ) 3 H iw. �v �. awT. a aa6,Kw nraa
FLOOR PLAN,
146 BOST.
PLAN
FrC-.,uRE u
LA QUINTA VILLAGE
A DEVELOPMENT BY JA5GORP
0
RECREATION BUILDING ELEVATI0N5
FIGURE 12
T, 7- 77 ff M 7 1 M T I I
7,
Trs
(!) 3 6 6ps
NTS M"
LA OUINTA VILLAH
A DEVELOPMENT BY JASCO;ZP
0 �
0 �
LA QUANTA VILLAGE
SPECIFIC PLAN
PREPARED .FOR:
CITY OF LA QUINTA
78 -495 CALLE TAMPICO
LA QUINTA, CA 92253
ATTN: GREG TROUSDELL
ASSOCIATE PLANNER
SUBMITTED BY:
JASCORP
79 -811 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE
SUITE A
BERMUDA DUNES, CA 92201
ATTN: JOE SWAIN
PREPARED BY:
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
78 -150 CALLE TAMPICO
SUITE 210
LA QUINTA, CA 92253
ATTN: STEVE McCUTCHAN, AICP
(619) 771 -0011
September 20, 1993
DRAFT
September 20, 1993
'c ool 19O-
DRAFT
September 20, 1993
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ............ ..............................1
1.1
LOCATION ............. ..............................1
1.2
PURPOSE .............. .............:................1
1.3
AUTHORITY AND SCOPE .. ...............................
2
1.4
APPLICABILITY TO OTHER CODES AND REGULATIONS ............
2
2 LAND
USE PLAN ............ ..............................2
2.1
RESIDENTIAL UNIT TYPES .. ...............................
2
2.2
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM ..........................
3
2.3
SITE PLAN ......................... .................4
2.3.1 RESIDENTIAL LOTTING AND SITING .....................
4
2.3.1.1 LOT AREA AND DIMENSIONS ...... ............
4
2.3.1.2 YARDS AND SETBACKS ......................
4
2.3.2 PRIVATE STREETS .. ....................... .I.......
5
2.3.3 PARKING .......... ..............................5
2.3.4 RECREATION AREA .. ...............................
6
2.3.5 LANDSCAPING AND INTERIOR FENCING ..................
6
LA QUINTA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN
i
1
0
INTRODUCTION
�J
DRAFT
September 20, 1993
The La Quinta Village Specific Plan has been prepared to guide the development of a 124
single family attached residential planned unit development located in the City of La Quinta.
The purpose of the Specific Plan is to provide unique standards for the project that are
required to permit development consistent with City policy, but not necessarily all City
statutes and ordinances. The City recognizes that deviations from standard codes and
requirements are appropriate, in as much as the deviations are consistent with overall City
goals and objectives.
1.1 LOCATION .
The project site comprises 12 acres located west of Washington Avenue.and 500 feet
north of Calle Tampico in the City of La Quinta. The location of the project site and
it's boundary are illustrated in Figures 1 and 2, the Regional and Local Vicinity ,Maps.
1.2 PURPOSE
The purpose of the La Quinta Village
Specific Plan is to permit the
development of a 124 single family
attached residential planned unit
development. The specific ) plan is
required to permit the project to deviate
from requirements of the City of La
Quinta Zoning and Subdivisions
Ordinances. The deviation from certain
requirements as outlined herein is
necessary because it permits the
following:
0
ND
LA QUINTA ooaaHaU
NTS
Figure 1: Regional Vicinity
• The development of single family attached units on individual lots less than the
standard minimum lot area requirements.
• The development of affordable housing intermingled with market -rate housing.
• The development of a more attractive neighborhood through the use of
alternative design standards for streets that place more area within private yard
areas.
LA QUINTA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN
1
DRAFT
September 20, 1993
1.3 AUTHORITY AND SCOPE
The authority and scope to permit the implementation of the La Quinta Village Specific
Plan is based upon the provisions of the California Government Code and La Quinta
City Ordinances.
The approval of the La Quinta Specific Plan is authorized by the California Government
Code, Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 8 Sections 65450 through 65457.
1.4 APPLICABILITY TO OTHER CITY CODES AND REGULATIONS
The La Quinta Village Specific Plan is intended as a guide for the development of La
Quinta Village. Therefore, the standards and design criteria included herein take
precedence over existing or future City of La Quinta codes and regulations. Those
areas not specifically described in the following are subject to existing or future La
Quinta codes and regulations.
2 LAND USE PLAN
La Quinta Village proposes the development of 124 single family attached residential units
on 12 acres near the intersection of Washington Street and Calle Tampico. The La Quinta
Village Land Use Plan, as illustrated in Figure 3.
2.1 RESIDENTIAL UNIT TYPES
• Development of 124 single family attached residential units including one and
two story product types.
• Three floor plans in the following configurations:
FLOOR PLAN STORIES HOUSE S.F. GARAGE S.F. TOTAL S.F.
1 1 1109 257 1366
2 2 1141 261 1402
3 2 1232 279 1511
• Figures 4, 5 and 6 illustrate the floor plans proposed.
• Three basic building configurations that contain two attached units of the same
floor plan, excepting one building where two floor plans (1 and 3) are mixed.
• Figures 7 and 8 illustrate the elevations proposed for the three building types.
LA QUINTA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN
K
DRAFT
September 20, 1993
• One of the principal objectives of the Land Use Plan is to incorporate as much
of the site area in private open space as possible. The Land Use Plan illustrates
that most of the site has been subdivided to permit the ownership of private
open spaces instead of the common ownership of passive open spaces. A
single, common recreational area has been included.
The benefits of private open space are:
• Greater use of private open space areas by the residents than would
normally be anticipated for common passive open space areas.
• Reduced costs of common open space area maintenance thus reducing
the costs of home ownership and providing more affordable units.
• Home buyers are more interested in purchasing single family attached
units on residential lots than air -space condominium units, particularly
when the units are more affordable than comparable condominium -type
units.
2.2 AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM
La Quinta Village proposes to incorporate affordable housing into the mix of residential
units. Of the 124 units proposed by the project, the following number and distribution
of units are affordable:
• 10 units are being set aside for low income families (families earning less than
80% of the Riverside County Median Income)
• 20 units are being set aside for very low income families (families earning less
than 50% of the Riverside County Median Income)
• 10 units are being set aside for moderate income families (families earning less
than 120% of the Riverside County Median Income).
40 units, or 32% of the units proposed by La Quinta Village will be set aside and
made available to families meeting the requirements of affordable housing.
The homeowner selection and purchase program shall be performed in concert with
the City's Redevelopment Agency. The terms and conditions of the method of sales
shall be established by agreement with the Redevelopment Agency prior to the
offering of the units for sale.
LA QUINTA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN
k1
DRAFT
September 20, 1993
2.3 SITE PLAN
The Site Plan, Figure 9, illustrates the layout of residential units, private streets,
parking and the common recreation area.
2.3.1 RESIDENTIAL LOTTING AND SITING
La Quinta Village proposes the concept of single family attached residential lot
ownership rather than condominium. ownership. Each unit is located on a
separate lot. Common ownership includes the recreation area and the private
streets.
The purpose for the development of a single family attached residential project
versus an air -space condominium is two fold.
• Homeowner association fees can be dramatically lowered by placing the
ownership and responsibility for the maintenance of the residence and
immediate surroundings in the hands of the homeowner /resident. This
makes the project more affordable by replacing higher homeowner
association fees with homeowner "sweat equity ".
• Marketing studies have shown that homeowners want to purchase single
family attached residential units located on a lot over an air space
condominium.
2.3.1.1 LOT AREA AND DIMENSIONS
Lots are a minimum 2500 square feet with a minimum width of 25 feet
measured at the front yard setback line and a minimum depth of 85 feet.
2.3.1.2 YARDS AND SETBACKS
Front: The minimum front yard setback shall be 20 feet.
Side: A zero side yard is permitted on one side of each lot. The
minimum exterior side yard setback shall be 5 feet for a
one -story building and 7.5 feet for a two -story building.
The minimum street side yards shall be a 10 feet.
Rear: The minimum rear yard setback shall be 10 feet except that
a patio cover, open on a minimum of three (3) sides, may
extend up to three (3) feet of a rear yard setback.
Figure 10 illustrates a typical residential siting plan including lot dimensions and
yard setbacks.
LA QUINTA .VILLAGE SPECIFIC. PLAN
I,
DRAFT
September 20, 1993
2.3.2 PRIVATE STREETS
La Quinta Village proposes a system of private streets within a gated and
private community. The streets are proposed to be 32 feet in width from curb -
to -curb. No sidewalks are proposed. Residential property lines will be
contiguous with the back of the curbs.
Non - standard knuckles have been proposed as part of this specific plan.
Knuckles are in the form of curved streets with a minimum centerline radius of
35 feet. Two non - standard cul -de -sacs are proposed with curbline. radii of 35
and 45 feet. Some of the intersections also propose less than 90 degrees
angles.
2.3.3 PARKING
Each residential unit will have a fully enclosed single car garage. In addition,
each residential lot will have space for two additional parking spaces within the
driveway area. One space will be offset from the garage door and the other
will be in the driveway as a tandem space in line with the garage door.
There are ten (10) parking spaces dedicated for use by the recreational area.
These spaces are adjacent to the recreational area.
The number of parking spaces is as follows:
Garage Parking Spaces 124
Driveway Parking Spaces 248
Recreation Area Parking 10
Total 382
Under current code requirements, the project would be required two and one -
half spaces per residential, or 310 spaces. These spaces could be a
combination of garages and off - street parking. Excluding the spaces for the
recreation area (10), 372 spaces have been designed for residential use. One
space is proposed within an enclosed garage. The two additional spaces per
unit are proposed within the driveway area, one in tandem with the garage and
the other to the side.
The parking plan proposed for La Quinta Village meets the intent of the current
off - street parking code in the following:
• Two encumbered spaces (one in the garage and the other to the side of
the driveway) are provided for each unit. This should provide adequate
parking for the residence occupants,
LA 0UINTA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN
5
0 0
DRAFT
September 20, 1993
• A third driveway space is provided in tandem with the garage to provide
off - street guest parking.
• Ten spaces are provided for the recreational building. This should
provide adequate parking for its use that may be independent of the
residences.
• The residences are primarily first time homebuyer units. The units will
be principally occupied by single adults and young or small families. It
is likely that most homeowners will have no more than two automobiles
and some may have only one. The number of parking spaces appears
appropriate for the type of units and homeowners.
• On- street parking has not been provided because the street section has
been reduced to 32 feet. Portions .of the project are being provided
within the affordable range. Reducing improvement costs such as street
widths assists in permitting the project to be affordable.
2.3.4 RECREATION AREA
A common recreation area is proposed. The recreation area will include a
recreation building and a pool /spa area. The recreation building is proposed to
include a recreation room, .a sitting room, an office, bathrooms and a lobby
area. The building will be 1436 square feet in floor area. The floor plan and
elevations of the recreation building are included as Figures 11 and 12.
2.3.5 LANDSCAPING AND INTERIOR FENCING
All common areas, the recreation area and the front yards of all residential units
will be landscaped by the project developer. All interior yard landscaping is to
be provided by the homeowner.
Interior fencing in the form of building side -to -side will be provided. The
fencing should be constructed of masonry or wood frame with stucco. In
either case, the fencing should complement the exterior of the adjoining units.
LA QUINTA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN
J
VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 2
Hwy �
ii
fl
N
S
3
O
(0
N
N
Avenue 50
Q
0
0
s
c
N
iu
Galle Tampico
#a"y5 KER t ASSGG /A S
Avenue 52
LA QUINTA YILLA6E
A DEVELOPMENT BY JASGORP
LANE® USE PLAN
PIcSURF: 3
i
i
i
N
S
_ -- VQ
6j 3
aNr
7
m
car
ASSS CIA ES LA CCUINTA \/iLLA &E
Nr3 �ane...ssuaa�ntia. A DEVELOPMENT Or JASGORr
•
•
PLAN I FLOOR PLAN
FIGURE 4
HOUSE 1109 SOFT.
GARAGE 257 SO.FT.
TOTAL 1289 SO.FT.
KS�AKCR # AS-SOCIAMS LA QUINTA VILLAGE
NTS A DEVELOPMENT BY JASGORP
•
0-
L_
I
SECOND FLOOR
h0SAKPIR t ASSOCIAMS
\NTSJur
1ST FLOOR 612 SOFT.
2ND FLOOR 629 BOST.
TOTAL LIVING 1141 SOFT.
GARAGE 261 SOFT.
TOTAL BLDG 1402 80. FT.
PLAN 2 FLOOR PLAN
FIGURE
FIRST FLOOR
LA QU I NTA VILLAGE
. A DEVELOPMENT BY JASGORP
•
F-....-
� I
SECOND STORY
1ST FLOOR 809 SOFT.
2ND FLOOR 023 SO.FT.
TOTAL LIVING 1232 SOFT.
OARAOE 270 SOFT.
TOTAL BLD'O. IS 1 i SO.FT.
PLAN 3 FLOOR PLAN
FIGURE b
FIRST STORY
® ;KE.R. A5SOCIA S LA QUINTA VILLAH
Pb- mn Ws
NTg � � u A DEVELOPMENT BY JA50ORP
•
0
SECOND STORY
1ST FLOOR 809 SOFT.
2ND FLOOR 023 SO.FT.
TOTAL LIVING 1232 SOFT.
OARAOE 270 SOFT.
TOTAL BLD'O. IS 1 i SO.FT.
PLAN 3 FLOOR PLAN
FIGURE b
FIRST STORY
® ;KE.R. A5SOCIA S LA QUINTA VILLAH
Pb- mn Ws
NTg � � u A DEVELOPMENT BY JA50ORP
•
0
TYPIGAL BUILDING ELEVATIONS
FIGURE 7
� lkt"
°'��1':;. ., �� 'I l�•r ,, -•'Ir I.;a, -`'tj •� ! -���t ;~ •}� ^�C`� "' �� �7i�� "'.I �'�1', -I: •.<, -.:j �, `
1L, , 4 1
n U"� fill p ,
_ ,� t'', I 1
^7I TT
MPA �J
KeR s A wss
HT3
MAN
�1
1A
3A
[ )
�•1
LA OU I NTA 1/1 LLAGE
A DEVELOPMENT BY JA50ORP
0
TYPICAL BUILDING ELEVATIONS
F16URE 5
IT
1_,,y � l � L��• ��� n I I ,I
1B
IL
NTS
3B
44"
Oft
LA GUINTA VILLAH
A DEVELOPMENT BY JASCORP
* I
40 1
IT AM
k
TJ ® MJNSAKER $ ASSOCIAMS
P,,y„g . �wr►x� .
NTS cur wAw;15 ni.a�b.
N
3"
W
sr
3
cNr
l
at
SITE PLAN I
FlauR8 9
LA OUINTA VILLAGE
A DEVELOPMENT OF JASGORP
•
r�
L_�
r
PLAN 2 PLAN 2 1
qA
1
1 1
TYPICAL RESII:�ENTIAL SITING PLAN
FEWURE 10
�1
AI
1� It
1 �11
PR'ONT Y
1
Iv N
Z Z
Ili rn
1�
1�
. � pt PANT Yp.Rfl �
, �Ity1M�M yJIflTN �A��
(T)) . MJNSAKrR t A5.�OiGIATL'S
NTS
LA OU I NTA VILLAGE
A DEVELOPMENT OF JASGORP
W
•
RECREATION BUILDING FLOOR
MJN�AKP►R,� -9 A� S5�v n/gATrS
NT8�.rr ew i. aJr a cmb arw nr�e
- FLOOR PLAN
1438 80.FT.
PLAN
FICWRE� 11
LA GUINTA VILLAGE
A DEVELOPMENT BY JASGORP
J
•
vil
j
RECREATION BUILDING ELEVATIONS
FIGURE 12
I-A
RNSAKER J ASSOCIAMS
NTS L=V 6ft
rwl=
LA GUNTA VILLAGE
A DEVELOPMENT BY JASCORP
•
•
78 -495 CALLE TAMPICO — LA QUINTAL CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 777 -7000
FAX (619) 777 -7101
October 27, 1993
Mr. Joseph A. Swain, President
JASCORP
79 -811 Country Club Drive
Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201
SUBJECT: CTLOT PLAN 93 -502; CHANGE OF ZONE 91 -466,
TENTATIVE TRACT. 27854 & SPECIFIC PLAN 93 -023
(LA QUINTA VILLAGE)
Dear Mr. Swain
This is to inform you that the above mentioned case(s) will not be heard by the City
Council on November 16, 1993, as originally planned. The reason for the delay is
that your public hearing notice was not properly run in the Desert Sun. The
California Environmental Quality Act requires a 21 -day noticing period and it was not
complied with; therefore your case has been rescheduled to the next available City
Council 'meeting of December 7, 1993.
We are sorry for any inconvenience this delay may cause you. If you have any
questions, please contact the undersigned.
Very truly yours,
JE Y Z ft N
P N DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
GR ROUSDELL
A OCIATE PLANNER
GT : ccs
cc: Robert Wright
Joe de Coster
John Costanza
Bruce Hunsaker
MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253
LTRGT - 033
If
U
2
O_
Site
0 . .0
fZ=
fN
3 '
CALLE TAMPICp
� D
City Hall
Cases: CZ 91 -066, PP 93 -502, ^�
SP 93 -023, & TTM 27854
5;}t�
Z
O- I
Ui.
�N
3
VCALLE TAMPIW City Hall `
I
Cases: CZ 91 -066, PP 93 -502,
SP 93 -023, & TTM 27854
'1
u
T4tyl "
78-495 CALLE TAMPICO — LA QUINTA,
October 15, 1993
ft
CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 777 -7000
FAX (619) 777 -7101
Mr. Joseph A. Swain, President
JASCORP
79 -811 Country Club Drive
Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201
SUBJECT: IRMO T PLAN 93x502, CHANGE OF ZONE 91 -466,
TENTATIVE TRACT 27854 & SPECIFIC PLAN 93 -023
(LA QUINTA VILLAGE)
Dear Mr. Swain:
On September 28, 1993 the Planning Commission voted 5 -0 to recommend.approval of your zero -lot
line single family project.
The Planning Commission approved your revised site plan layout which included 116 units (Option
B) with only a limited number of units beign adjacent to the Washington Street bridge. Their
other modifications were:
1. Require Police and Fire Department approval of your emergency gates; and,
2. All garage doors shall be sectional roll -up metal.
We have scheduled your project for the City Council meeting of November 16, 1993. The meeting
will begin at 7:00 P.M. and it will be held in the City Council Chambers.
We look forward to receiving additional copies of your new site plan exhibit (Option B) which was
presented at the October 11, 1993, Study Session meeting on October 12, 1993. Our department
will need 10 copies, folded down to 8 1/2" x 11" no later than November 5, 1993, or this item will
be rescheduled to the next City Council meeting.
If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned.
Very truly,;foups,
X NIG A DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
USDELL
E PLANNER
GT : ccs
cc: Robert Wright
Joe de Coster
John Costanza
Bruce Hunsaker
MAILING • ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253
LTRGT.026
T4ht 4 0", ..
78495 CALLE TAMPICO — LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 777 -7000
FAX (619) 777 -7101
October 11, 1993
Rupert E. Yessayian
P.O: Box 251
La Quinta, CA 92253
Subject: Washington Street Block Wall
Dear Mr. Yessayian:
The Planning and Development Department has requested that I respond to your September 14
letter to the Planning Commission regarding the above subject.
As you are aware, the residents in your area petitioned the City Council to have the wall
constructed, and as a result it was included as an item in the Assessment District 91 -1, Area B.
While there were protests filed at the public hearing, the magnitude was insufficient to cause the
Council to modify the proposed improvements. Even so, City staff and the City's Assessment
Engineer looked into the matter of expanding the district boundary to include properties on the
west side of Washington Street, but it was determined that a benefit from the wall for those
properties could not be demonstrated. Properties must derive a benefit from an improvement
project in order to be assessed.
It is hoped that this clarifies the situation insofar as the wall is concerned.
Very truly yours, i
CITY OF LA QUINTA
Reynolds
Director of Public Works /City Engineer
Id
cc: Robert L. Hunt, City Manager
(Jerry_Herman Pal nning & Development Director
_
MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253'
a,
TO:
FROM:.
DATE:
TRANSMITTAL MEMO
CITY MANAGER
rIffING INEER
P ARKS DEPARTMEMT
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
•BUILDING & SAFETY
JERRY HERMAN
CODE ENFORCEMENT
STAN- SAWA
FIRE MARSHAL
S UEJEC
CASE'
PLANNING& DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - Greg TrousdelI
n3
PROJECT REVIEW
P-1- Z/cz 9i
PLEASE REVIEW AND PROVIDE ANY
COMMENTS YOU MAY HAVE ON THE
ATTACHED ITEM .BY
COMMENTS: _ _ Ae-a-c- ,Q�-�� �- (� /Ax- 7�
A
T
0
RUPERT E. YESSAYIAN
Box 251
-L.A OLwrA. GA 92253
September 14, 1.993
La Quinta Planning Commission
City of La Quinta
La Quinta, California
RE: Plot Plan 93 -502
Change of Zone 91 -066
Commissioners:
Y
L% . y,
P
I represent the majority.of the property owners
in Desert Club Tract Unit #5, which is across
Washington Street from the proposed project.
We protested the assessment for the wall-along"
the east side of Washington St. in the belief
that the property. owners on the west side of
Washington St.. were responsible for its cost.
Our efforts were unsuccessful and, the very ex-
pensive wall is now being paid for by us, raising
our taxes considerably.
Our argument is that the Ralph's center and the
project which is before you tonight should pay
their fair share for the buffer wall, since they
both are receiving changes of zone and other con-
cessions from the city. We request therefore, that
as a condition of approval for Change of Zone 91-
066 and Plot Plan 93 -502, that provision be made
for the developer to pay a' fair . share for the ex-
pense of the beforementioried "wall.'
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely/
Ruper/E
REY /ss
E. Yessayian
FILE COPY
4 04� "
78-495 CALLE TAMPICO — LA QUINTA, . CALIFORNIA 92253 -. (619) 777 -7000
FAX (619) 777 -7101
October 1, 1993
Mr. Joseph A. Swain, President
JASCORP
79 -811 Country Club Drive
Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201
SUBJECT: PLOT PLAN -93- 502 -,- CHANGE OF ZONE 91 -466,
TENTATIVE TRACT 27854 & SPECIFIC PLAN 93 -023
(LA QUINTA VILLAGE)
Dear Mr. Swain:
On September 28, 1993 the Planning Commission voted 4 -1 to continue your case to
a future meeting in order to allow you and your design team additional time to revise
your zero -lot line single family project. The Planning Commission felt,the maximum
number of units for the site should be +116 units. The Planning Commission also
discussed other issues which should be considered in your future submittal.
We look forward to receiving your new plans. Our department will need 10 copies,
folded down to 8 1/211 x 11" no later than October 6, 1993 so that we can schedule
your project for the October 12th meeting. If you are unable to submit the required
plans by this date we will reschedule your project for October 26, 1993.
If you have any questions," please contact the undersigned.
Very truly yours,
PL'?3(NNIG $l DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
OUSDELL
AS ATE PLANNER
GT : ccs
cc: Robert Wright
Joe' de Coster
John Costanza
Bruce Hunsaker
MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253
LTRGT.015
CITY OF LA, Q UINTA
� MEMORANDUM
Of
TO: HONORABLE CHAIRWOMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: SEPTEMBER 28, 1993
SUBJECT: MODIFICATIONS TO THE DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FOR THE LA QUINTA VILLAGE PROJECT
PLOT PLAN
1. Add Condition 15.(1.5.): The developer shall be responsible to install all common
irrigation piping and landscaping prior to any occupancy permits.being released in the
project. Each .dwelling unit shall have front yard irrigation and landscaping prior to
occupancy by the future homeowner. Additionally, the rear yard areas shall be irrigated
and lawn shall be installed by the developer. All landscaped areas shall be irrigated by
automatic systems.
2. Add Condition 1123: The on- street parking program shall be submitted to the Planning
and Development Department prior or during .the Building and Safety Department plan
check process.
SPECIFIC PLAN
3. Amend Condition 1124: The clubhouse swimming pool and spa shall -be handicap
accessible and meet all the requirements of the Building and Safety Department. and the
State of California. All. recreation facilities defined on the site plan and in the specific
plan document shall be built and constructed prior to any release of occupancy within
the subdivision. The swimming pool and spa shall be enclosed by a minimum five foot
high wrought iron fence.
4. Amend Condition 1117 (second paragraph): Standards shall be reviewed and approved
by the Planning and Development Department and Planning Commission as part of its
review of the CC & R's, but be no less restrictive than the R -2 Zone standards, as
appropriate.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
5. Amend Condition #36 (on -site streets): Private residential 32 -feet wide; four feet wide
sidewalk shall be required along Lots . "A ", "B', "D ", "E" in order to link the recreation
area with the abutting single family lots. The sidewalk shall only be required on one -side
of the private street(s).
�I TRANSMITTAL MEMO
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
E:
CITY MANAGER
—
PARKS DEPARTMEMT
BUILDING & SAFETY
CODE ENFORCEMENT
FIRE MARSHAL
CITY ENGINEER
_ PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
`- ER' RY HERMAN
t,--STAN SAWA
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - Greg Trousdell
R - 9-1- R3
SUBJECT': PROJECT REVIEW
CASE:
1P I, EASE REVIEWS AND PROVIDE ANY
COMMENTS YOU MAY HAVE ON . THE
ATTACHED ITEM BY �� L
COMMENTS: a�--• Y`1�t9� i c,1 (�) I„1e �.,�Qa�n �A.1
�Y� e.�t- .� �] S�� L,.�t�• -5 Ot!`c t.�J�- � Cw- re�pi -� � -
R-* G . a t . J1 � ,b CIA P-1 K l ra l-T ��� (lA / (' t. Iti "I, a f'TL
-U�P. ?7