The URL can be used to link to this page

2005 10 11 PCa� Xfw Qumrl�u �OF TKF' Planning Commission Agendas are now available on the City's Web Page @ www.la-guinta.orr PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California OCTOBER 11, 2005 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING Beginning Resolution 2005-045 Beginning Minute Motion 2005-013 CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call II. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of the Minutes for the Regular Meeting of September 27, 2005. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\1 AgendaW.doc V. PUBLIC HEARING: For all Public Hearings on the Agenda, a completed "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Executive Secretary prior to the start of the Planning Commission consideration of that item. The Chairman will invite individuals who have requested the opportunity to speak, to come forward at the appropriate time. Any person may submit written comments to the La Quinta Planning Commission before a public hearing, may appear and be heard in support of, or in opposition to, the approval of the project(s) at the time of the hearing. If you challenge any project(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to the public hearing. A. Item ................ CONTINUED - SIGN APPLICATION 2003-727, AMENDMENT #1 Applicant ......... Paragon Signs, Inc. for Dr. Matthew Werner Location .......... 47-250 and 47-350 Washington Street, the east side of Washington Street, just north of Omri & Boni Restaurant Request ........... Consideration of a revised Sign Program for the Lake La Quinta Plaza Action ............. Minute Motion 2005- B. Item ................ SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-842 Applicant ......... KB Home Coastal, Inc. Location .......... Southeast corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 60 Request ........... Consideration of architectural plans for six prototypical residential plan types for use in Tract 31732 Action ............. Minute Motion 2005- C. Item ................ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-551, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2005-105, ZONE CHANGE 2005- 125, SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-055 AMENDMENT #2, AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2003-006 AMENDMENT #2 Applicant ......... CP Development La Quinta, LLC Location .......... Southeast of the intersection of Washington Street and Miles Avenue within the Centre Pointe project. Request ........... Consideration of (1) an Addendum to a certified Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact; (2) General Plan Amendment; (3) Zone Change; (4) Specific Plan Amendment; and (5) an Amendment to existing Development Agreement to allow: A) Changing the General Plan designation and zoning for the 2 + acre residential site at the future southwest corner of Seeley Drive and Miles Avenue to Tourist G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\? AgendaW.doc Commercial to allow an additional 32 one and two story casitas; and, B) Changing the General Plan designation and zoning for the 4.8 + acre tourist commercial zoned boutique hotel site at the southeast corner of the project area to the office commercial zone to allow expansion of the approved medical office complex site; and, C) An Amendment of the Development Agreement to reflect the revised project as described above. Action ............. Resolution 2005-_, Resolution 2005-_, Resolution 2005-, Resolution 2005-, Resolution 2005- VI. BUSINESS ITEM: None. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Discussion regarding a Joint Meeting of the City Council, Planning Commission and Architectural and Landscape Review Committee. B. Review of City Council meeting of October 4, 2005. IX. ADJOURNMENT: This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be held on October 25, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. DECLARATION OF POSTING I, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary of the City of La Quinta, do hereby declare that the foregoing agenda for the La Quinta Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, October 11, 2005, was posted on the outside entry to the Council Chamber, 78-495 Calle Tampico, the bulletin board at the La Quinta Cove Post Office, Chamber of Commerce, and Stater Bros. 78-630 Highway 111, on Friday, October 7, 2005. DATED: October 7, 2005 BET T J AWYER, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\1 AgendaW.doc Public Notices The La Quints City Council Chamber is handicapped accessible. If special equipment is needed for the hearing impaired, please call the City Clerk's office at 777-7025, twenty-four (24) hours in advance of the meeting and accommodations will be made. If special electronic equipment is needed to make presentations to the Planning Commission, arrangements should be made in advance by contacting the City Clerk's office at 777-7025. A one (t) week notice is required. If background material is to be presented to the Planning Commission during a Planning Commission meeting, please be advised that eight (8) copies of all documents, exhibits, etc., must be supplied to the Executive Secretary for distribution. It is requested that this take place prior to the beginning of the 7:00 p.m. meeting. GAWPDOMPC MinutesO AgendaMdoc MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA September 27, 2005 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Kirk who asked Commissioner Alderson to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Ed Alderson, Richard Daniels, Kay Ladner, Paul Quill and Chairman Kirk. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Doug Evans, Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston, Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer, Planning Manager Les Johnson, Associate Engineer Paul Goble, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planners Wallace Nesbit and Andrew Mogensen, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: A. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of September 13, 2005. There being none, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Alderson to approve the minutes as submitted. IV. CONSENT ITEMS: None. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Site Development Permit 2003-727 Amendment #1; a request of Paragon Signs, Inc. for Dr. Mathew Werner for consideration of a revised Sign Program for the Lake La Quinta Plaza, for the property located at 47- 250 and 47-350 Washington Street, the east side of Washington Street, just north of Omri and Boni Restaurant. 1. Chairman Kirk noted the request to continue the item. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Alderson/Daniels to continue Sign Application 2003-727, Amendment #1. Unanimously approved. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-27-05.doc Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2005 B. Conditional Use Permit 2005-094; a request of La Quinta Country Club for consideration of a request to establish temporary long-term modular clubhouse facilities as replacement for a permanent clubhouse for the property located at 49-650 Eisenhower Drive. 1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which was on file in the Community Development Department 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Alderson asked if the trailers would be connected to public utilities. Staff stated some of the utilities would be, but the applicant could answer in more detail. Commissioner Alderson asked about the landscape screening. Staff stated a more detailed landscaping plan would be submitted for approval and noted the conditions that still needed to be worked out. 3. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Larry Reddel, Program Manager for Gafcon, Anthony Palmasono, architect, and Larry Helm, General Manager of the Country Club of the Desert gave a presentation on the project. Mr. Palmasono clarified the clubhouse utilities will be connected to the public utilities. They are looking at how the fire sprinklers will be attached; he assumes they will be buried underground. Mr. Reddel stated there are 25 existing trees that will help to screen the trailers as well as 25 to five gallon plants will be planted. 4. Commissioner Daniels asked if there was a hedge around the perimeter. Mr. Reddel stated yes. Commissioner Daniels asked how they were going to accommodate the Bob Hope Classic people. Mr. Helm stated they have spoken with the 'Bob Hope people and believe it is worked out. 5. Commissioner Alderson asked if the urgency was to meet the plans for the Bob Hope Classic. Mr. Helm stated that is part of it. 6. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Mr. Greg Helm, President of the Homeowners' Association and on the Board of Bob Hope Classic, stated they are in agreement with the plans. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-27-05.doc 2 Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2005 7. Chairman Kirk asked if anyone else would like to address the Commissioner. There being none, Chairman Kirk closed the public hearing. 8. Commissioner Ladner stated she supported the request. 9. Commissioner Daniels stated the entire perimeter is screened and to him it is an issue for the members of the Club. 10. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Alderson to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-039 approving Conditional Use Permit 2005-094, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Ladner, Quill and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. C. Site Development Permit 2005-840; a request of One Eleven La Quinta, LLC for consideration of development plans for a 15,257 square foot pet shop, supply, and grooming retail commercial building to a located within the One Eleven La Quinta Center at the northeast corner of Highway 1 1 1 and Washington Street. 1. Commissioner Alderson stated he has a business relationship with the applicant causing a potential conflict of interest and withdrew from the dais. 2. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Andrew Mogensen presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which was on file in the Community Development Department. 3. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Daniels asked if the building to the east was the vacant theater. Staff noted the location of the proposed building. 4. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. David Smolley, representing the applicant, stated he was available to answer any questions. They have no objections to the conditions. Community Development Director Doug Evans noted the sign is not a part of this permit and will G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-27-05.doc 3 Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2005 have to come back for approval. Mr. Smolley stated they were not submitting the sign for approval. 5. There being no other public comment, Chairman Kirk closed the public participation portion of the hearing. 6. Commissioner Quill stated he would prefer receiving a complete site plan, with color boards showing a better relationship of this building and the existing buildings. 7. It was moved by Commissioners Daniels/Quill to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-040, approving Site Development Use Permit 2005-840, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Ladner, Quill, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Alderson. ABSTAIN: None. Commissioner Alderson rejoined the Commission. D. Site Development Permit 2005-838; a request of Washington 1 1 1, Ltd. for consideration of development plans for a 27,225 square foot retail commercial building featuring one sub -major unit and multiple minor units within the Washington Park Commercial Center (Sub -major 5 and Shops 4)) for the property bounded by Highway 111, Avenue 47, Washington Street, and Adams Street. 1. Commissioner Alderson stated he had a potential conflict of interest due to his working relationship with the applicant and withdrew from the dais. 2. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Andrew Mogensen presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which was on file in the Community Development Department. 3. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Daniels asked if the driveways were right -in, right - out only. Staff stated the southerly driveway would have a left turn in. 4. Commissioner Quill stated he was concerned as the building front appears to be flat. He would also like to see a more detailed color board and renderings submitted with the report. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-27-05.doc 4 Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2005 5. Chairman Kirk asked for clarification regarding the statement in the staff report regarding modifying eliminate the overhang and include an access ramp for maintenance purposes. Does this mean that if a ramp were installed it would be easier to maintain? Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer explained that if they want to keep the encroachment into the retention basin there is room to reconfigure the basin to the north. Chairman Kirk asked if there was a ramp for maintenance purposes, what is staff's reaction for the cantilevered portion of the building? Staff stated the retention basin should be accessed regardless. There is also room on the north side of the retention basin. Chairman Kirk asked if there was room for a ramp what about the cantilever condition. Staff stated they should be able to access the retention basin regardless. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated the cantilever is a concern because of nuisance issues. 6. Commissioner Quill stated this retention basin will be fairly hidden and the opportunity to not maintain it could be a problem. He asked if it was fenced, or accessible to the public. Staff stated it is not fenced and therefore will be accessible to the public; it will be maintained by the property owner at the expense of the merchants. Commissioner Quill asked if there was any additional sub -drainage for nuisance drainage. Staff stated yes and explained their function. 7. Chairman Kirk asked if an underground retention system was considered. Staff stated yes and met with the applicant regarding them. The cost is expensive and they need to be maintainable. S. Commissioner Daniels stated he is concerned this will be a problem. Could the building be turned to put the retention basin in the front of the building as a design feature. The retention basin will become a nuisance and maintenance problem. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated they reviewed the building under the Specific Plan guidelines and there is no question, a backdoor retention basin will have problems. He does, however expect visibility because the Center has an access on the east side. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-27-05.doc 5 Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2005 9. Commissioner Daniels asked if there were any incentives that could be offered to the developer to redesign this portion of the Center. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated he is unaware whether or not there could be any incentives offered. Any change would require a renegotiation of the Specific Plan. 10. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Jack Tarr, Bill Sanchez, and Michael Kerredy, representing Washington 111, Ltd. gave a presentation on the project. Mr. Kerredy noted the elevation deviations and the awnings that extend out six feet as well as variations in height. The rear is very blank as it is the loading area and will not be seen from the public. 11. Chairman Kirk noted there was not a lot of vertical plant material on the north elevation. Mr. Kerredy stated that was because it was too close to the street and limited in what could be done. 12. Commissioner Quill asked if they intended to cantilever the building. Mr. Tarr stated they had considered it, but the stem wall works fine for them. 13. Chairman Kirk asked about the concerns that had been raised about the retention basin. Mr. Tarr stated it is a cost benefit ratio. The City does not have clear criteria as to what is required. Based upon their meeting with staff, the City prefers the more expensive alternative for underground. They are analyzing their options. They have no objection to amending the Specific Plan to address some of these issues. He noted the maintenance of the retention basin will be included in the rental contracts as common area costs. 14. Commissioner Quill askedwhere the tenants will deposit their trash. Mr. Bill Sanchez noted the location of the trash enclosures on the site map. Mr. Tarr stated the maintenance will be included in the CC&R's for the Center for maintenance. He would like to request the memo submitted by staff dated September 27, 2005, with the revised changes be adopted. They only condition they are in disagreement with is Condition #36, regarding driveway access and circulation. They believe they have all the accesses that are needed and request Condition #36 be deleted. G:\WPDOMPC Minutesl9-27-05.doc 6 Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2005 15. Commissioner Daniels asked if this portion of the Center could be redesigned to move the retention basin. Mr. Tarr they do not believe there is a viable design that gives them the efficiency they need. Discussion followed regarding benefits to the present design. 16. Commissioner Quill stated with this design the tenants delivery trucks will be dropping off at the front door. He cannot see how a semi -truck can get in and out of the loading dock as designed. Mr. Tarr stated these tenants use the smaller trucks. He noted the circulation on the site plan and discussion followed. Mr. Tarr noted the access would be constructed on the future phase, east of the parcel map for this project. 17. Commissioner Daniels asked if along the east side of the building there is a driveway that connects to the driveway behind Lowes. Mr. Tarr stated yes. 18. Commissioner Quill noted that is not where the trash enclosure is or where the shop loading would be located. Mr. Sanchez clarified the loading areas for the sub -major and the shops on the site map. 19. Chairman Kirk noted the Specific Plan has been approved and typically when a Site Development Permit is brought back, the focus will be on the architecture and landscaping and yet on this application major issues are being addressed that should have been resolved when the Specific Plan was being considered. How much discretion does the Commission have addressing issues that conceptually were approved in the Specific Plan. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated that circulation and circulation phasing can be discussed at each phase of the development. With regards to the specific plan flexibility, this City has reviewed Site Development Permits for conformity to a specific plan and staff does believe this site plan does conform as far as location of buildings and primary access points with the exception of the one concern. We do have issues with the access and retention basin but a Memorandum of Understanding was entered into to resolve several of these issues. Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston added that while the City takes the position that specific plans do confer entitlement, a discretionary body does have the ability to add additional discretionary conditions at a subsequent approval process; especially when the G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-27-05.doc 7 Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2005 site has not been built. If additional traffic impacts need to be studied, it would be appropriate to have that study done and not take action. With respect to the retention basin, he would defer to the Public Works Department to the particulars. It may be appropriate to amend the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that exists between the City and the developer should the Commission desire so. 20. Chairman Kirk asked why and when was the MOU entered was into. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated in May, 2004 and because the City and the developer could not come to terms in regard to how much water they have to take onto their site. The Specific Plan has proposed the location of the basin at this location. Chairman Kirk asked if the MOU precludes the Commission making suggestions in regard to the retention basin or the design of the retention basin requiring the under grounding of the retention basin. Staff stated the City did not require it to be under grounded. This was the option the developer determined. Staff worked on how much water had to be retained more than where it should be retained. 21. Commissioner Daniels asked if the developer had submitted an "L" shape design would the City found that compatible with the earlier approval. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated the Commission could have made the findings that it did not change the intent of the approval. If the Commission wants to pursue the retention basin further, staff would recommend continuing the application to allow further time for review in relation to the MOU. 22. Chairman Kirk stated this is a good looking commercial project, and it would be a benefit to get it approved as soon as possible. Mr. Tarr stated the retention basin was designed as part of the overall hydrology for the entire Specific Plan site. It was not designed as a part of just this particular building. 23. Commissioner Ladner asked if staff was comfortable with the retention basin and overall circulation plan. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated they have no issue with the retention basin. In regard to the circulation, staff does think proving another connection to the north -south street that connects to Avenue 47 would be useful. Additionally, in regard to traffic onto Washington G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-27-05.dac 8 Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2005 Street, the big concern about the signal is to keep traffic flow moving on Washington Street. Stacking will cause people to look for an alternate route and this is why staff is looking for those alternate routes. The temporary road behind Lowes would be a solution. 24. Chairman Kirk closed the public comment portion of the hearing and opened it to Commission discussion. 25. Commissioner Quill stated he understands the site has been engineered to meet the water demand, but it seems it could have been designed to be more aesthetically pleasing if hydrology was not the driving force for design. He does believe loading and unloading will take place in the front of the building instead of rear and the rear access is not going to be easy. He has concerns that when the signal is installed and does not work in sequence with the signal at Highway 111, it will be a nightmare. He agrees the temporary street would be to the benefit of everyone. He questions why there are no parkway landscaping plans in this submittal. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated that if it is not already approved they will have to submit it for approval. 26. Chairman Kirk reopened the public comment. Mr. Tarr stated the streetscape has already been approved under prior approvals. 27. Chairman Kirk closed the public comment portion again. 28. Commissioner Daniels agreed the three signals at Highway 111, Simon Drive and Point Happy will all need to be in sequence. The applicant has made a good argument for the retention basin being where it is, but he still believes it was not good planning and should have been caught before. 29. Commissioner Ladner stated that in regard to the retention basin she has a problem with liability and believes that the rear location is better. It is a high -end development and believes it will be maintained by the tenants. As to the access road she believes it is necessary to have access to Avenue 47. 30. Chairman Kirk noted the design of the building is good, however he would prefer to have the fine architecture closer to Washington GAWPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-27-05.doc 9 Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2005 Street and therefore agrees with the retention basin in the rear. He does object to the sea of asphalt next to Washington Street. He would like to see the developer and City come to some agreement that is a cost benefit and provide the underground retention. This could resolve a lot of the issues raised for the rear of the building. He would also like to see the temporary access behind Lowes constructed and would support keeping Condition #36. In addition, he would support accelerating development of the access across the site. In terms of loading access, he would like to see a diagram to ensure that the circulation works. Therefore, he would like to continue the application to review some of these issues. At that time show the articulation of the elevations as well as the design on the rear of the building as well as increased landscaping. 31. Commissioner Daniels stated he would be more comfortable if the retention basin were underground. 32. Commissioner Quill stated he does not believe under grounding the retention basin would solve the issues. He would suggested some of the issues could possible be resolved at this time and not continue the application. 33. Chairman Kirk reopened the public hearing. Mr. Tarr pointed out the location of the proposed retention basin for Phase 3. The under grounding at this location will not work and would be a million dollars in costs. In regard to the roadway, how do you articulate it make it easy. They can design cul-de-sacs for temporary turnarounds for the loading behind the shops. In regard to the elevations, they do have a lot of vertical as well as horizontal articulation. The rear of the shops could have some articulation, but they are the rear of the buildings. Mr. Kerredy stated there are some areas to break up the parapet and introduce some alternative materials to break up the rear. 34. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicants suggestion for the temporary access would be acceptable to staff as well as the applicant to not hold up the project. 35. Commissioner Quill suggested Condition #36 be revised to read, "...the temporary road access would be installed prior to a Certificate of Occupancy being issued." G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-27-05.doc 10 Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2005 36. It was moved by Commissioners Daniels/Alderson to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-040, approving Site Development Use Permit 2005-840, as recommended and amended: a. Condition added: A temporary road shall be constructed and maintained across the southeast portion of the site prior to a certificate of occupancy. b. Condition added: A turn around for loading and unloading and trash shall be added to the east side of the building. C. Condition added: Additional articulation shall be added to the rear of the building. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Ladner, Quill, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Alderson. ABSTAIN: Commissioner Daniels. Commissioner Alderson rejoined the Commission. E. Site Development Permit 2005-837; a request of NO La Quinta Partners, LLC for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for a Guard House complex for the property located on the south side of Avenue 52, midway between Madison Street and Monroe Avenue within the Madison Club. 1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which was on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Alderson asked for an explanation of the buildings at the entrance. Staff explained the layout. 3. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. John Gamlin, representing the applicant, gave a presentation of the project. He asked that Condition #43 be deleted as they believe they had negotiated the best solution with both the City of Indio and La Quinta in regard to the entrance. Community Development Director Doug Evans suggested it not be eliminated, but allow staff to review the documents Mr. Gamlin G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-27-05.doc 1 i. Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2005 referenced, and not require a Specific Plan Amendment. 4. It was moved by Commissioners Daniels/Alderson to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-042, approving Site Development Use Permit 2005-837, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Ladner, Quill and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. F. Environmental Assessment 2005-543 and Tentative Tract Map 33444; a request of Coral Mountain Tails, LLC for consideration of the subdivision of approximately 317.61 acres into 219 residential lots, amenity lots, street lots, and open space lots for the property located west of Jefferson Street, south of Quarry Ranch. 1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Les Johnson presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which was on file in the Community Development Department. Staff explained the reasoning behind the condition changes. Community Development Director Doug Evans gave a further presentation on the roadway and site plans with the necessary easements. John Criste, Terra Nova Planning and Research gave a presentation on the environmental documentation. 2. Commissioner Daniels asked if the developer was agreeable to meeting the concerns of those issues raised in the letters received from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of Recreation and Parks. Discussion followed as to each of the issues raised in the letters from Fish and Wildlife and the Department of Recreation and Parks. Commissioner Daniels asked if the Jefferson Street alignment was still subject to the environmental review. Staff stated the curve is subject to one more environmental review currently being done. Staff has met with the Bureau of Reclamation and Coachella Valley Water District and they have no issues with the realignment. Discussion followed regarding the environmental documentation. 3. Commissioner Alderson asked if in the environmental review, were there any element of risk where a rock fall mitigation should be included. Mr. John Criste, clarified they have been incorporated into the mitigation measures. Commissioner Alderson asked if the G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-27-05.doc 12 Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2005 construction of a fence had a time frame. Mr. Criste stated a fence is not required unless there is a determination that Big Horn Sheep do encroach into the area. The mitigation measure requires for the organization of a 3-party committee. Fish and Wildlife is asking to be included in that committee. Community Development Director Doug Evans explained this is private land and not subject to Federal control, that is why Fish and Wildlife were not included. 4. Commissioner Quill asked if this land was part of the Federal Wilderness lands. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated it would have to be owned by the federal government and it is not. Commissioner Quill asked if this was part of the land covered by the Coachella Valley Multi -Species Habitat Conservation lands. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated the City is in discussions with the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Services in regard to the Multi - Species Plan in regard to the Jefferson Street alignment. 5. Commissioner Daniels asked if there was a better name for this street. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated a street name change may be something to consider at a later date. Commissioner Daniels asked if the developer would have to pay the Multi -Species fee. Staff stated that once the Agreement is adopted, the developer will have to pay the appropriate fee. 6. Chairman Kirk asked why the comment period ended with the date of the hearing. Mr. Criste explained the process. 7. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Tom Cullinan, representing the applicant, gave a presentation on the project. He introduced Mr. Peter Ministrelli, principal owner and Mr. Anton Merincovich, architect for the project. 8. Commissioner Alderson asked the type of architecture. Mr. Merincovich stated "dynamic modern". 9. Chairman Kirk questioned whether or not the property owners in the Quarry were truly aware of the project. Mr. Cullinan stated the location of the sewer connection has been determined by the Quarry development. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-27-05.doc 13 Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2005 10. Commissioner Alderson asked if the applicant had any objections to Condition #52. Mr. Cullinan stated he has no objection as long as it states "prior to final map". 11. Commissioner Quill asked if the CVWD had been involved with the design. Mr. Cullinan explained what work and studies had been completed. Commissioner Quill asked if the project was designed for the 500 year flood. Staff stated the City's requirement is for the 100 year storm. 12. Chairman Kirk asked if the driveway proposed at the southeast corner of the project complies with the Hillside Ordinance. Staff noted the change to the map to take the access off of Jefferson Street. Discussion followed regarding how access is taken from certain lots. 13. Commissioner Alderson asked if the homes across Jefferson Street would be gated. Mr. Cullinan stated there will be a card gate and it will be a part of the HOA. 14. Chairman Kirk asked if there would be any enhanced paving to assist pedestrian movement or traffic calming methods. Mr. Cullinan stated they are agreeable to any suggestions. 15. There being no further questions or public comment, Chairman Kirk closed the public participation portion of the hearing. 16. Chairman Kirk stated his concern regarding the grade differential between some of these lots and the property owners at the Quarry and them not being aware of the project. It seems it would be to the advantage of the Quarry to provide a better sewer connection. Community Development Director Doug Evans clarified the lots in the Quarry that would be affected are undeveloped and the owner has been in discussions with the City/applicant regarding this development and were part of the discussions regarding the sewer easement. 17. Chairman Kirk reopened the public hearing. Mr. Tom Culinan suggested the condition be modified to state that if a different sewer connection is provided the grade differential would be reduced. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-27-05.doc 14 Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2005 18. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant had any concerns regarding a risk of litigation concerning the issues raised. Mr. Wayne Gurilnik, attorney for the applicant, stated they are willing to take the risk. 19. Chairman Kirk closed the public participation. Community Development Director Doug Evans asked that Condition #38 be modified to state that if a different sewer connection is provided a lower pad elevation shall be provided. 20. It was moved by Commissioners Ladner/Daniels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-043 recommending certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental Assessment 2005-543, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Ladner, Quill and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 5. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Ladner/Daniels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-044 recommending approval of Tentative Tract Map 33444, as recommended and amended: a. Condition #38: amended to stipulate the owners of the lots in the Quarry shall be made aware of the grade differential. b. Condition added: City staff shall take extraordinary steps to see that the property owners shall be contacted. C. Condition #52: add, "...prior to recordation of the final map." b. Condition #58: Existing overhead utility lines, if any, within, or contiguous to the proposed development, and all proposed utilities serving Cora/ Canyon, shall be installed underground. The applicant is required to design and install any modification to existing utilities located in the existing Avenue 58 to properties and development to the west of the proposed Jefferson Street Realignment. The costs to design and install modifications shall become a part of the Reimbursement Agreement. b. Condition #62.A. The applicant shall enter into a Reimbursement Agreement with the City of La Quinta, in a form and content satisfactory to the City Public Works Directorand the City Attorney, for construction of Jefferson G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-27-05.doc 15 Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2005 Street from the northerly terminus at Avenue 58 to the Tentative Tract Map No. 33444 northerly boundary (Items 2) and 3) above►. Said reimbursement shall not include any upgrade work proposed by the applicant. The applicant is responsible for all cost to design and construct of Jefferson Street Improvements (Item 1) above) within the property boundary. The applicant may construct improvements within the Jefferson Street right of way in phases as approved by the City Engineer. As proposed by the applicant, the first phase shall be for a curbed median with a 13-foot travel width, 6- foot bike lane and 2-foot shoulder on both sides of the west and east side of Jefferson Street. The Second Phase shall be for the remainder of the full improvements as conditioned above. C. Condition #66. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Primary Entry to the West Side Development and East Side Development (Jefferson Street): Full turn movements are allowed. B. Emergency EntrylSecondary Exit Only to West and East Development (Jefferson Street, 850' south of the Primary Entry): Emergency vehicle access only and Secondary Exit Only. d. Condition #71. No building permit No certificate of occupancy shall be issued for new residential units until the construction plans for of Jefferson Street are approved and a construction contract is awarded, is completed to the main entry gate and approved by the Public Works Director. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Ladner, Quill and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None. VII. DISCUSSION ITEMS: VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-27-05.doc 16 Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2005 IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Review of City Council meeting of September 20, 2005. X. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Alderson to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on October 11, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. on September 27, 2005. Respectfully submitted, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-27-05.doc 17 PH #A STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 11, 2005 (CONTINUED FROM 9/27/05) CASE NO: SIGN APPLICATION 2003-727, AMENDMENT #1 APPLICANT/ SIGN CONTRACTOR: PARAGON SIGNS, INC PROPERTY OWNER: DR. MATTHEW WERNER REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A REVISED SIGN PROGRAM FOR 47250 AND 47350 WASHINGTON STREET (LAKE LA QUINTA PLAZA) LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF WASHINGTON STREET, JUST NORTH OF OMRI & BONI RESTAURANT (ATTACHMENT 1) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: ON -PREMISE SIGNS ARE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 1531 1(a) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: CC (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) ZONING: CC (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) BACKGROUND: Site History The project was approved by the City Council under Specific Plan 2002-056 and Site Development Permit 2002-731, on June 18, 2002, for the Phase 1 building only. The Phase 2 building, which is the subject of this amendment request, was subsequently approved by the Planning Commission on February 24, 2004, under Site Development Permit 2004-797. The Phase 1 building was completed in late 2003 and consists of office space for Dr. Matt Werner and Windermere Real Estate. Phase 2 is at the final inspection stages as of this report filing. A planned sign program for Phase 1 was submitted and approved by the Planning Commission on October 14, 2003. SIGN PROGRAM PROPOSAL: The current sign program (Attachment 2) applies only to the Phase 1 building, and consists of three building/tenant ID sign areas; two mounted on the south building elevation, and one on the west. Though it has yet to be established, the program was also approved with a monument sign. As it currently exists, the sign program consists only of graphic sign representations, with no text specifications. The sign program amendment (Attachment 3) is intended to incorporate the Phase 2 building, and includes the existing signs as approved and installed on the Phase 1 building. It also includes some basic specifications, as described below. The overall sign letter and design criteria essentially remain unchanged, and are incorporated into the sign program for establishing signing for the Phase 2 building. The program will retain an allowance of 1 square foot of sign area allowed for each lineal foot of tenant space, up to 50 square feet per sign, with no more than 2 signs per tenant permitted, based on occupied frontage. The program does not address specific letter fonts or sizes in any detail. As previously mentioned, one freestanding monument sign for the complex was approved as part of the original sign program. The monument measures approximately 36 square feet and stands at just under 7 feet in height. Though it was not included in the sign program amendment, staff recommends that it be retained as approved under the original program. Only two tenants occupy the Phase 1 building. Phase 1 building -mounted sign copy for the Werner tenancy consists of one -inch thick gatorfoam letters with bronze aluminum faces. Windermere Real Estate received a sign approval that was required to be consistent with the sign program, but has installed injection - molded plastic letters, which were not identified on their application. The sign program amendment still proposes to use 1-inch gatorfoam letters with anodized aluminum faces. There is no Illumination of any existing signs, nor is any proposed for future signs. Staff did approve one sign each for two tenants in the Phase 2 building, as they were determined to be consistent with the existing sign program criteria. However, additional signs could not be approved without incorporating the Phase 2 building into the program. In the interim, one tenant, Four Seasons Escrow, has installed their unapproved sign on the north elevation of the Phase 2 building. Signs on the north building elevation were not a part of the original sign program, or the sign approval as granted. However, the north location is a part of the amended sign program and, if approved, this sign would be consistent with the program criteria. ANALYSIS: 1. As proposed, the sign program basically retains the allowable lineal building frontage and other allowances of the sign program as originally approved by the Planning Commission. The Sign Ordinance allows the Planning Commission discretion in applying the sign regulations. The original sign program was approved allowing each sign to be a potential 50 square feet, with no aggregate for multiple tenant signs. This means that for a tenant that occupies two or more building frontages along a street or common parking area, each permitted sign can be up to 50 square feet. Under the Sign Code, the signs in aggregate (i.e. total sign area) may not exceed 50 square feet per tenant. 2. Staff approved one sign each for La Quinta MedSpa and Four Seasons Escrow in the Phase 2 building, as they were determined to be consistent with the sign criteria for the program. However, additional signs requested by those tenants could not be approved under the existing program, which specified signs only on the west and south elevations. The unapproved signs will be placed on the north and east elevations, as shown in the amended sign program. However, Four Seasons has installed their unapproved north sign, along with their approved west sign. La Quinta MedSpa has not installed any signs as of yet. Staff has taken no enforcement action to this point; if approval of this amendment is granted, the sign will be consistent with the amended program. If the sign program amendment is not approved, or revised in a manner that changes that particular sign, then it would need to be removed or modified. 3. Windermere Real Estate received a sign approval that was required to be consistent with the sign program, but has installed injection -molded plastic letters, which were not identified on their application. However, in the original sign program gatorfoam letters were only identified for the Werner sign in the original sign program; no identification was made of the Windermere sign material, and it was required that installation be consistent with the approved sign program. It could be interpreted that the use of gatorfoam in one sign should be applied to other signs, for consistency. On the other hand, the interpretation might be somewhat open as to what the Windermere letters could be, as no specific material was identified for that tenant in the program. Also, the original sign program does not state that all letters be of a certain material. Visually, the plastic letters appear consistent in color and appearance with the existing Phase 1 and two approved Phase 2 signs. Staff recommends a condition to include the Windermere sign as it exists, basically incorporating it into the amended program as an exception. It is worth noting that the amendment is specific to material and color for all future signs, based on the text information provided by the applicant. 4. Future signs for the remaining tenants will be submitted later as they are identified. Specific sign locations and sizes will be reviewed against the provisions of the sign program, along with architectural compatibility, sign location, scale and overall context. In some cases, a 50 s.f. for each tenant frontage may overwhelm the proposed sign location, and might not be approved FINDINGS: The following findings can be made in support of SA 2003-727, Amendment #1 : A. The Sign Program is consistent with the purpose and intent of Chapter 9.160, in that it does not conflict with the standards as set forth in said Chapter. B. The Sign Program is harmonious with and visually related to all signs as proposed under the Sign Program, due to the common use of color, sign size, and location of signs. C. The Sign Program is harmonious with and visually related to the subject buildings as the scale of the signs and letter color used accentuate the building designs. D. The Sign Program is harmonious with and visually related to surrounding development, as it will not adversely affect surrounding land uses or obscure other adjacent conforming signs, and has no illumination proposed. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Minute Motion No. 2005 - _, approving Sign Application 2003-727, Amendment #1, subject to the following conditions: 1 . The monument sign as approved under the original Sign Program for SA 2003-727 shall be retained under the sign program as amended. The location and design of the monument sign shall be subject to review under the standard sign application procedure, and shall meet the requirements of the City Sign Code with exceptions as set forth in these conditions. The entry monument sign shall be constructed of high quality materials. 2. The tenant name backing panel shall be a painted metal material. Lexan or plastic components are not permitted for the backing plate. The monument sign tenant lettering may be internally illuminated if routed through the metal backing plate as push -through letters. The building name lettering may also be internally illuminated if a similar push -through letter system is employed. 3. Amend Item 1 of the sign program standards to include the following: "Letter color shall not apply to logo signs that are in compliance with this sign program as amended. Letter size shall be limited to a maximum of 18 inches in height, and shall be appropriately scaled in relationship to the sign and sign location. Logo signs must have written approval from the building management or owner. The Windermere Real Estate signs are approved as installed with injection -molded plastic letters, in a color consistent with the bronze anodized aluminum letter faces. No other exceptions for injection molded signs, or other signs conflicting with this sign program, shall be allowed.". 4. Amend Item 3 of the sign program to read as follows: "Tenants are allowed one wall sign for each tenant frontage, not to exceed two signs per tenant. Signs may be allowed on any building side, provided they are in compliance with the City Sign Code and this sign program as amended. Any sign facing toward Caleo Bay shall be limited to 25 square feet in size.". 5. Amend Item 4 of the sign program to read as follows: "No building or wall mounted signs may be internally illuminated, or have direct external illumination, to include logos or other sign elements." 6. The applicant is responsible for incorporating these conditions into a final sign program document, and submitting said document to the City for retention in the file for Sign Application 2003-727, as amended. No new sign permits will be issued pursuant to this approval until the revised sign program is submitted and approved by the Planning Manager. 7. All future signs contemplated under this sign program shall be subject to review under the sign permit requirements of Chapter 9.160 (Signs) of the La Quinta Municipal Code. Prepared by: Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Existing Sign Program — 4 pages 3. Proposed Amended Sign Program — 6 pages I ATTACHMENT O I Gy�q Y � !II a -e 000 o . 4�- a U 91TH AVE.. z SITE of W .. Z �. LAKE LA QUINTA OR LU W. }- S Um VICINITY M...P No. TO. sG..E ATTACHMENT 2 (4 PC OOo2WQU SvJ FOOj ZLWWZN~=gu�1ztoq WIF�u wF-wW>QKWyILLZF mFOyi LLVd z WZNQt0�O OfyOZN�VooZ8WWOZWKUzzjZ II�-- ZZ z�Zmp6=�w p ;Yac«a 03 � x2wO S�J 03 U p a>ts ¢mowo HD(L Q< 6oU-woog LL I y z G F .a a d „ a a L a � J z ry>E �LIL,of �z� r a ai z Z�w 0 zm Z w �Orp co)w,z� wuj dw? z oz�wzm�(D os?g mz omo Z?OL M�- wo<� -%Z2��Ow (A 0 0 zz LL n U) t3 , - M w m rz:)D<r- 0 dDWROPOOOP z rj3x z �Wou) ZO �- 0, w wzz)w w w KOLB 0 wflz� DOIL ? w Om 2:),Oo Z!L w Fo < 9 Ron a: iozzouaa. OH08 W<2 r MFM xwwgzowoH Ow M=)Ct W< m <aQ �Qm < w �L)M�t:McMwoogm , 5. < 4) bo co rA im 40 IVI, 4rl LU AQu 13 uwj "Oh w ¢ z r �J t -, I O p x o a zw z W I o20 V1 w LLZr mzaKmod�zOz°}Z °Z LLf U' WLLi Mmo}y 7°+Li�OU woQLL oQf 0OFOwFU 0. ZNJaF�U'FO0, LU yzzz WzHox Z00. °wz,,ZZ-``zm m<x$d�ago��¢i =wrc�ioworc5ryj°Ow=�rc�wa°mmaorca F OaaaaaUaa�irc mOO�anS¢aU¢LL R 0 a a Q m E a v zit 2 yw Z~KO w on Mmow�pp m=OOUw O0< pOOOQOp goV,ww0*«1-U co _ � Ny az7<fU13 DLU X OjN> O Fz QQ f"zg OOOn>-wwzwFDO aOz WWKNW=D OIm 2K o a aOp n m t 6 co oOra 5pw0 1 K VZ� AWW Z W N W N Z =W O 1� Now low u7 Ott a F Q a n W TZZ IQ 'ON ese3 SIBIVul Idea ns❑ Apunwwoo p ljounoo Apo u0}891wwo") buluusl q PSAOJGQV V O C# a t-04-2005 10:03 From -PARAGON SIGNS +7603458378 ATTACHMENT AMENDED SIGN PROGRAM - SA 2003-75 '7.650 ENPIELD LANE • PALM DESERT, CA 9F 17607 345-3340 PAX. [7603 345-6379 LAKE LA QUINTA PLAZA Sign program W.G. PROPERTIES 47-250/47- 350 Washington St. La Ouinta, CA 1. Letters to be 1' thick gatorfoarn with dark bronze anodized aluminum faces, installed with mounting tapes, silicone adhesive. 2. Tenant are allowed 1 sq ft. of signage per lineal feet of tenant frontage not to exceed 50 sq. ft. 3. Tenants are allowed 1 ea_ Wall sign per frontage they occupy but not to exceed 2 wall signs per tenant. 4. No internally illuminated signs are allowed. 5. All signs are to be approved by the owner and a `city of la Quinta" sign permit obtained before sign fabrication and installation. LOCATED IN THE COUNTRY CLUB BUSINESS PARK W a Q ,z V N W LL 0 CO N c� LU f X W M c 2 ZiQ 6'W6 2 4W 2l RO 0w $m$o ao �d'�oaour c� � $010 Qgz �' isomz'S'z'i - 'oGix 31 r onn uWn on ZD CC W C, cnL WC Y C r = N� W� LL Y- O� 0= J CC WC >� L ZF 2 Q� i� aC O� U J C J h � L Q i W C:.L o, Z a_ J � W !n � L J C UC W< a' O :< Z = W �=� u u4tl �WLL� a oa °� g m ��t�tw�¢'QQ�Ccc;n�s�d o03 mo oFaGww _ ?�W=�ROW �j==�mj{�oY3oFi� 6� Q LL��N�6f> Q 6 U 6 LL r LO r M u s FT71 =W C1 22FWQ W O1' W W ~OFO ozx F W < _ = N W OCC p� = G (F 3J O O OW O O '�_ O O O O O O O W C W W s OpCCaQa��IA ppT OW pZp il�]�]jj•Z'21'.'.'.�=[4 Sgt�gjglpy tf. 0. V s G LL G 066 S60 6 `�LL'WWOO�•0a6a><18 g CDEL _ Li CL � _ Y io W O F cJi s c LL W !R F 6 pf am �os2F 0. Q$.000�`43c_y !RE Z W S �' _� Z O( m Z0 w �j = 0 W OQ�~ O N 3 v1 0t F W 0t u a O t�9a�9�� qS O (�9a$�� R O E a�[ 0 2 Z KY11 t�9a�9�� S W ZpS R N ppS � Y m Om F0 6<LLEti EHM6.00'3MH 06LL v/ Z ti O Q ~ az M n « W Q W � cc �4 W {. F w, Q p p � W W z W pZ R. Z W �y D�f �ci N w W z ywj = �' ¢ m Ko i (� p zU' . U�' w LL w m mf�ow �03s�oU�pw<F3y0y wo G W 2 i _� 2$2kzo( �og �jZOLLpOW ��tl SwOtFuiO�� Z. O w ui �(�9a�9]] S Q c& ' SWgW <ta<a��jjgm>m pip1¢�'s@ f.1 Q O ILL G F;A0 0 'f6�N 'iY6>Q U<u I 14 PH #B DATE: CASE NO.: APPLICANT/ ARCHITECT: REQUEST: LOCATION: BACKGROUND: PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT OCTOBER 11, 2005 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-842 KB HOME COASTAL, INC. CONSIDERATION OF ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR SIX PROTOTYPICAL RESIDENTIAL PLAN TYPES FOR USE IN TRACT 31732 SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MONROE STREET AND AVENUE 60 Tentative Tract Map 31732 was approved for this 39.7 acre property on January 21, 2004. The tract consists of 197 residential lots and a recreation lot (Attachment 1). Some of the lots are provided with an alley for garage access. Previous plans were submitted for review by Innovative Resort Communities. These plans were reviewed twice by the ALRC and recommended for approval. The Planning Commission rejected the plans and requested they be revised. The applicant chose to sell the property to KB Homes. PROJECT PROPOSAL: KB Homes has submitted prototypical plans for six residential plan types (Attachment 2). Three of the plans (Solana product line) are one-story high and have front loaded garages with the remaining three plans being partial two-story units (Viento product line) with rear alley -facing garages. Each floor plan type is provided with three front elevation treatments. Each of the elevation treatments utilizes a different style of architecture, those styles being Spanish, Italianate, and Tuscan. All unit plans are 40- feet wide with varying depths. The Solana plans are one-story in height with the tallest plan being 19'-3" feet high and vary in size from 1,793 to 2,217 square feet. The Viento plans are all two -stories in height with the tallest plan being 25'-5" feet high and vary in size from 2,165 to 2,491 square feet. These units have the garages facing a rear alley. P:'Reports M2005\10-11 05\sdp 2005-842 kb homes\sdp 2005-842 pc rpt.doc Front streetscape renderings for the Solana units have been submitted. For the Viento units, renderings of the alley streetscape as well as the front streetscape have been submitted. Exterior building colors are earth tones with the roof consisting of mixed earth tone concrete "S" tiles. Stone or brick veneer is used on portions of the lower facades of some plans. Accents include shutters, wrought iron features, pot shelves, accent wood siding and awnings. Side and rear elevations of each plan will vary based on the architectural type. Material and color sample boards have been submitted and will be available at the meeting. This subdivision includes a recreation lot with a clubhouse. These plans as well as the landscaping plans for the front yards and common areas have not been submitted and will be process under a separate application. ISSUFS- Staff has requested a site plan for all typical types of units and plans in the project. As of this writing we have not received them. The applicant has stated they will be available at the meeting at the latest. Additional information requested but not received includes the following: 1. Can concrete roof tile be upgraded to clay tile? 2. Finish of exterior plaster. 3. Are window mullions real mullions or in -glass? ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE (ALRC): The ALRC reviewed this request at its meeting of September 7, 2005, and on a 2-0 vote recommended approval of the request as submitted (Attachment 3). The ALRC did request the Planning Commission be aware of their concern that all the alley units would be two-story. They believe the fact that all the alley lots are together would create a two-story massing that may not be desirable. PUBLIC NOTICE: This application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on May 13, 2005. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required by the La Quinta Municipal Code. As of this writing, no comments have been received. FINDINGS: The Findings as required by Section 9.210.010 (Site Development Permits) of the Zoning Code can be made as noted below. P:\Repo,ts - PC\2005\10-11-05\sdp 2005-842 kb homes\sdp 2005-842 pc rpt.doc 1. Compliance with Zoning Code- The project is consistent with the Design Guidelines of Section 9.60.330 (Residential Tract Development Review) of the Zoning Code, which requires a minimum of two different front elevations, varied roof heights and planes. The proposed units comply with these requirements in that three facades for each of the plans are proposed and varied planes and roof lines are provided. 2. Architectural Design- The architectural design of the project, including, but not limited to the architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors, architectural details, roof style, and other architectural elements, are compatible with surrounding development in the City. 3. Compliance with CEQA- This request has been previously assessed in conjunction with Environmental Assessment 2003-492 which was certified by the City Council on January 20, 2004, and therefore, no further environmental review is needed. 4. Site Design- The site design of the project, including, but not limited to project entries, interior circulation, pedestrian, equestrian and bicycle ways, pedestrian amenities, and other site design elements are compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the City and laid out and provided in compliance with the Zoning Code requirements and approved Tract Map. 5. Landscape Design- New home and project landscaping has not been submitted to date for approval. It will be submitted separately and is required to comply with City and Coachella Valley Water District water efficiency requirements, ensuring efficient water use. 6. Compliance with General Plan- The project is in compliance with the General Plan and applicable Specific Plan in that the property to be developed is designated for residences as proposed. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Minute Motion 2005- , approving Site Development Permit 2005-842, pursuant to the above -noted Findings and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PAReports - PC\2005\10-11-05\sdp 2005-842 kb homes\sdp 2005-842 pc rpt.doc Attachments: 1. Tract/Location map 2. Plan exhibits (for Planning Commission only) 3. Minutes for the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee meeting of September 7, 2005 Prepared by: bra �gnnr-� Stan Sawa, Principal Planner PAReports - PC\2005\10-11-05\sdp 2005-842 kb homes\sdp 2005-842 pc rpt.doc MINUTE MOTION 2005- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-842 KB HOMES COASTAL, INC DATE: OCTOBER 11, 2005 GENERAL 1. This approval is for the following prototype plans: Plan 140.1793 Plan 140.1974 Plan 140.2217 Plan 240.2165 Plan 240.2303 Plan 240.2491 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for any of the units authorized by this approval, final working drawings shall be approved by the Community Development Department. 3. Guest houses/casitas', as defined in LQMC Section 9.60.100, are limited to one per lot/primary dwelling. A master Minor Use Permit for all guest house/casitas can be processed, subject to the provisions of said Section as determined by the Community Development Department. 4. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this development application or any application thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the developer of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 5. This Site Development Permit is valid for one year, unless an extension is applied for and granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 9.200.080 of the Zoning Code. 6. SDP 2005-842 shall comply with all applicable conditions and/or mitigation measures, which are incorporated by reference herein, for the following related approvals: • Environmental Assessment 2003-492 • Specific Plan No. 218 (Riverside County) • Tentative Tract Map 31732 P:\STAN\sdp\sdp 2005-827 coa.doc MINUTE MOTION 2005- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-842 KB HOMES COASTAL, INC. DATE: OCTOBER 11, 2005 In the event of any conflict(s) between approval conditions and/or provisions of these approvals, the Community Development Director shall determine precedence. No development permits will be issued until compliance with these conditions has been achieved. 7. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain the necessary clearances and/or permits from the following agencies, if required: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permits) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Coachella Valley Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those improvement plans for City approval. FEES AND DEPOSITS 8. Applicant shall comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Art in Public Places program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 9. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s) 10. Prior to building permit issuance, parkland dedication fees shall be paid unless these fees have been or will be paid during the process of recordation of the subdivision map. 11. The model home sales complex, including landscaping, deposit fee, signage, fencing, flags, etc., shall comply with the requirements of Section 9.60.250 P:\STAN\sdp\sdp 2005-827 coa.doc MINUTE MOTION 2005- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-842 KB HOMES COASTAL, INC. DATE: OCTOBER 11, 2005 (Model Home Complexes) and Section 8.13.030D (Water Efficiency Provisions for New or Rehabilitated landscapes) of the Municipal Code. Minor Use Permit approval is required prior to establishing any of the model units or temporary sales facilities. LANDSCAPING 12. Typical preliminary front yard and common area landscaping plans and recreational lot architectural plans shall be submitted to the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC) and Planning Commission for approval prior to issuance of first production home permit. Said plans shall be in compliance with Chapter 8.13 (Water Efficient Landscaping) of the Municipal Code. The landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Coachella Valley Water District and Riverside County Agriculture Commissioner prior to submittal of the final plans to the Community Development Department. Front yard landscaping for each dwelling shall consist of a minimum of two trees (i.e., a minimum 1.5 inch caliper measured three feet up from grade level after planting), ten 5-gallon shrubs, and groundcover. Palm trees may count as a shade tree if the trunk is six feet tall. Double lodge poles (two- inch diameter) shall be used to stake trees. All shrubs and trees shall be irrigated by bubbler or emitters. Future home buyers shall be offered a no -turf, desert landscape option in front yards. Typical plans for a no -turf desert landscape design shall be approved by the ALRC and Planning Commission with the final front yard landscaping plans. 13. The developer shall submit final landscaping plans for all retention basins, interior common areas and perimeter landscaped lot and parkway along Monroe Street and Avenue 60, to the Community Development Department for final approval prior to issuance of any precise grading permits. The landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Coachella Valley Water District and Riverside County Agriculture Commissioner prior to submittal of the final plans to the Community Development Department. 14. Wildflower seed mixes, if used, that are susceptible to weed control problems shall not be used in any hydro -seed operations. An alternative seed mix which will achieve erosion and dust control, with minimal weed P:\STAN\sdp\sdp 2005-827 coa.doc MINUTE MOTION 2005- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-842 KB HOMES COASTAL, INC. DATE: OCTOBER 11, 2005 growth, shall be approved by the Community Development Department. 15. The sprinkler heads shall be placed 18" from curbs with turf between heads and curbs. However, if an 18" gravel strip is required adjacent to curb by CVWD the strip shall be meandering with some ground cover plant material in the widened gravel areas. BUILDING DESIGN 16. The applicant shall submit perimeter block wall plans and details, to include exterior color and finish. Perimeter wall design shall be decorative. The block wall plan shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of any building permits for wall construction. 17. Final location of all structures submitted for plan check shall comply with all setback standards of the zoning district or Riverside County Specific Plan No. 18, as applicable. Minor amendments to the development plans (e.g. architectural details, house plotting, etc.) shall be subject to approval by the Community Development Director. 18. Any roof -mounted mechanical equipment must be screened within or otherwise integral to the roof structure, using compatible architectural materials and treatments, so as to not be visible from surrounding properties and streets. Working drawings showing all such equipment and locations shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Department along with construction plan submittal for building permits. 19. All two car garages shall maintain the 20-foot x 20-foot minimum interior dimensions as specified in Chapter 9.150 (Parking), LQMC. 20. The community identification sign shall reviewed separately by the Community Development Department under a Sign Application. 21. Wood siding accents and any other wood accents used on the units shall consist of a composite material. 22. Air conditioning/pool equipment cannot be located in the side yards unless five feet of clearance between equipment and property line is provided. P:\STAY\sdp\sdp 2005 827 coa.doc ATTACHMENT #1 : .I •� � .,m "� II � � _ y • ? ! Ali' t® _®� 1 I � O go Do so "o !� r(4 / "o •� C@ "o a� 4t ..® ,• zu °@ i- - -- _ _ _ I -� q® so a� 0 i go 1 HE HE go go RE 5@ to t °® z s io 1 a® eo No �� ® e® Q a@ 1 °o ! 1 -- -- -'- ; - mot,—_ ,,,,,r,— --.._ �� • '-.,�,�— �- ; :._. y \ go go L.'! -Q@ .@ CASE MAP NORTH CASE No. SDP 2005-842 SCALE: NTS ATTACHMENT Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee September 7, 2005 9. Committee Memb r Bobbitt stated he concurred with staff's recommendation n regard to the awnings and trellises. Mr. Sanchez state canopies and trellises will be over the storefronts. St ff noted they need a shade cloth or something added to give more shade. Mr. Sanchez was concerned that the cloth wou detract from the appearance. 10. Committee ember Thorns suggested tightening up the distance b weer the beam members to provide shade. In regard to a plantings on the southeast elevation along the walkway, tree form is needed along the back side of the Buildings and 5. 11. There be' g no further questions of the applicant, it was moved and sec nded by Committee Members Thoms/Bobbitt to adopt Minute otion 2005-031 recommending approval of Site Develop ant Permit 2005-838, as recommended and as follows: a. A 12 inch band of concrete shall be added on the parking b. rees shall be added to the back of Building 4. c. dditional wood members shall be added to the trellises o give shade. d. A stem wall shall be used on the rear of Sub -Major 5 adjacent to the retention basin with landscape material to hide the building. Unanimously Approved. —� D. Site Development Permit 2005-8342 a request of KB Homes Coastal, Inc., for consideration of architectural plans for six prototypical residential plan types for use in Tract 31732, the property located at the southeast corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 60. 1. Principle Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff introduced Ty Mangrum and Cecil Hernandez, who gave a presentation on the project. 2. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he has a problem with the density of the tract. 5 n•N%A1DnnrQ%A1 orW_7_nc Al ar a.... Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee September 7, 2005 3. Committee Member Thorns stated each unit's architecture is all right, but he has a problem with there being a series of two stories with ten feet between them. Staff clarified the garage location dictates the distance between the houses. 4. Committee Member Bobbitt stated the two stories are too massive. Mr. Mangrum explained the two story units would be on the interior of the tract and the single story houses would be along the perimeter streets. He went on to explain the design of the units. The two story units are two bedroom with a loft. It is not the entire structure that is two story; they are tiered. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he was concerned with the massiveness. There is no variation in the height of all the houses. Discussion followed regarding the house designs. 5. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if wood fencing would be used in the rear yards. Mr. Mangrum stated they do intend to use wood in the sideyards. 6. Committee Member Thorns stated wood should not be used. He has no problem with the individual architecture, but recommends the Planning Commission look at the issue of all two story units with the alley. 7. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Thoms to adopt Minute Motion 2005-032 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2005-842, as recommended and as follows: a. Planning Commission be made aware of the Committee's concern regarding the two story units being all located next to each other. Unanimously Approved. E. Skte Development Permit 2005-841; a request of K. Hovnanian Ho s, for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for seven ototypical residential plan types for use in Tract 32398, for the grope located northeast of the intersection of Monroe Street and Avenue 6 r•11AIDnnrC\AI orW-7 nc Al or d,.� CI #A ow �WF y OF Ct� TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DOUG EVANS, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: OCTOBER 11, 2005 SUBJECT: JOINT MEETING The City Council has set the date of October 25, 2005 at 5:00 p.m. at the date and time for the next Joint Meeting between the City Council, Planning Commission and Architectural and Landscape Review Committee. Staff is requesting that the Commission bring suggested agenda topics to the meeting for discussion. PH #C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: OCTOBER 11, 2005 CASE NOS.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-551, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2005-105, ZONE CHANGE 2005-125, SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-055, AMENDMENT #2, AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2003-006, AMENDMENT #2 APPLICANT: CP DEVELOPMENT LA QUINTA, LLC LOCATION: SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF WASHINGTON STREET AND MILES AVENUE WITHIN THE CENTRE POINTE PROJECT REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF: (1) AN ADDENDUM TO A CERTIFIED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; (2) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT; (3) ZONE CHANGE; (4) SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT; AND (5) AN AMENDMENT TO EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO ALLOW: A) CHANGING THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING FOR THE 2+ ACRE RESIDENTIAL SITE AT THE FUTURE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SEELEY DRIVE AND MILES AVENUE (WHICH IS CURRENTLY MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - UP TO 8 RESIDENTIAL UNITS PER ACRE) TO TOURIST COMMERCIAL TO ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL 32 ONE AND TWO STORY CASITAS; AND, B) CHANGING THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING FOR THE 4.8+ ACRE TOURIST COMMERCIAL ZONED BOUTIQUE HOTEL SITE AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROJECT AREA TO THE OFFICE COMMERCIAL ZONE TO ALLOW EXPANSION OF THE APPROVED MEDICAL OFFICE COMPLEX SITE; AND, C) AN AMENDMENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO REFLECT THE REVISED PROJECT AS DESCRIBED ABOVE. PAReports - PC\2005\10-11-05\Centre Pointe\sp 2001-055 amend #2 at al pc rpt.doc ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS PREPARED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-551 (ADDENDUM) FOR THIS REQUEST IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED. THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT, WITH ITS REVISIONS, WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THEREFORE, IS RECOMMENDING AN ADDENDUM TO THE PREVIOUS MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BE CERTIFIED WITH MITIGATION MEASURES. ATTACHMENT 1 CONTAINS ORIGINAL INITIAL STUDY AND FIRST ADDENDUM. ZONING: CT (TOURIST COMMERCIAL) RM (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) P (PARK) CO (OFFICE COMMERCIAL) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: TC (TOURIST COMMERCIAL) MR (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) P (PARKS AND RECREATION) 0 (OFFICE COMMERCIAL) SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USES: NORTH: RL / SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ACROSS MILES AVENUE SOUTH: FP / COACHELLA VALLEY STORM CHANNEL EAST: LDR / EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WEST: VACANT LAND IN THE CITY OF INDIAN WELLS ACROSS WASHINGTON STREET BACKGROUND The 50 acre Centre Pointe project at the southeast corner of Miles Avenue and Washington Street (Attachment 2) was originally approved by the City Council on February 5, 2002, and amended on June 3, 2003 as part of Specific Plan 2001- 055. The 2003 action included a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to inclusion of the medical office facility. This project as currently approved includes a 133 room hotel and 132 casitas units, as well as 90 residential units, two restaurants, a neighborhood park, a maximum 120,000+ square foot medical office/surgical facility and a boutique hotel containing 26 sanctuary villas. P:\Reports - PC\2005\10-11-05\Centre Pointe\sp 2001-055 amend N2 at al pc rpt.doc The property currently includes Tourist Commercial, Office, Park, and Medium Density Residential General Plan designations and zoning. A Parcel Map (PM 31116) has been approved and recorded that divides the property into parcels that coincide with the various uses. PROJECT PROPOSAL General Plan Amendment The applicant's request includes amending the General Plan designations and use of two parcels. The first Amendment is for the southwest corner of Miles Avenue and the new Seeley Drive (Attachment 2). This 2.1 + acre parcel was approved for 13 one and two story cluster courtyard villas. The request is to change the designation to Tourist Commercial to allow 32 additional casitas units. These units would become part of the casitas' immediately to the west. They will be sold and become part of the rental pool of the Hilton Homewood Suites, located further to the west near Washington Street. Plans for these additional units will be reviewed in the future as part of a Site Development Permit entitlement. The second change is proposed for the sanctuary villas (boutique hotel) parcel at the southeast corner of the property (Attachment 2). This development was approved to consist of approximately 26 one story high villas, each containing 1,200 square feet or more (with two bedrooms). In conjunction with these villas, a two story high wellness center to be located in the middle of the project was also approved. The villas would have been privately owned and rented to transient guests when not being used by the owners. The Amendment request proposes to change the General Plan designation from Tourist Commercial to Office Commercial, eliminating the sanctuary villas and wellness center. The site would then be combined with the Office Commercial site to the west and developed in three phases as part of a medical/surgical center containing a total area of approximately 195,000 square feet of floor space. Plans for this center will be reviewed in the future as part of a Site Development Permit entitlement. Zone Change In order to ensure land use consistency with the proposed General Plan Amendment, a zone change for the two above -noted parcels is also proposed. The parcel at Miles Avenue and Seeley Drive is proposed to become Tourist Commercial (TC) with the parcel at the southeast corner proposed to be Office (0). PAReports - PC\2005\10-11.05\Centre Pointe\sp 2001-055 amend #2 at al pc rpt.doc Specific Plan Amendment The original Specific Plan was approved in 2002, and allows this 50 acre project site to accommodate development of the property with a mixture of resort style hotels, timeshares, condominium -hotels, restaurants, related retail uses, a park, single-family residences and townhouses. An Amendment to the original Specific Plan, as well as a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change were approved in June, 2003 to reconfigure the Tourist Commercial, Park and Medium Density Residential and add the Office use to allow a 120,000 square foot medical complex. The current request includes amending the Specific Plan for the land uses as described above for the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change (Attachment 3). The land use changes would increase the casitas' number from 132 to 164 (an additional 32) and the size of the medical complex from 120,000 to 195,000 square feet. Additional changes to the Specific Plan are primarily related to the change in land uses including the following: 1. Tourist Commercial Development Standards - Page 6 Standard Approved Proposed Minimum -maximum building site (acres) 19-50 acres 16-50 acres Boutique hotel building height maximum 33 feet deleted 2. One and Two Story Single Cluster Courtyard Villas - Page 9 Standard Approved Proposed Maximum building heights adjacent to existing residential None 20 feet Maximum stories adjacent to existing residential None One story Setback from Tourist Commercial zone Ten feet deleted 3. Land Use area IV Office Development Standards - Page 10 Standard Approved Proposed First 250 feet from the east This is the boutique hotel 33 feet for property line is limited to area; hotel was limited to medical structure heights of 33 feet 33 feet high complex Maximum building height within 40 feet 45 feet the remainder of the Office area P:\Reports - PC\2005\10-11-05\Centre Pointe\sp 2001-055 amend #2 at al pc rpt.doc Setback from Tourist Commercial Ten feet Deleted not zone applicable 4. Phasing - Page 20 and 21 The phasing map for the entire project has been revised to reflect current phasing proposed. 5. The following exhibits in the Specific Plan document have been revised to reflect the proposed amendments and/or current improvement plans approved to date - Page 27 to end Exhibit A - Aerial map with land uses shown Exhibit B - Site Plan concept Exhibit B-1 - Development parceling map Exhibit B-2 - Medical and surgical center concept plan Exhibit B-3 - Restaurants, Resort and Resort casitas concept site plan. This is a new exhibit and replaces the previous one that showed the boutique hotel on its site. Exhibit D - Landscape plan (along Seeley Drive) Exhibit F - Street cross sections Exhibit G - Sewer service plan Exhibit H - Water service plan Three cross sections through the site showing potential building envelopes of the medical complex have been prepared based on the conceptual site plan in the Specific Plan (Attachment 4) Development Agreement The existing Development Agreement is being amended to reflect the proposed changes to the project (Attachment 5). The amended Agreement has been prepared by the City Attorneys office and requires review and approval by the City Council after recommendation by the Planning Commission. PUBLIC NOTICE This map application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on September 30, 2005. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required by the La Quinta Municipal Code. As of this writing, no comments have been received. P:\Reports - PC\2005\10-11-05\Centre Pointe\sp 2001-055 amend #2 et al pc rpt.doc The applicants have invited adjacent residential neighbors to the south and east to two informational meetings held on October 6 and 10, prior to this hearing to explain their current proposal. FINDINGS The Findings as required by the Zoning Code can be made to recommend approval of these applications as noted in the attached Resolutions. RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt Resolution 2005-_, recommending to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 2005-105, pursuant to the attached Findings; 2. Adopt Resolution 2005-_, recommending to the City Council approval of Zone Change 2005-125, pursuant to the attached Findings; 3. Adopt Resolution 2005-_, recommending to the City Council approval of Specific Plan 2001-055, Amendment #2, pursuant to the attached Findings and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval; 4. Adopt Resolution 2005-_, recommending to the City Council approval of Development Agreement 2003-006, Amendment #2 Attachments: 1. Original Initial Study and first Addendum 2. Location Map 3. Amended Specific Plan 4. Cross-section views 5. Amended Development Agreement Prepared by: Stan Sawa, Principal Planner P,\Reports - PC\2005\10-11-05\Centre Pointe\sp 2001-055 amend p2 at al pc rpt.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- A RESOLUTION OF THE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CERTIFICATION OF AN ADDENDUM TO A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A MIXED USE PROJECT CASE: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-551 APPLICANT: CP DEVELOPMENT LA QUINTA, LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did, on the 111h day of October, 2005 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by CP Development La Quinta LLC, on the Addendum, as well as General Plan Amendment 2005-105, Zone Change 2005-125, Specific Plan 2001-055, Amendment #2, and Development Agreement 2003-006, Amendment #2, more particularly described as: PORTIONS OF APN: 604-040-012, -013, -023, -037 WHEREAS, said Addendum complies with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and the "Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council); and WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering the Addendum, and all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find that neither the proposed changes to the project, nor any changed circumstances, nor new information will result in the identification of new significant impacts, or the substantial increase in the severity of significant impacts identified in the certified Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. 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 said Planning Commission in this case; and, 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of the Addendum to the previously certified Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for General Plan Amendment 2005-105, Zone Change PAReports - PC\2005\10-11-05\Centre Pomte\sp 01-055 am #2 ea pc res.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2005 Environmental Assessment 2005-551 CP Development La Quinta, LLC January 11, 2005 Page 2 2005-125, Specific Plan 2001-055, Amendment #2, and Development Agreement 2003-006, Amendment #2. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 11`h day of October, 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: DOUGLAS R. EVANS Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California P:\Reports - PC\2005\10-11-05\Centre Pointe\sp 01-055 am #2 ea pc res.doc ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-436 FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-055, AMENDMENT #2 (ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-551) (CEQA GUIDELINE 15164) SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-055, AMENDMENT #2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2005-105 ZONE CHANGE 2005-125 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2003-006, AMENDMENT #2 1 The City of La Quinta, as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq. ("CEQA") has prepared this Addendum pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15164. This is an Addendum to the Environmental Assessment 2001-436 that the City Council certified on February 5, 2002 for Specific Plan No. 2001-055, in Resolution No. 2002-07. The purpose of this Addendum is to document certain changes to the project which will be implemented through the following land use approvals: SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-055, AMENDMENT #2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2005-105 ZONE CHANGE 2005-125 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2003-006, AMENDMENT #2 These are collectively referred to as "the Revised Project." The Specific Plan project area is located at the southeastern corner of Washington Street and Miles Avenue. The project site is bordered by the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel on the south, and existing single family development on the east. Lands across Washington Street to the west are vacant. Lands across Miles Avenue to the north are an existing single family development. The Revised project consists of a Specific Plan Amendment, General Plan Amendment Change of Zone and Development Agreement Amendment to modify the land use map and distribution of uses within the Specific Plan area. The proposed amendments would change the designation on lands at the southwest corner of Seeley and Miles from Low Density Residential to Tourist Commercial; and lands in the southeastern corner of the project site from Tourist Commercial to Office. The Table below illustrates the changes proposed: TABLE 1 LAND USE APPROVED ACREAGE PROPOSED ACREAGE Tourist Commercial 19.51 16.2 Medium Density Residential 11.32 9.45 Office 9.73 13.5 Park 2.68 2.7 Well site .52 .52 * The streets and landscape areas were included in the overall acreage of the uses. 2 The City has compared the impacts of the Revised Project with those impacts analyzed in the Environmental Assessment 2001-436, and Addendum to EA 2001-436, adopted in 2003, and finds as follows: Aesthetics - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. On the north side of the site, the expansion of the Tourist commercial area into an area previously proposed for single family residential will result in similar impacts, insofar as smaller casitas or cottage buildings are proposed, which will be of similar scope and scale as typical one and two story residential structures, as has developed to the east and north of the project. On the south side of the site, the expansion of the Office designation into the boutique hotel site will result in buildings of similar mass and size as those approved on the boutique hotel site (Tourist Commercial designation). Agriculture Resources- Not applicable Air Quality -Impacts - Impacts no greater than previously analyzed. The primary source of air quality impacts from the site will be the automobile. Tourist Commercial trip generation is lower than single family home trip generation, so impacts in the northern part of the site will be reduced. Vehicle trips in the Office land use category, on the south side of the site, are somewhat higher than those in Tourist Commercial, but any increase would be offset by the reduction in trips on the north side of the site. Biological Resources - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. Development of the site under the Revised Project will result in the same amount of ground disturbance as originally contemplated in the Environmental Assessment. Cultural Resources - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. Development of the site under the Revised Project will result in the same amount of ground disturbance as originally contemplated in the Environmental Assessment. Geology and Soils - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. The type and mass of proposed structures on the site will not be significantly affected by the proposed land use map amendments, and similar site preparation will be required. Hazards and Hazardous Materials - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. The development of office and tourist commercial projects is not expected to generate any more use of hazardous materials than would the approved project. Any small quantity generators would, as with the approved project, require proper permitting and supervision from regional, state and federal agencies, as required by law. Hydrology and Water Quality - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. The project site is master planned to provide a centralized and coordinated storm water system. The components of the project may change slightly, but the overall requirements to retain the 100 year storm on site, and to protect groundwater resources, will still be implemented by the Public Works Department. 3 Land Use Planning - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. The changes proposed in the land use designations will not change the character or nature of the project. The project land uses are consistent with the General Plan land use categories, and associated goals and policies. Mineral Resources- Not applicable Noise - Impacts less than those previously analyzed. The change in the northern portion of the site will remove single family homes from a location immediately adjacent to a major arterial, which is a high noise generator. The development of offices on the south side of the site will provide an equivalent noise buffer to that previously contemplated for the medium density residential units in the center of the site. Population and Housing - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. The changes proposed in the land use plan will not significantly change the number of residents and employees at the project site. The site is vacant, and the Revised Project will not displace any persons or community. Public Services - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. The change in land use designations will not change the level of service required at the site for police and fire services. The site will still generate property and transient occupancy taxes, which will offset the needed services. Recreation - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. The proposed project's park areas are not being modified by the proposed land use changes. The parks to be provided within the project will still be available for residents and visitors. Transportation/Traffic- Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. The previously approved project generated 6,597 daily trips. The Revised Project changes land uses from Tourist Commercial to Office in the southeastern corner of the site, and from Low Density Residential to Tourist Commercial in the northeastern portion of the site. Traffic patterns will be modified internally by the proposed amendment, but should not result in any change in regional traffic flow. The expansion of the medical office/clinic component of the project is not expected to significantly increase trips, because of the internal association and joint trips they are expected to generate. The residential land use designation would have generated a higher per unit trip rate than will the expansion of the Tourist Commercial facilities. Impacts are therefore expected to be equal to or less than those previously analyzed. it is anticipated that 12,000 square feet of the medical complex will be connecting atriums between buildings and will not contain areas that would generate traffic. Utilities and Service Systems - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. The Revised Project will generate similar requirements for utilities, and is not expected to require the construction of additional water, waste water or drainage facilities beyond those planned for the project as previously approved. Waste generation from the 2 Revised project is expected to be similar in bulk and quantity as the previously approved project. The City finds that consideration of the Revised Project does not call for the preparation of a subsequent environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15162 or Public Resources Code Section 21166, in that the Revised Project does not involve: 1. Substantial changes to the project analyzed in the Environmental Assessment 2001-436 which would involve new significant effects on the environment or substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts; 2. Substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which would involve new significant effects on the environment not analyzed in the Environmental Assessment 2001-436 or substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts; or 3. New information of substantial importance which would involve new significant effects on the environment not analyzed in the Environmental Assessment 2001-436. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO TOURIST COMMERCIAL AND TOURIST COMMERCIAL TO OFFICE FOR CERTAIN PROPERTIES LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF WASHINGTON STREET AND MILES AVENUE IN THE CENTRE POINTE PROJECT CASE NO.: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2005-105 CP DEVELOPMENT LA QUINTA, LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 11`" day of October, 2005, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of CP Development La Quinta, LLC for approval of a General Plan Land Use Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Tourist Commercial and Tourist Commercial to Office for certain properties located southeast of the intersection of Washington Street and Miles Avenue in the Centre Pointe project to allow construction of 32 additional casitas units and additional medical office space, on property more particularly described as: PORTION OF APN'S 604-040-023 and 604-040-037 WHEREAS, said General Plan Amendment application 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 La Quinta Community Development Department has completed Environmental Assessment (EA) 2005-551, an Addendum to EA 2001-436. The Community Development Director has determined that the project with required Mitigation Measures will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and therefore, recommends an Addendum to the previously certified Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact be certified; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department published the public hearing notice in the Desert Sun newspaper on September 30, 2005 for the Planning Commission meeting as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site; and WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings of approval to justify a recommendation to the City Council for approval of said General Plan Amendment: p\stan\centre pointe\gpa 2005-105 pc res.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2005- General Plan Amendment 2005-105 CP Development La Quinta, LLC Adopted: October 11, 2005 1 . The proposed General Plan Amendment is internally consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan in that the General Plan Amendment results in promoting commercial development in a controlled and logical manner. 2. Approval of the General Plan Amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare in that the resulting General Plan designations will result in a project that is required to provide adequate setbacks, be well designed and landscaped, and comply with all applicable City, County, State and Federal requirements. 3. The General Plan Amendment is compatible with adjacent properties in that the resulting projects will be required to minimize the impacts to the surrounding single-family residences. 4. The General Plan Amendment is suitable and appropriate for the property in that it will allow expansion of an approved complex for medical and tourist commercial uses. 5. Approval of the General Plan Amendment is warranted because the uses are an expansion of uses approved on adjacent properties within Centre Pointe. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does recommend approval of General Plan Amendment 2005-105 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as shown in the attached exhibit "A"; PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 11 th day of October, 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: p\stan\centre pointe\gpa 2005-105 pc res.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2005- General Plan Amendment 2005-105 CP Development La Quinta, LLC Adopted: October 11, 2005 ABSENT: ABSTAIN: TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: DOUGLAS R. EVANS Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California p\stan\centre pointe\gpa 2005-105 pc res.doc PLANN NG COMMISSION ON ILAN AMENDMENT 200511105 005- GENERAL EXHIBIT "All ADOPTED: OCTOBER 11. 2005 THE CENTRE POINTE PROJECT \ s y y + � m N 1 L 0 \ \ ♦ ;V 0 ii a � ♦♦ ♦ ♦\ J A w FQz E�u��roac� ®p o��o®aa�o®a 'PROPOSED GP DESIGNATION' PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO TOURIST COMMERCIAL AND TOURIST COMMERCIAL TO OFFICE COMMERCIAL FOR CERTAIN PROPERTIES LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF WASHINGTON STREET AND MILES AVENUE WITHIN THE CENTRE POINTE PROJECT CASE NO.: ZONE CHANGE 2005-125 CP DEVELOPMENT LA QUINTA, LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on did on the 11th day of October, 2005, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of CP Development La Quinta, LLC for a Zone Change from Medium Density Residential to Tourist Commercial and Tourist Commercial to Office Commercial for certain properties located southeast of the intersection of Washington Street and Miles Avenue in the Centre Pointe project to allow construction of 32 additional casitas units and additional medical office space, on property more particularly described as: PORTION OF APN'S 604-040-023 and 604-040-037 WHEREAS, said Zone Change application 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 La Quinta Community Development Department has completed Environmental Assessment (EA) 2005-551, an Addendum to EA 2001-436. The Community Development Director has determined that the project with required Mitigation Measures will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and therefore, recommends an Addendum to the previously certified Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact be certified; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department published the public hearing notice in the Desert Sun newspaper on September 30, 2005, for the Planning Commission meeting as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site; and WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the recommendation for approval of said Zone Change. P:\Reports - PC\2005\10-11-05\Centre Pointe\zc 05-125 pc res.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Zone Change 2005-125 CP Development La Quinta, LLC Adopted: October 11, 2005 1. This Zone Change is internally consistent with those goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan in that the Zone Change will be consistent provided the associated General Plan is approved. 2. This Zone Change will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare in that the resulting land uses require Planning Commission review and approval of development plans, which ensures that the resulting projects are well designed and adequate conditions of approval are imposed. 3. The new zone designation is compatible with the designations on adjacent properties because the project on the subject property will be conditioned to reduce potential impacts to an acceptable level on adjacent properties that are developed with residential uses. 4. The zone designation is suitable and appropriate for the properties involved because they will be designed to be compatible with adjacent properties and reduce potential impacts. 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 Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration; 3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of Zone Change 2005-125 as shown on the attached exhibit "A"; PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 11t' day of October, 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: p\stan\centre pointe\zc 2005-125 pc res.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Zone Change 2005-125 CP Development La Quinta, LLC Adopted: October 11, 2005 ABSENT: ABSTAIN: TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: DOUGLAS R. EVANS, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California p\stan\centre pointe\zc 2005-125 pc res.doc PLANNING P5RESOLUTION2005- EXHIBIT "All ZONE CHANGE 0 5- ADOPTED: OCTOBER 11, 2005 V THE CENTRE POINTE PROJECT aoy° Hof, 6 a� a 0 a y \ \ Ot m 1 N � I t1\ 1 \ 1 N . N +7 T� N O 2 �tto��roac� g®�¢ac� 'PROPOSED ZONING' PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- A RESOLUTION OF THE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT CHANGING LAND USES FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO TOURIST COMMERCIAL AND TOURIST COMMERCIAL TO OFFICE COMMERCIAL FOR CERTAIN PROPERTIES LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF WASHINGTON STREET AND MILES AVENUE WITHIN THE CENTRE POINTE PROJECT CASE NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-055, AMENDMENT #2 CP DEVELOPMENT LA QUINTA, LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did, on the 11" day of October, 2005, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by CP Development La Quinta, LLC for approval of a Specific Plan Amendment amending land uses from Medium Density Residential to Tourist Commercial (2.1 ± acres) and Tourist Commercial to Office Commercial(5 ± acres) for certain properties located southeast of the intersection of Washington Street and Miles Avenue in the Centre Pointe project to allow construction of 32 additional casitas units and additional medical office space, on property more particularly described as: PORTION OF APN'S 604-040-023 and 604-040-037 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department published the public hearing notice in the Desert Sun newspaper on September 30, 2005, for the Planning Commission meeting as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site; and WHEREAS, said General Plan Amendment application 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 La Quinta Community Development Department has completed Environmental Assessment (EA) 2005-551, an Addendum to EA 2001-436. The Community Development Director has determined that the project with required Mitigation Measures will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and therefore, recommends an Addendum to the previously certified Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact be certified; and WHEREAS, at the Public Hearing upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said P:\Reports - PC\2005\10-11-05\Centre Pointe\sp 2001-055 amend #2 pc res.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Specific Plan 2003-055, Amendment #2 CP Development La Quinta, LLC Adopted: October 11, 2005 Planning Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings to justify a recommendation to the City Council for approval of said Specific Plan Amendment: The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is internally consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the existing Specific Plan and General Plan in that it will result in promoting commercial development in a controlled and logical manner that is compatible with the neighborhood. 2. Approval of the Specific Plan Amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare in that the resulting project will provide adequate setbacks, be well designed, landscaped, and will comply with all applicable City, County, State and Federal requirements. 3. The Specific Plan Amendment is suitable and appropriate for the property in that it will allow expansion of a conceptually approved complex for medical and tourist commercial uses. 4. Approval of the Specific Plan Amendment is warranted because the uses are an expansion of uses approved on adjacent properties within Centre Pointe. 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 said Planning Commission in this case; and 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of Specific Plan 2001-055, Amendment #2 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 11t" day of October, 2005, by the following vote, to wit: P:\Reports - PC\2005\10-11-05\Centre Pointe\sp 2001-055 amend #2 pc res.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Specitic Plan 2003-055, Amendment #2 CP Development La Quinta, LLC Adopted: October 11, 2005 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: DOUGLAS R. EVANS Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California P:\Reports - PC\2005\10-11-05\Centre Pointe\sp 2001-055 amend #2 pc res.doc ILANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- :ONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED ;PECIFIC PLAN 2001-055, AMENDMENT #2 :P DEVELOPMENT LA QUINTA, LLC kDOPTED: OCTOBER 11, 2005 3ENERAL The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Site Development Permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. Within 30 days of final approval of this Specific Plan by the City Council, two draft revised copies of this Specific Plan incorporating the following Conditions of Approval in the appropriate sections shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval. Upon approval by the Community Development Department, five copies of the final Specific plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. Change on Page 5. Amend the first paragraph of Zoning and Development Standards for "Land Use Areas 1 through 4" to "Land Use Areas I through IV" for consistency. Change on Page 6. Add the following to Setbacks: Minimum perimeter building/landscape set back (in ft.) from Seeley Street 20 ft. Change on Page 7. For A. Purpose: and MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RM) DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, change number of allowed residential units from 90 to 60 (per amended Development Agreement). Change on Page 9. For MEDIUM DESITY RESIDENTIAL (RM) DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, revise the last paragraph to read "Streets shall be 32' measured gutter flow line to gutter flow line with no parking on one side of the street." Change on Page 16. Section 3 Development Plan. The following shall be added to the first paragraph under Circulation at the end: The traffic impact analysis shall be revised with future Site Development Permit applications to reflect the changes in Land Use Areas as proposed by this Specific Plan Amendment No. 2. -:\Reports - PC\2005\10-11-05\Centre Pointe\sp 2001-055 amend #2 pc coa.doc 'tanning Commission Resolution 2005- :onditions of Approval - Recommended specific Plan 2001-055, Amendment #2 :P Development La Quints, LLC ldopted: October 11, 2005 Change on Page 21. Under Phasing, the construction of Seeley Drive shall be shown as a part of Phase I. Change on Exhibit B1. The Land Use Area IV to reflect any reconfiguration of Lots 8 through 12. Change on Exhibit B-2, Concept Plan - Medical and Surgical Center. An additional access driveway to the proposed facility to enhance access to the surgical center in the back portion of the development shall be provided. Future Site Development Permit application for the Medical and Surgical Center will require additional circulation information and possible relocation of entrance driveways and driveway aisles for a better internal circulation pattern. 3. Change Exhibit B3 to reflect the building/landscape setback required on Seeley Drive of 20 feet. Additionally, adjustment of the parking lot configuration will be required in future Site Development Permit entitlement to provide for safe sight distance at the driveway at the Seeley Drive and Miles Avenue corner. Additionally, the Site Development Permit entitlement for the Casitas may require reconfiguration of the added Casitas complex to require off-street internal vehicular circulation to the hotel area. 10. Change Exhibit F to reflect Private Residential Drive at 32' measured gutter flow line to gutter flow line with no parking on one side of the street. 11. The new casitas' and medical complex require approval of a Site Development Permit application. ':\Reports - P02005\10-11-05\Centre Pointe\sp 2001-055 amend #2 pc coa.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- A RESOLUTION OF THE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND AMONG THE CITY OF LA QUINTA AND CP DEVELOPMENT LA QUINTA, LLC CASE NO.: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2003-006, AMENDMENT #2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did, on the 11" day of October, 2005, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider an amendment to a Development Agreement by and among the City of La Quinta and CP Development La Quinta, LLC for property located at the southeast corner of Washington Street and Miles Avenue; and WHEREAS, said General Plan Amendment application 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 La Quinta Community Development Department has completed Environmental Assessment (EA) 2005-551, an Addendum to EA 2001-436. The Community Development Director has determined that the amended Development Agreement will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and therefore, recommends an Addendum to the previously certified Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact be certified; and WHEREAS, at the Public Hearing upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings to justify a recommendation to the City Council for approval of said Development Agreement Amendment: The proposed Development Agreement Amendment is internally consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan and Specific Plan 2001-055, Amendment #2, in that it will result in promoting commercial development in a controlled and logical manner that is compatible with the neighborhood. 2. The land uses authorized and regulations prescribed for the Development Agreement are compatible with the zoning and its related regulations applicable to the property. 3. The proposed Development Agreement conforms with the public convenience and general welfare by providing for extensive public PAReports - PC\2005\10-11-05\Centre Pointe\da 2003-006 amend #2 pc res.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Development Agreement 2003-006, Amendment #2 Adopted: October 11, 2005 improvements and conforms to good land use practice by encouraging a long-range comprehensive approach to the development of major hotel facilities, medical facilities and residential complexes. 4. Approval of this Development Agreement Amendment will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare since adequate provisions have been made in previous City approvals to provide for necessary and desirable improvements which are incorporated herein. 5. Approval of this Development Agreement Amendment will not adversely affect the orderly development of the subject or surrounding properties nor preservation of area -wide property values, but rather will enhance them by encouraging planned -phased growth. 6. Consideration of this Development Agreement Amendment has been accomplished pursuant to California Government Code Section 65864 et seq. and the City of La Quinta Municipal Code Section 9.250.030, which governs Development Agreements. 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 said Planning Commission in this case; and 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of Development Agreement, Amendment #2 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 11t" day of October, 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: P:�Reports - PC\2005\10-11-05\Centre Pointe\da 2003-006 amend #2 pc res.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Development Agreement 2003-006, Amendment #2 Adopted: October 11, 2005 TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: DOUGLAS R. EVANS Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California P:1Reports - PC\2005\10-11-05\Centre Pointe\da 2003-006 amend #2 pc res.doc • Environmental Checklist For# ATTACHMEN' ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-436 Planning Commission Resolution 2002-017 City Council Resolution 2002-07 1. Project Title: General Plan Amendment 2001-083, Zone Change 2001- 105, Specific Plan 2001-055 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quints 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Jer.0 Herman `. 760-777-7125 4. Project Location: Southeastern corner of Miles Avenue and Washington Street 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of La Quinta Redevelopment Agency 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA •92253 6. General Plan Designation: Current: High Density Residential, Park Proposed: Tourist Commercial, Medium Density Residential, Park 7. Zoning: Current: High Density Residential, Park Proposed: Tourist Commercial, Medium Density Residential, Park 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The General Plan and Zone Change are required to allow the development of the proposed hotel and medium density residential land uses. The Specific Plan establishes design standards and guidelines for the development of approximately 22 acres of tourist commercial, consisting of two three-story hotel facilities, commercial retail and restaurant uses; approximately 19 acres of single family and townhome development; approximately 7 acres of watercourse (Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel); and approximately 6 acres of park. Altogether, the property is approximately 54 acres in size. 9. Surrounding Lane Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings. North: Miles Avenue, Vacant, Single Family Residential South: Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, Single Family Residential East: Vacant, single family residential West: Washington Street, vacant 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) S:ICityClerk\Resolutions\GatewayCkLst.WPD 1 Environmental Factorsootentially Affected: • The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment. ❑ there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 12 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact or 'potentially ❑ significant unless mitigated" on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, ❑ because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, no,thing further is required. L��-- December 5. 2001 Signature i Date Christine di lorio Printed Name G:%WPDOCS%Env Asses\GatewayCkLst.WPD 0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the reference information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVIII, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analysis are discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) The analysis of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance SACity Clerk\Resolutione\GatewayCkLst.WPO 3 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Visual Simulation, The Keith Companies) b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (General Plan EIR, page 5-12 ff.) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Visual Simulation, The Keith Companies) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Specific Plan document) AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Dept. Of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29, 5-32) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Aerial photographs) AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Union Significant No Impact Mitigated impact Impac SACity Clerk%RnolutionsMaatowayCkLst.WPD 0 d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Specific Plan document) a) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Specific Plan document) IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a► Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 ff.) b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5.2 ff.) c) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Either individually or in combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 ff.) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 ff.) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (La Quints Municipal Code; General Plan) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 ff.) J. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource which is either listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic Resources, or a local register of historic resources? (See Sources consulted at the end of this checklist) SACity Clerk%Rewlutions\GetewayCkLst.WPD bl Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resources (i.e., an artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions, has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or best available example of its type, or is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person)? (See Sources consulted at the end of this checklist) c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? (Paleontological Map, City of La Quints) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (See Sources consulted at the end of this checklist) 11. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Geotechnical Engineering Report, Earth Systems Southwest, November 2001) ill Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR, page 4- 30 ff. and Geotechnical Engineering Report, Earth Systems Southwest, November 2001) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff. and Geotechnical Engineering Report, Earth Systems Southwest, November 2001) iv) Landslides? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) b► Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff. And Geotechnical Engineering Report, Earth Systems Southwest, November 2001) c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff. and Geotechnical Engineering Report, Earth Systems Southwest, November 2001) d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff. and Geotechnical Engineering Report, Earth Systems Southwest, November 2001) SACity Clark\Resolutiona\GatewayCkLst.WPD 6 r-1 e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal system where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-32 and Geotechnical Engineering Report, Earth Systems Southwest, November 2001) It. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Application Materials) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Application Materials) c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Application Materials) d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Riverside County Hazardous Materials Usting) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip; would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-11) h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildlands fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (General Plan land use map) fill. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-26, 6-27) b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (General Plan EIR, page 4-57 ff.) S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\GatewayCklst.WPD c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? (General Plan EIR, page 4- 59 ff.) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? (General Plan EIR, page 4-59 ff.) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control? (General Plan EIR, page 4-59 ff.) f) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13 1 g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13) LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (Project Description) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local costal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (General Plan Land Use Element) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-5) MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29) NOISE: Would the project result In: a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (General Plan EIR, p. 4-157 ff. and Revised Preliminary Acoustical Analysis, Gordon Bricken & Associates, December 2001) SACity Clerk%ResolutionslGatewsyCkLst.WPD IV b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?(General Plan EIR, p. 4-157 ff. and Revised Preliminary Acoustical Analysis, Gordon Bricken & Associates, December 2001) c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan EIR, p. 4-157 ff. and Revised Preliminary Acoustical Analysis, Gordon Bricken & Associates, December 2001) d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Application Materials) e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive levels? (General Plan map) POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure) ? (General Plan, page 2-14) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application Materials) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application Materials) PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. ) Police protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. ) Schools? (General Plan MEA, page 4-9 ff. ) Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan) Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, page 4-14 ff. ) RECREATION: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Application Materials) ,OMNI S:JCity Clerk\Resolutiona\GatewayCkL$t.WPD A b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application Materials) TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (General Plan EIR, p. 4-126 ff. and La Quinta Gateway Traffic Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, December 2001) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (General Plan EIR, p. 4-126 ff. and La Quints Gateway Traffic Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, December 2001) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (Application Materials) d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (General Plan EIR, p. 4-126 ff.) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Application Materials) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Application Materials) g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Application Materials) UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, page 4-24) b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, page 4-24 ) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, page 4-27) d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, page 4- 20) SACity Clerk\Resolutions\GatewayCkl.at.WPD 10 al Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (General Plan MEA, page 4-20) f) is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?(General Plan MEA, page 4-28) VII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects)? d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Will. EARLIER ANALYSIS. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, on or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analysis and state where they are available for review. None b► Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. See attached Addendum. SOURCES: Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 1992 S:\City Cle,k\Resolutions\GatewayCkLst.WPD 11 General Plan, City of La Quinta, 1992 • SCAQMD CEQA Handbook Paleontological Lakebed Delineation Map, City of La Quinta City of La Quinta Municipal Code "Archaeological Monitoring Report, Miles Avenue Borrow Site," prepared by CRM Tech, July 2001 "Final Report Archaeological Mitigation of Project Effects to a Native American Cremation Found on Parcel Map No. 26860," prepared by CRM Tech, February 2001 "Final Report Archaeological Testing and Site Evaluation on Parcel Map No. 26860," prepared by CRM Tech, June 2000 "Phase I Archaeological Assessment of 54.65 Acres at the Southeast Corner of Washington Street and Miles Avenue," prepared by Archaeological Advisory Group, June 1999 "La Quinta Gateway Traffic Impact Analysis," prepared by Urban Crossroads, December 2001 "Revised Preliminary Acoustical Analysis," prepared by Gordon Bricken & Associates, December 2001 "Geotechnical Engineering Report," prepared by Earth Systems Southwest, Novembe 2001 Visual Impact Simulation, prepared by the Keith Companies, December 2001 S:\City ClwklResolutionslGatewayCkLot.WPD 12 Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2001-436 Planning Commission Resolution 2002-017 City Council Resolution 2002-07 a) & c) The proposed project occurs at a high topographic point in the city, and is bordered on the east and north by single family residential development. In order to assess the potential impacts to the viewshed of these single family residential units, a visual impact simulation was conducted'. The simulations were conducted for views from the east and south to the west, and from the north and east to the south and west. The analysis clearly demonstrates that the scale of the proposed project will not eliminate the views of existing or future residential units to the surrounding mountains. The impacts of structures on the project site will be less than significant. III. a) & d) Air quality in the Coachella Valley and the City is primarily affected by vehicular emissions. The development of this project could generate up to 6,170 average daily tripS2. Based on this trip generation, the project at buildout will generate the following pollutants. Running Exhaust Emissions (pounds/day) PM10 PM10 PM10 CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires 50 mph 223. 8.58 45.7 -- 0..95 0.95 1 6 Daily Threshold 550 75 100 150 w Based on 6,170 trips/day and average trip length of 7 miles, using EMFAC7G Model provided by California Air Resources Board. Assumes catalytic light autos at 750F. • Operational thresholds provided by SCAOMD for assistance in determining the significance of a project and the need for an EIR, Visual Impact Simulations, The Keith Companies, December 2001. Y "La Quinta Gateway Traffic Impact Analysis," prepared by Urban Crossroads, December 2001. SACity Clerk\Resolutions\GatewayAdd.WPD As demonstrated above, the operational impacts associated with air quality on the project site are expected to be less than significant. Ill.c) The Coachella Valley is a non -attainment area for PM10 (particulate matter of 10 microns or smaller). The construction of the proposed project has the potential to generate dust, which could contribute to the PM10 problem in the area. In order to control PM10, the City has imposed standards and requirements on development to control dust. The applicant will be required to submit such a plan prior to initiation of any earth moving activity at the site. In addition, the potential impacts associated with PM10 can be mitigated by the mitigation measures below. 1. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize exhaust emissions. 2. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary power poles to avoid on -site power generation. 3. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit opportunities. 4. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on site. 5. Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of three feet prior to the onset of grading activities. 6. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed on an on -going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the site. Portions of the site that are actively being graded shall be watered regularly to ensure that a crust is formed on the ground surface, and shall be watered at the end of each work day. 7. All disturbed areas shall be treated to prevent erosion until the site is constructed upon. Pad sites which are to remain undeveloped shall be seeded with either a desert wildflower mix or grass seed, or chemical stabilizer. 8. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for wind erosion. Perimeter landscaping on Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street, and the retention basin landscaping shall be completed with the first phase of development. 9. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site. 10. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage S.\City Clerk\Resolutions\GatewayAdd.WPD 2 ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour. 11 All buildings on the project site shall conform to energy use guidelines in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts to air quality from buildout will not be significant. IV. a) The proposed project is within the mitigation fee area for the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan, and will be required to pay fees to mitigate the potential impact on this species. The payment of the fees serves to mitigate the impacts to a less than significant level. V. b) & d) Several cultural resource studies were completed for the subject property3. The surveys included extensive testing and the excavation of a cremation site. The work done on the site to date has been comprehensive, but additional resources may be buried within the project area. As a result, to ensure that the potential impacts to cultural resources are mitigated, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: 1. During any and all earth moving activities on any portion of the project site, a qualified archaeological monitor shall be present. The monitor shall be empowered to stop or redirect activities on the site should a resource be identified. A final report shall be filed with the Community Development Department prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building on the project site. VI. a) ii) A geotechnical investigation was completed for the project site`. The site occurs in a seismic Zone IV. The site, as with the balance of the City, will be subject to strong groundshaking during a seismic event. The City has implemented standards in the Uniform Building Code to ensure the highest construction 3 "Archaeological Monitoring Report, Miles Avenue Borrow Site," prepared by CRM Tech, July 2001 "Final Report Archaeological Mitigation of Project Effects to a Native American Cremation Found on Parcel Map No. 26860," prepared by CRM Tech, February 2001 "Final Report Archaeological Testing and Site Evaluation on Parcel Map No. 26860," prepared by CRM Tech, June 2000 "Phase I Archaeological Assessment of 54.65 Acres at the Southeast Corner of Washington Street and Miles Avenue," prepared by Archaeological Advisory Group, June 1999 "Geotechnical Engineering Report," prepared by Earth Systems Southwest, November 2001. S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\GatewayAdd.WPD 3 standards are applied to protect against seismic hazard. These standards are expected to ensure that impacts associated with seismic ground shaking are reduced to a less than significant level. IX. b) The proposed General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone will change the land uses on the project site from High Density Residential and Park to Tourist Commercial, Medium Density Residential, and Park. The surrounding land use designations include Park, Low Density Residential and Watercourse. The change in land use represents a natural extension of the land use plan, insofar as it places more intense land use (Tourist Commercial) at the intersection of Miles and Washington, and steps down the land use intensity as it proceeds easterly. The Medium Density Residential will be an effective buffer to the existing and future low density development to the east and south. The existing High Density Residential designation is a relatively intense land use, which would not have been buffered from the Low Density development to the east. The proposed General Plan and Change of Zone will therefore represent a less than significant impact on the land use pattern in the City. XI. a) A noise study was completed for the proposed project'. The project site is currently subject to high noise levels, and will continue to be impacted by noise as the project build out. The noise levels will not be reduced to City standards without mitigation. In order to achieve acceptable noise levels for the hotels and townhomes on the subject property, the noise study proposes several setback areas for the construction of sound walls, depending on the site design. These mitigation measures include sound walls and/or berms ranging from 0 to 10 feet in height, and are variable depending on the finish grade of the individual sites within the project. With the implementation of the mitigation measures included in the noise study, however, noise levels on the site at buildout can be reduced to an acceptable level. Since no Site Development Permit is proposed at this time for any portion of the site, and specific mitigation cannot therefore be evaluated, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 1. Any site development permit submitted for any portion of the site shall either: a) Demonstrate conformance with the mitigation measures provided in the "Revised Preliminary Acoustical Analysis" prepared by Gordon Bricken & Associates on December 6, 2001; or b) Submit a noise study specifically prepared for that site "Revised Preliminary Acoustical Analysis," prepared by Gordon Bricken & Associates, December 2001. S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\GatewayAdd.WPD 4 b) Submit a noise study specifically prepared for that site development permit which demonstrates that the noise levels can be reduced on the site to the noise standards in effect at the time of submittal of the application. XIII. a) The proposed development will have a less than significant impact on public services. All areas of the proposed Specific Plan will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, acting under City contract. Site development will generate property tax, transient occupancy tax and sales taxes which will offset the costs of added police and fire services. XV. a) The project will be required to pay the mandated school fees as development occurs. These fees mitigate the students generated, and offset the impacts to schools. The collection of property tax, and the generation of sales tax will generate revenues to the City to offset the added costs associated with the provision of municipal services. The project will be required to participate in the City's Impact Fee Program, which helps to offset roadway improvement costs. A traffic study was conducted for the proposed projects. The study found that buildout of the proposed project would generate up to 6,170 average daily trips, of which 310 would occur during the AM peak, and 465 during the PM peak hour. The volume generated by the proposed project, combined with the growth in traffic volumes on City streets from other project in the area resulted in recommended mitigation measures in the study in order to maintain City level of service standards. These mitigation measures are enumerated below: 1. Miles Avenue and Washington Street shall be constructed to their full half -width right-of-way with development of the first phase of the project. 2. A traffic signal shall be installed at the intersection of Seeley Drive and Miles Avenue in conjunction, as warranted. 3. Access to the project from Washington Street shall be limited to right -in, right -out only. 4. Left turn pocket on Seeley Drive, accessing westbound Miles Avenue, shall be a minimum of 100 feet in length. Left turn pocket on westbound Miles Avenue, accessing southbound Seeley Drive, shall be a minimum 6 "Le Quints Gateway Traffic Impact Analysis," prepared by Urban Crossroads, December 2001. S:1City Clerk\Resolutions\GatewayAdd.WPD 5 of 150 feet in length. With the implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts of the project on the City's circulation system shall be less than significant. XVI. a)-f) The buildout of the site will require service from utility providers. The overall impacts on these services is not expected to be significant, insofar as these suppliers will charge the businesses and residents for their services, and provide improvements to these services as needed. In addition, connection fees will be required at construction of any project. These fees and charges will mitigate the potential impacts to a less than significant level. S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\GatewayAdd.WPD 6 � \LU > LU k k k LU 0 k coB § 7 a § { 3 c 0 § § �� Cl) z k� 0 a ; 0 ° U) 3 ■ ■ k K Lu cc 0 0 0 / « 0 } C k IL « & (LU �§ �§ �# f E§ OD§8 9@ 2 0« 01 R �z o c� a� k / n&L cn $§ ) k Z q S u4 § ® °4 kk S kk E � � ZIL tu o© " k � § I « J & to k � , _ c v I g k 0 ° © ) « m § 2 C @ I / _ OD § § % 8 |.t s�2a s c ) §k' f CL u .0 U $ tm � 2tm� \�\� (L (L & a. it 2 Ir & 00 ( 2 e — In 0 0 \ / 20 k k D & § § J J 2( ( # » t k g o Q o m o c § 0 / cc k ] k k§ or C e § c 7 0 ] § ■2 2 E _ Q k ( . {k) « c ® ~ c & § � CL 2 — � k � § £ k m IL 2 QLU Q G G m U V m Q W Q W J Y Y g> dc U UU C�1V w � m W l�0 N W _N cc O m F C m m O y r r 7 > N m m CL U n m d a14 O y O « « E E O1 c a a Ad z E z mr m El U F F O C O a 0) > > C G p 3 p 3 m N Q i7; m 61 C C C W2 m a LL2 m ar Z a O•- O JS m y � G 0 — N N� zz a>i G o3 y N� zz NN CO o 0 d a c d 0 = c c ? c LU :�E luu� mEE mE °C E a' ¢ E E m E a m m m E a a E a c0 �o moo vo y d y N Z C O Z O y ^O H c O F N W a O F N r m« QCA Q �U �! Lu m W FIc C N . c F¢ d y « a Q 0 rn y � �Q d*a> OE Q E> QLU Q mE Qi �acim yO g W O Y c2 W0.3 N `• C > U y m J O m m y E O o C 'y m W C z o >v C C a) c > U < x �, teA 0CD ¢may � �§ �e �v ) to § q D ] ] 0 � c ; >§ ■»§ � - £ 3a 3kf # 7 ' ) 0 ' u 0 k ) / 0 s / � u E £ ;2 ik 00 c c c c f J J 3 0 0 u u \ a § o > )ka Im I ) $ CO C) �■ 0 I tm c ]m tom a 0 § m! 'COa ;DM |§ ■% # -WA{ cs u § 0 | cc §J cc2 ° 32 ) / k / \ \ \ § { j x 05 /§ 5= C,nh 0 ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-436 FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-055 (CEQA GUIDELINE 15164) SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-055, AMENDMENT NO. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-013 FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2003-090, PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-011 AND ZONE CHANGE 2003-111 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-012 P:\BETTY\CENTERPOINT EA ADDENDUM.wpd 1 The City of La Quinta, as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq. ("CEQA") has prepared this Addendum pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15164. This is an Addendum to the Environmental Assessment 2001-436 that the City Council certified in on February 5, 2002 for Specific Plan No. 2001-055, in Resolution No. 2002-07. The purpose of this Addendum is to document certain changes to the project which will be implemented through the following land use approvals: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2003-090, AMENDMENT #1 TO SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-055 AND ZONE CHANGE 2003-111 These are collectively referred to as "the Revised Project." The approximate 50-acre subject property is situated at the southeast corner of Miles Avenue and Washington Street, a major entry point to the City. The property is bound by the Coachella Valley Storm water Channel to the south, the La Quinta Del Oro residential subdivision and vacant residential land to the north across Miles Avenue, and the Desert Pride and Sienna Del Rey single-family subdivision to the east. To the west is vacant land within the City of Indian Wells. The Revised Project would change the current land use acres as illustrated in the following chart: CURRENT PROPOSED LAND USE ACREAGE ACREAGE Tourist Commercial 22 19.51 Medium Density Residential 20 11.32 Office 0 9.73 Park 5 3.02 Well site .52 .52 Streets 3.04 TOTAL 47.52 * 47.14 * the streets and landscape areas were included in the overall acreage of the uses. P:\BETTV\CENTERPOINT EA ADDENDUM.wpd 2 The City has compared the impacts of the Revised Project with those impacts analyzed in the Environmental Assessment 2001-436 and finds as follows: Aesthetics - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. The previously approved Specific Plan did not contain a office land use. This new land use is located in the general location of a hotel proposed in the previous Specific Plan. The scale, height, and mass will generally be the same. Agriculture Resources- Not applicable Air Quality -Impacts - Impacts no greater than previously analyzed. Biological Resources - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. The Revised Project will have the same level of impacts on biology as the original project. Cultural Resources - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. Prior to grading, the applicant will be required to retain qualified archaeological monitor approved by the City. Geology and Soils - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. The geology and soil impacts remain unchanged. Hazards and Hazardous Materials - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. Hydrology and Water Quality - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. Land Use Planning - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. The Revised Project is consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the General Plan and the Specific Plan. A DDA will be prepared to promote the future development of the project. The preparation and implementation of the DDA will not have significant environmental impact. Mineral Resources- Not applicable Noise - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. Population and Housing - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. It is anticipated that the number of persons residing or working within the specific plan area will be the same. Public Services - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. Recreation - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. Residential uses will continue to have access to an on site park/open space area, including adjacent parks in the area and their own lots. Therefore, the need for recreational facilities arising from the project are within the scope of what was originally analyzed. R\BETTY\CENTERPOINT EA ADDENDUM.wpd 3 Transportation/Traffic- An updated traffic Impact analysis was prepared to compare the trip generation for the previous traffic analysis to the proposed uses, and to determine whether any significant change in traffic impacts and/or mitigation measures would be required. The findings of the update are: 1) the revised land uses, including the medical facility and medical office building/clinic, can be accommodated without any significant change to traffic impacts or mitigation measures in comparison with the original traffic analysis for the project., 2) the proposed project would generate a net trip generation of 6,597 trip -ends per day with 423 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 626 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. The previous project would have generated 5,553 trip -ends per day with 310 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 465 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour., and 3) the revised project generates slightly greater daily and AM/PM peak hour trips. However, the additional trips can be accommodated without significantly changing the traffic impacts or mitigation measures for the project. This update was prepared by RK Engineering group, Inc. dated January 20, 2003. Based upon this study, it has been determined that changes in land uses will not significantly impact the study area intersections or recommendations included in the previous project. Utilities and Service Systems - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. The City finds that consideration of the Revised Project does not call for the preparation of a subsequent environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15162 or Public Resources Code Section 21166, in that the Revised Project does not involve: (1) substantial changes to the project analyzed in the Environmental Assessment 2001-436 which would involve new significant effects on the environment or substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which would involve new significant effects on the environment not analyzed in the Environmental Assessment 2001-436 or substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts; or (3) new information of substantial importance which would involve new significant effects on the environment not analyzed in the Environmental Assessment 2001-436. P:\BETTY\CENTERPOINT EA ADDENDUM.wpd 4 HOTEL RESTAURANT ATTACHMENT #2 NeW RESORT CASITAS M LES AVENUE . c3 5 3 PARKING O O O � 0 O O PARKING NAP PARK 0 MEDICAL OFFICE SINGLE FAMILY NEW RESIDENTI MEDICAL AND STORSITE M --7ti ~Fc CASE MAP CASE Nm CENTRE POINTE PROJECT SITE ORTH SCALE: NTS ATTACHMENT RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Attn: City Clerk Space Above This Line for Recorder's Use (Exempt from Recording Fee per Gov't Code § 27383) AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Amendment No. 2") is made and entered into as of , 2005 ("Effective Date") by and between the CITY OF LA QUINTA, a California municipal corporation and charter city organized and existing under the Constitution of the State of California (the "City"), and CP DEVELOPMENT LA QUINTA, LLC, a California limited liability company ("Developer"). RECITALS: A. On or about December 18, 2003, the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") and Developer entered into that certain Disposition and Development Agreement (the "Original DDA"), pursuant to which Agency agreed to sell to Developer, and Developer agreed to purchase from Agency, that certain real property located southeast of the Miles Avenue and Washington Street intersection in the City of La Quinta, California 92253 (the "Site"), and to construct, complete, and operate thereon a commercial project containing a medical office/surgical facility, a development containing sanctuary villas, a mid -price suites hotel, a resort -style condominium/casitas development, two (2) sit-down restaurants, and two (2) single- family residential developments, with forty (40) of the single-family homes restricted for sale to "Eligible Buyers" at an "Affordable Housing Cost" (as those terms are defined in the DDA (collectively, the "Project"). The Site is legally described in Exhibit "A", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. B. Concurrently with the execution of the Original DDA, the City and Developer entered into that certain Development Agreement dated December 18, 2003, and recorded on January 5, 2004, as Instrument No. 2004-0005256, in the Official Records of the County of Riverside (the "Original Development Agreement"), for purposes of (i) identifying the terms, conditions, and regulations for the construction of the Project, certain components of which constitute a Planned Development (as defined in Civil Code Section 1351(k)); (ii) setting forth a payment schedule for the Developer's payment to the City of certain amounts designed to compensate the City in the event that certain components of the Project fail to generate specified levels of transient occupancy tax (as that term is used in La Quinta Municipal Code Chapter XX2; 015610-0061 620306 02 aM04D5 3.24); (iii) setting forth a payment schedule for the Developer's payment to the City of Three Hundred Forty -Six Thousand Eleven Dollars ($346,011), to cover the Developer's contribution towards the cost of certain landscaping improvements installed within certain portions of the real property adjacent to the Site; (iv) requiring the Developer, at its sole cost, to construct a neighborhood park on certain real property owned in fee by the City; and (v) setting forth the extent to which Developer may construct, develop, use and operate the Project. C. On or about October 28, 2004, (i) Agency and Developer entered into that certain Amendment No. 1 to Disposition and Development Agreement ("Amendment No. 1 to DDA") to revise (a) certain timeframes in the schedule of performance attached to the Original DDA; (b) certain conditions that had to be satisfied prior to the Agency's conveyance to Developer of the Site; and (c) the transfer and assignment provisions in the Original DDA, and (ii) City and Developer entered into that certain Amendment No. 1 to Development Agreement (Amendment No. 1 to Development Agreement") to revise the transfer and assignment provisions in the Original Development Agreement. The Original Development Agreement, as modified by Amendment No. 1 to Development Agreement, is hereinafter referred to as the "Development Agreement." D. On or about December 7, 2004, Agency and Developer entered into that certain Amendment No. 2 to Disposition and Development Agreement ("Amendment No. 2 to DDA") which amended the Original DDA, as amended by Amendment No. 1 to DDA, to provide for the Agency's agreement to subordinate Repurchase Option I in the same manner, and subject to the same terms and conditions, as the Agency had agreed to subordinate Repurchase Option III in order to accommodate Developer's acquisition and development lender. Concurrently with the parties' execution of Amendment No. 2 to DDA, Agency conveyed to Developer the Property. The Original DDA, as modified by Amendment No. 1 and Amendment No. 2, is hereinafter referred to as the "DDA." E. On or about April 4, 2005, Parcel Map No. 31116, in the City of La Quinta, was filed in the Official Records of the County of Riverside in Book 212 of Parcel Maps at pages 60- 66, inclusive (the "Parcel Map"). The Parcel Map created legal parcels within the Site that differ from the parcels depicted on the Site Map attached to the Development Agreement. In particular: (i) the Parcel Map created one legal parcel for development thereon of the Casitas Development (identified thereon as "Parcel 2"), where the Site Map had depicted the Casitas Development on three parcels; (ii) the Parcel Map created one legal parcel for development thereon of the Sanctuary Villas Development (identified thereon as "Parcel 7"), where the Site Map had depicted the Sanctuary Villas Development on two parcels; and (iii) the Parcel Map created one legal parcel for development thereon of the Medical Office/Surgical Facility (identified thereon as "Parcel 6"), where the Site Map had depicted the Medical Office/Surgical Facility on four parcels. The Parcel Map also created "Parcel 1" and "Parcel 5" for development thereon of the Restaurants, "Parcel 3" for development thereon of the Villas Residential Development, "Parcel 4" for development thereon of the Suites Hotel, "Parcel 8" for development thereon of the Cluster/Perimeter Residential Development, and "Parcel 9" for development thereon of a public park. A copy of the Parcel Map is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit 'B". All further references herein to a "Parcel" shall mean the parcel created on the Parcel Map. 882 01561 M061 620306 02 a10iO4�05 -2- F. Concurrently with the preparation and processing through the City hereof, (i) the Developer has prepared and is processing through the City an amendment to the Center Point Specific Plan, also known as Specific Plan No. SP2001-055, as previously amended by City Council Resolution No. 2003-035, on June 3, 2003, to modify the uses permitted on certain portions of the Property (the "Specific Plan Amendment"), and (ii) the Agency and Developer have prepared that certain Amendment No. 3 to Disposition and Development Agreement ("Amendment No. 3 to DDA") to modify certain components of the Project and revise the timeframe set forth in the DDA for Developer's completion of the Suites Hotel. G. The City and Developer now desire to amend the Development Agreement to modify the description of the Project and certain obligations of the Developer set forth therein. The parties contemplate that, concurrently with the City Council's consideration of this Amendment No. 2, the City Council will consider the Specific Plan Amendment and the Agency Board will consider Amendment No. 3 to DDA. H. The City Council has determined that this Amendment No. 2 is consistent with the City's General Plan and the Specific Plan, including the goals and objectives thereof. I. All actions taken by City have been duly taken in accordance with all applicable legal requirements, including the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.) ("CEQA"), and all other requirements for notice, public hearings, findings, votes and other procedural matters. J. On , 2005, the City Council adopted its Ordinance No. approving this Amendment No. 2. Unless otherwise specified herein, all capitalized terms in this Amendment No. 2 shall have the meaning ascribed in the Development Agreement. AGREEMENT: NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals, which are incorporated herein by this reference, and for valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. The Development Agreement is hereby amended as follows: 1.1 To replace Section 3.1 with the following: 3.1 Development of the Project; Planned Development. Developer shall construct the Project on the Site in accordance with the Development Plan. The Project shall consist of a mixed -use residential and commercial development with the following components: (A) a mid -price suites hotel containing approximately one hundred twenty-nine (129) guest rooms ("Suites Hotel") to be constructed on Parcel 4; 882 01561"061 620106 02 a1o04 05 -3- (B) a resort -style condominium/casitas project containing approximately one hundred sixty-four (164) condominium/casitas units ("Casitas Development") to be constructed on Parcel 2 and Parcel 3; (C) a residential development containing approximately sixty (60) detached, single family homes (the "Residential Development"), to be constructed on Parcel 8; with (i) fourteen (14) of the homes ("Unrestricted Homes") within the Residential Development to be sold on a market rate basis; and (ii) forty (40) of the homes ("Affordable Homes") within the Residential Development to be marketed and sold to moderate income buyers at an affordable housing cost (as those terms are defined in Health & Safety Code Section 50093); (D) two (2) restaurants (the "Restaurants"), with one Restaurant to be constructed on Parcel 1 and one Restaurant to be constructed on Parcel 5; (E) a medical office/surgical facility ("Medical Office/Surgical Facility") to be constructed on Parcel 6 and Parcel 7; and The Residential Development and the Casitas Development shall each constitute a Planned Development, and shall be developed and operated in compliance with Section 1350, et seq. of the Civil Code. 1.2 To revise Section 3.3.1 to replace the phrase "the Casitas Development Parcel" with "Parcel 2 and Parcel Y' 1.3 To delete, in its entirety, Section 3.3.2. 1.4 To replace, in their entirety, Sections 3.4.1 through 3.4.7 with the following: 3.4.1 General. During the Term of this Agreement, Developer or the Casitas Development HOA, as applicable, shall make the payments to City described in this Section 3.4. The payments under this Section 3.4 are not the exclusive development impact fees for the Project and nothing in this Section 3.4 shall be construed as a limitation on the right of the City to impose, levy, or assess the Site other development fees as permitted by applicable law. 3.4.2 Developer's Payments of One -Time Mitigation Fees. Developer shall pay to the City, for each unit in the Casitas Development, with such payment due upon the first close of escrow for each such unit, the sum of One Thousand Five Hundred Eighty -Five Dollars ($1,585). X82 015610-0061 620306 02 a] 0,04'05 4- 3.4.3 Casitas Development Annual Mitigation Fee; Termination. During the term of this Agreement, on each July 1st following the Effective Date ("Annual Mitigation Payment Date"), the Casitas Development HOA shall pay to the City an annual mitigation fee ("Casitas Development Annual Mitigation Fee") covering the annual period of the prior July 1 through the June 30 occurring immediately preceding the Annual Mitigation Payment Date (the "Operative Year") [provided, however, the first Operative Year shall commence on the Effective Date of this Agreement and end on the next occurring June 30). The Casitas Development Annual Mitigation Fee shall be the collective sum of One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($150) [as the same may increase by the CPI in accordance with Section 3.4.7] for each unit ("Casitas Development Unit Fee") in the Casitas Development that has been sold to a purchaser, as evidenced by the close of escrow for such unit, prior to the applicable Annual Mitigation Payment Date regardless of when or in which Operative Year the unit was sold. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the Casitas Development Annual Mitigation Fee shall not be required to be paid for any Operative Year in which the City has received transient occupancy taxes derived from, collectively, the Suites Hotel and the Casitas Development, which equal or exceed Five Hundred Forty -Six Thousand One Hundred Thirty -One Dollars ($546,131) [as the same may increase by the CPI in accordance with Section 3.4.7] (the "Minimum Annual TOT Amount") for the applicable Operative Year. Notwithstanding the paragraph above, if the City has received the Minimum Annual TOT Amount in each of three (3) consecutive Operative Years, the Casitas Development HOA's obligation to pay the Casitas Development Annual Mitigation Fee shall be terminated and shall be of no further force or effect. 3.4.4 [Intentionally Omitted] 3.4.5 Payment of Casitas Development Public Facilities Fee. In addition to the other payments required to be paid pursuant to this Section 3.4, the Casitas Development HOA shall be required to pay to the City the sum of five percent (5%) of any rental amount charged for occupancy of a unit in the Casitas Development which is rented for a period of more than thirty (30) days (the "Casitas Development Public Facilities Fee"). The Casitas Development Public Facilities Fee shall be due and payable to the City within thirty (30) days after any such occupancy terminates, regardless of whether the rent, or any amount thereof, was collected. If the unit is provided free of charge or at a discount, as consideration for a service provided to the owner of the unit or to the Casitas Development HOA and/or for promotional or marketing purposes, the rent shall be deemed to be the higher of (i) the value of the services received; or (ii) the average rent of all of the units in the Casitas Development during the period the unit was provided. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the requirement to pay the Casitas Development Public Facilities Fee shall not apply in the case where an owner of a Casitas Development unit provides his or her Casitas 892 015610-0061 610306 02 e10,04'05 -5- Development unit to a person who is a relative of the owner, for no consideration, for a period of more than thirty (30) days. 3.4.6 [Intentionally Omitted] 3.4.7 Consumer Price Index Adjustments. Each of the Casitas Development Annual Mitigation Fee, the Casitas Development Unit Fee, and the Minimum Annual TOT Amount shall be adjusted annually, on each May Ist during the term of this Agreement, by the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, Los Angeles - Riverside -Orange County average, All Items, 1982-84 = 100, published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (the "CPI"), by comparing the CPI existing on the immediately prior March 1st to the CPI existing on the March 1 st of the previous year. No adjustment shall be made in any year in which there has been a decrease in the CPI. If the CPI is no longer published at any point during the Term of this Agreement, a comparable index shall be selected by the parties. 1.5 To revise Section 3.4.10 to replace the phrase `on the Villas Residential Development Parcel or the Cluster/Perimeter Residential Development Parcel" with the phrase "within the Residential Development." 1.6 To replace, in its entirety, Section 3.5 with the following: 3.5 Park Improvements. Developer agrees to develop a neighborhood park on Parcel 9, in accordance with the list of park improvements set forth in Exhibit "D" hereto (the "Park Improvements") and all applicable City and State laws and regulations. Prior to Developer's entry onto Parcel 9, Developer shall enter into an Early Entry Agreement with the City substantially in the form of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "E". The Park Improvements shall be completed and accepted by the City prior to, and as a condition of, the City's final inspection of the first unit in the Residential Development. 2. Developer acknowledges that it has transferred and assigned, or intends to transfer and assign, the rights and obligations under the DDA to develop the Casitas Development to Lennar Homes of California, Inc., a California corporation ("Lennar") and that Lennar intends to prepare a new tract map (the "New Tract Map") that merges Parcel 2 with Parcel 3. 3. Developer intends to prepare a lot line adjustment that merges Parcel 6 with Parcel 7, and transfers a portion of Parcel 7 to Parcel 8 (the Lot Line Adjustment"). The Developer contemplates that the new Parcel created by merging Parcel 6 with Parcel 7 will consist of approximately 13.63 acres, and that Parcel 8 will, after the Lot Line Adjustment, consist of approximately 9.45 acres. Within thirty (30) days after the later of (i) the date the Lot Line Adjustment has been processed, or (ii) the date the New Tract Map has been approved by the La Quinta City Council, the Developer's engineers shall prepare and submit to the City a new site map (the "New Site Map") that reflects the changes effected by the New Tract Map and the Lot Nx2015610-0061 620306 02 a10iO4'05 -6- Line Adjustment. Upon confirmation by the City that the New Site Map accurately reflects said changes, the New Site Map shall automatically replace the Site Map currently attached to the Development Agreement as Exhibit A-2. 4. This Amendment No. 2 shall not be effective unless and until (i) the City Council has approved the Specific Plan Amendment; (ii) the Agency Board has approved Amendment No. 3 to DDA; and (iii) Agency and Developer have executed Amendment No. 3 to DDA. 5. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Amendment No. 2, all of the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 6. In the event of any action between City and Developer seeking enforcement of any of the terms and conditions to this Amendment No. 2, the prevailing party in such action shall be awarded, in addition to damages, injunctive or other relief, its reasonable costs and expenses, including without limitation its expert witness fees and reasonable attorney's fees. 7. This Amendment No. 2 shall be construed according to its fair meaning and as if prepared by both parties hereto. 8. This Amendment No. 2 shall be governed by the internal laws of the State of California and any question arising hereunder shall be construed or determined according to such law. The Municipal and Superior Courts of the State of California in and for the County of Riverside, or such other appropriate court in such county, shall have exclusive jurisdiction of any litigation between the parties concerning this Amendment No. 2. Service of process on City shall be made in accordance with California law. Service of process on Developer shall be made in any manner permitted by California law and shall be effective whether served inside or outside California. 9. Time is of the essence of this Amendment No. 2 and of each and every term and provision hereof. 10. A waiver of a provision hereof, or modification of any provision herein contained, shall be effective only if said waiver or modification is in writing, and signed by both City and Developer. No waiver of any breach or default by any party hereto shall be considered to be a waiver of any breach or default unless expressly provided herein or in the waiver. 11. Signatures of the parties transmitted by facsimile shall be deemed binding. However, each party agrees to submit their original signature to the other party within five (5) business days after execution hereof. 12. This Amendment No. 2 may be executed in counterparts, each of which, when this Amendment No. 2 has been signed by all the parties hereto, shall be deemed an original, and such counterparts shall constitute one and the same instrument. 13. The person(s) executing this Amendment No. 2 on behalf of each of the parties hereto represent and warrant that (i) such party is duly organized and existing, (ii) they are duly authorized to execute and deliver this Amendment No. 2 on behalf of said party, (iii) by so executing this Amendment No. 2 such party is formally bound to the provisions of this 882 015610-0061 620306 02 a I0'04 05 -7- Amendment No. 2, and (iv) the entering into this Amendment No. 2 does not violate any provision of any other agreement to which such party is bound. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Developer each hereby represents that it has read this Amendment No. 2, understands it, and hereby executes this Amendment No. 2 to be effective as of the day and year first written above. "Developer" CP DEVELOPMENT LA QUINTA, LLC, a California limited liability company By: Oliphant Family Trust Its: Member 2005 By: Richard Oliphant Its: Trustee Date: 2005 By: Oliphant Enterprises, Inc. Its: Manager By: Richard Oliphant Its: President "City" CITY OF LA QUINTA, a California municipal corporation and charter city organized and existing under the Constitution of the State of California Date: 2005 By: City Manager ATTEST: June Greek, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP M M. Katherine Jenson, City Attorney x82 of 5ma-00m 620306.02 a)0' 405 —�' STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss COUNTY OF ) On , before me, personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss COUNTY OF ) On before me, personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public [SEAL] X N2911561G0061 nn 620306 02 a10,04.05 -9- STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss COUNTY OF On before me, personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public [SEAL] 982 015610-0061 620306 02 a 10,04 05 -10- EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE Parcels 1-8 of Parcel Map 31116, in the City of La Quinta, as per Map filed in Book 212, Pages 30-66, inclusive, of Parcel Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of Riverside County. B82,01561U 0061 620306 02 a I01(A 05 -1- EXHIBIT "B" PARCEL MAP [See Following Pages] MK2 0156111-0061 620306 02 a I N04'05 -1- a, F S 0 y OF Tt� TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DOUG EVANS, COMMU� DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: OCTOBER 11, 2005 SUBJECT: CLARIFICATION OF THE MINUTES OF JULY 26, 2005 STAMKO - SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 4 At the meeting of July 26", the Commission reviewed the request of Stamko Development Co. for an Amendment to their Specific Plan. During the discussion portion of the hearing, the Planning Commission determined the condition regarding the traffic study for the operational expansion of the north -bound turn pockets on Adams Street and Highway 111 should be deleted (Condition No. 60). However, when the motion was made Condition No. 38.A.2.a. was the condition quoted to be deleted. This condition references a traffic study for the deceleration/right turn only lane at Adams Street and La Quinta Drive. The minutes reflect the Commission's wording which was Condition No. 38.A.2.a. It was staff's interpretation of the motion that Condition No. 60 was to be deleted. Staff is therefore requesting clarification of the Commission's action. The minutes and the conditions are attached for your review. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA July 26, 2005 CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission p.m. by Chairman Kirk who asked Commis salute. 7:00 P.M. called to order at 7:00 er Ladner to lead the flag B. Present: Commissioners Ed Alderso Kay Ladner, Paul Quill and Chairman Kirk. It was moved d seconded by Commissioners Ladner/Quill to excuse Co/on, Daniels. Unanimously approved. C. Staff present: Communitent Director Doug Evans, Assistant City Attorney Michael Histant City Engineer Steve Speer, Planning Manager Les Joipal Planner Fred Baker, Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit, ae Secretary Betty Sawyer 11. PUBLIC COMMENT: III. CONFIRMATION OF TH A. Chairman Kirk a ked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of July 12, 2005. here being none, it was moved and seconded by Commission r Alderson/Quill to approve the minutes as submitted. IV. CONSENT ITEM : None. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Specific Plan 97-029, Amendment No. 4; a request of Stamko Development Co. for consideration of a new driveway access on Adams Street and a design change to the internal circulation pattern, internal access, and a retention basin, for the property located on the east side of Adams Street, south of Auto Centre Drive. 1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which was on file in the Community Development Department. Community Development GAWPDOCS\PC Minutes\7-26-05.doc Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 2005 Director Doug Evans explained the purpose of asking the applicant to provide a focused traffic study. 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Alderson asked if the proposed round -a -bout would take more or less land than a conventional intersection. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated it would be about the same. 3. Chairman Kirk asked about the condition requiring a traffic study and whether or not it would affect the Avenue 47/Adams Street intersection. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated no. Staff was focusing on northbound to left bound traffic at Highway 111. Chairman Kirk asked if Avenue 47/Adams Street intersection was complete. Staff stated that it is budgeted for the current fiscal year. 4. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Ms. Chris Clarke, Stamko Development Co., discussed the location of the round -a -bout. She explained some of the issues such as truck access from Wal-Mart would not be able to make the turn. She does not object to the round -a -bout, but would like to request no public parking be allowed. She then explained the purpose of the new internal circulation pattern. 5. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of the applicant. There being none, Chairman Kirk asked if there was any other public comment. There being none, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 6. Commissioner Alderson asked if any of the previous traffic studies could be used for this change. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated no; the proposed change will change the traffic flow and the study is therefore needed. He went on to explain the circulation patterns and what problems staff anticipates will occur. 7. Commissioner Quill asked if staff was requesting a full traffic study or a look at the models as it relates to the new intersection to see if there are any impacts or significant. Staff stated they are looking for a focused study to make sure the City has the traffic generation numbers correct. The Wal-Mart study underestimated the amount of traffic significantly, such as the amount of traffic making left turns off Highway 111 into the Wal-Mart center. When the Sam's Club traffic study was completed, the numbers G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\7-26-05.doc 2 Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 2005 were increased to take this into account for Dune Palms Road. Now, with this project, staff is looking at the traffic on Adams Street. 8. Commissioner Ladner asked staff to explain how the traffic flow would change. Staff explained that by constructing the proposed new street it will *generate traffic traveling to the west, then going north to Highway 111. 9. Commissioner Quill asked if staff agreed with the round -a -about and the truck traffic. Staff explained the round -a -bout is designed with a truck apron to allow the distance needed for the trucks to negotiate the intersection. 10. Chairman Kirk asked if the undeveloped areas had an approved site plan submitted. Staff stated no. Chairman Kirk asked if a big box were proposed for this site, would another traffic study be required. His concern is that whatever is proposed for the site would require another traffic study. Community Development Director Doug Evans explained staff's concerns regarding traffic in this area. Discussion followed regarding circulation and traffic issues of the site. 11. Commissioner Quill asked if a tentative parcel map been filed. Staff stated it has a final recorded map. Commissioner Quill asked if lot line adjustments would be required for the proposed change. Staff stated it would require a new map and the reconfiguration is not known at this time. Commissioner Quill questioned the ability to create larger lots. Staff stated there is the potential to create a larger lot. Discussion followed regarding the traffic study. 12. Chairman Kirk asked if a traffic study was not done now, would staff recommend a study be required as part of the site development permit process for this site. Staff stated it could be done at that time, but the burden is then on one parcel. If the study is required as the site builds out, the burden of the traffic study is placed on several individual parcels. In so doing, the City loses the ability to condition the needed street improvements on the entire site. Chairman Kirk stated he is has an easier time putting the burden on an applicant that is going to generate traffic in this area rather than placing the burden on this applicant who is improving the internal circulation and not generating any additional lease, revenue, or profit. It does not logically seem right. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\7-26-05.doc 3 Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 2005 13. Commissioner Ladner stated the site is poorly planned and she too has a problem burdening this applicant with the costs involved to solve the problem. Staff stated the master developer has the opportunity to pass the costs on, rather than putting the cost on each parcel owner. 14. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Alderson/Ladner to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-031 recommending certification of an Addendum to Environmental Assessment 97- 337, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Ladner, Quill and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Daniels. ABSTAIN: None. 15. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Alderson to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-032, recommending approval of Specific Plan 97-029, Amendment No. 4, as amended: a. Condition #60. Deleted. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Ladner, Quill and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Daniels. ABSTAIN: None. Commissioner Quill asked staff to report back on the Christmas storage containers for the large box users and how they will be screened. B. Village Use Permit 2005-027; a request of South West Concepts for consideration of development plans, including a Parking Management Agreement, for the construction of a + 10,709 square foot two-story retail/office building in the Village at La Quinta. 1. Chairman Kirk excused himself due to the close proximity of his residence and this application and left the dais. 2. Vice Chairman Quill opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which was on file in the Community Development Department. 3. Vice Chairman Quill asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Alderson commended the applicant on the G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\7-26-05.doc 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- :;ONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 97-029, AMENDMENT NO. 4 STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO. 4DOPTED: JULY 26, 2005 3ENERAL The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Specific Plan, or any Final Map recorded thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Specific Plan No. 97-029, Amendment No. 4, shall comply with the requirements and standards of Government Code § § 66410 through 66499.58 (the "Subdivision Map Act"), Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code ("LQMC") and all applicable conditions of approval for Specific Plan No. 97-029 and Amendments No. 1, 2 and 3, Tentative Parcel Maps 30420 and 28525 and Site Development Permit 97-603 and Amendments No.1 and 2. The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed on the City's Web Site at www.la-quinta.org. 3. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain any necessary clearances and/or permits from the following agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) SunLine Transit Agency SCAQMD Coachella Valley Caltrans ':\Reports - PC\2005\7-26-05\Stamko\7-26 cond PC COA - SP 97-029, Amend No.4.doc ILANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- :ONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED 'PECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 97-029, AMENDMENT NO.4 STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO. 1DOPTED: JULY 26, 2005 The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those improvements plans for City approval. If previous NPDES construction permits are no longer applicable, a project -specific NPDES construction permit must be obtained by the applicant; and who then shall submit a copy of the Regional Water Quality Control Board's ("RWQCB") acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent ("NOI "), prior to the issuance of a grading or site construction permit by the City. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water), LQMC; Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 99-08- DWQ. A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land that disturbs one (1) acre or more of land, or that disturbs less than one (1) acre of land, but which is a part of a construction project that encompasses more than one (1) acre of land, the Permitee shall be required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP"). The applicant or design professional can obtain the California Stormwater Quality Association SWPPP template at www.cabmphandbooks.com for use in their SWPPP preparation. B. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any on or off -site grading being done in relation to this project. C. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for inspection at the project site at all times through and including acceptance of all improvements by the City. D. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best Management Practices ("BMPs") (8.70.020 (Definitions), LQMC): 1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control). 2) Temporary Sediment Control. 3) Wind Erosion Control. AReports - PC\2005\7-26-05\Stamko\7-26 cond PC COA - SP 97-029, Amend No.4.doc 3LANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- ,ONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 97.029, AMENDMENT NO.4 STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO. 4DOPTED: JULY 26, 2005 4) Tracking Control. 5) Non -Storm Water Management. 6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control. E. All erosion and sediment control BMPs proposed by the applicant shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any onsite or offsite grading, pursuant to this project. F. The approved SWPPP and BMPs shall remain in effect for the entire duration of project construction until all improvements are completed and accepted by the City. 5. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). 'ROPERTY RIGHTS 5. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction and reconstruction of essential improvements. 7. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Final Map all public street right-of-ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer. 3. The public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this amendment shall include: A. PUBLIC STREETS 1) Adams Street (Primary Arterial, Option A - 1 10' ROW) — No additional right of way except for an additional right of way dedication at the proposed realigned road connecting Adams Street and La Quinta Drive measured 63 feet east from the centerline of Adams Street and a minimum of 100 feet long plus a variable dedication of an additional 50 feet to accommodate improvements conditioned under STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS. �:\Reports - PC\2005\7-26-05\Stamko\7.26 cond PC COA - SP 97-029, Amend NoA.doc 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 97-029, AMENDMENT NO. 4 STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO. ADOPTED: JULY 26, 2005 9. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction plans. Pursuant to this requirement, the Applicant shall include in the submittal packet containing the draft final map submitted for map checking, an offsite street geometric layout, drawn at 1 " equals 40 feet, detailing the following design aspects: median curb line, outside curb line, lane line alignment including lane widths, left turn lanes, deceleration lane(s) and bus stop turnout(s). The geometric layout shall be accompanied with sufficient professional engineering studies to confirm the appropriate length of all proposed turn pockets and auxiliary lanes that may impact the right of way dedication required of the project and the associated landscape setback requirement. 10. When the City Engineer determines that access rights to the proposed street right-of- ways shown on the approved Specific Plan are necessary prior to approval of the Final Map dedicating such right-of-ways, the applicant shall grant the necessary right- of-ways within 60 days of a written request by the City. 1 1 . The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Final Map a ten -foot wide public utility easement contiguous with, and along both sides of all private streets. Such easement may be reduced to five feet in width with the express written approval of IID. 12. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public right-of- ways as follows: A. Adams Street (Primary Arterial) - 20-foot from the R/W-P/L. The setback requirements shall apply to all frontages including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the applicant shall offer for dedication blanket easements for those purposes on the Final Map. 13. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas on the Final Map. 14. Applicable to this amendment to the specific plan, direct vehicular access to Adams Street from parcels with frontage along Adams Street is restricted, except for those access points identified on previously recorded parcel maps and the site plan for -:\Reports - PC\2005\7-26-05\Stamko\7-26 cond PC COA - SP 97-029, Amend No.4.doc U `' PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL- RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 97-029, AMENDMENT NO. 4 STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO. ADOPTED: JULY 26, 2005 Amendment No. 4 of the specific plan, or as otherwise conditioned in these conditions of approval. 15. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as appropriate, from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments will occur. 16. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any portion of the subject property between the date of approval of the Specific Plan and the date of recording of any Final Map, unless such easement is approved by the City Engineer. GRADING 17. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements), LQMC. 18. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes, the applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer. 19. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of all of the following: A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer, B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified engineer, C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, (Fugitive Dust Control), LQMC, and D. A Best Management Practices report prepared in accordance with Sections 8.70.010 and 13.24.170 (NPDES stormwater discharge permit and Storm Management and Discharge Controls), LQMC. All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by an engineering geologist. A statement shall appear on the Final Map that a soils report has been prepared in accordance with the California Health & Safety Code § 17953. nr� P:\Reports - PC\2005\7-26-05\Stamko\7-26 cond PC COA - SP 97-029, Amend NoA.doc 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- :ONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 97-029, AMENDMENT NO.4 ;TAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO. tDOPTED: JULY 26, 2005 The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit. ?0. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land in order to prevent wind and/or water erosion of such land. All open graded, undeveloped land shall either be planted with interim landscaping, or stabilized with such other erosion control measures, as were approved in the Fugitive Dust Control Plan. 21. Grading within the perimeter setback and parkway areas shall have undulating terrain and shall conform with the requirements of LQMC Section 9.60.240(F) except as otherwise modified by this condition requirement. The maximum slope shall not exceed 3:1 anywhere in the landscape setback area, except for the backslope (i.e. the slope at the back of the landscape lot) which shall not exceed 2:1 if fully planted with ground cover. The maximum slope in the first six (6) feet adjacent to the curb shall not exceed 4:1 when the nearest edge of sidewalk is within six feet (6') of the curb, otherwise the maximum slope within the right of way shall not exceed 3:1. All unpaved parkway areas adjacent to the curb shall be depressed one and one-half inches (1.5") in the first eighteen inches (18") behind the curb. ?2. The applicant shall minimize the differences in elevation between the adjoining properties and the lots within this development. Where compliance within the above stated limits is impractical, the City may consider alternatives that are shown to minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties and neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential. ?3. Prior to any site grading or regrading that will raise or lower any portion of the site by more than plus or minus three tenths of a foot from the elevations shown on the approved Specific Plan, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance finding review. >4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building lot, the applicant shall provide a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or surveyor. Each pad certification shall list the pad elevation as shown on the approved grading plan, the actual pad elevation and the difference between the two, if any. Such pad certification shall also list the relative compaction of the pad soil. The data shall be organized by lot number, and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. 'AReports - PC\2005\7-26-05\Stamko\7-26 cond PC COA - SP 97-029, Amend No.4.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 97-029, AMENDMENT NO. 4 STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO. ADOPTED: JULY 26, 2005 DRAINAGE 25. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.120 (Drainage), LQMC, Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03. More specifically, stormwater falling on site during the 100 year storm shall be retained within the development, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets and highways. The design storm shall be either the 3 hour, 6 hour or 24 hour event producing the greatest total run off. 26. In design of retention facilities, the maximum percolation rate shall be two inches per hour. The percolation rate will be considered to be zero unless the applicant provides site specific data indicating otherwise. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. Nuisance water shall be disposed of in a trickling sand filter and leach field or equivalent system approved by the City Engineer. The sand filter and leach field shall be designed to contain first flush storm water and nuisance water surges from landscape area, commercial activity and off - site street nuisance water. The sand filter design shall be per La Quinta Standard 370 with the equivalent of 137.2 gph of water feed per sand filter to accept the abovementioned nuisance water requirements. Leach line requirements are 1.108 feet of leach line per gph of flow. Flow from adjacent well sites shall be designed for retention area percolation by separate infiltration system approved by the City Engineer. 27. The project shall be designed to accommodate purging and blowoff water (through underground piping and/or retention facilities) from any on -site or adjacent well sites granted or dedicated to the local water utility authority as a requirement for development of this property. 28. For on -site common retention basins, retention depth shall be according to Engineering Bulletin 97.03, and side slopes shall not exceed 3:1 and shall be planted with maintenance free ground cover. 29. Stormwater may not be retained in landscaped parkways or landscaped setback lots along Adams Street. Only incidental storm water (precipitation which directly falls onto the setback) will be permitted to be retained in the landscape setback areas. The perimeter setback and parkway areas in the street right-of-way shall be shaped with berms and mounds, pursuant to Section 9.100.040(B)(7), LQMC. 30. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. rk PAReports - PC\2005\7-26-05\Stamko\7-26 cond PC COA - SP 97-029, Amend No.4.doc 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- -ONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 97-029, AMENDMENT NO.4 STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO. 4DOPTED: JULY 26, 2005 31. The development shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention capacity to flow out of the development through a designated overflow and into the historic drainage relief route. 32. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. 1TI1 ITIFS 33. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.110 (Utilities), LQMC. 34. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within any right-of-way, and all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electric vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 35. Existing overhead utility lines within, or adjacent to the proposed development, and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground. All existing utility lines attached to joint use 92 KV transmission power poles are exempt from the requirement to be placed underground. 36. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for approval by the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 37. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Sections 13.24.060 (Street Improvements), 13.24.070 (Street Design - Generally) & 13.24.100 (Access For Individual Properties And Development), LQMC for public streets; and Section 13.24.080 (Street Design - Private Streets), where private streets are proposed. 38. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan (street type noted in parentheses.) A. OFF -SITE STREETS ':\Reports - PC\2005\7-26-05\Stamko\7-26 cond PC COA - SP 97-029, Amend No.4.doc 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 97-029, AMENDMENT NO.4 STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO. 4DOPTED: JULY 26, 2005 1) Highway 1 1 1 (Major Arterial - State Highway; 140' R/W): No additional widening on the south side of Highway I I I iS required for the Specific Plan under this amendment, 2) Adams Street (Primary Arterial; Option A, 1 10' R/ft No additional street widening is required on the east side of Adams Si along the Specific Plan boundary, except at locations where additional street width is needed to accommodate: a) A deceleration/right turn only lane at the proposed realigned road connecting Adams Street and La Quinta Drive. The east curb face shall be located fifty one feet (51') east of the centerline and length to be determined by a traffic study prepared for the applicant by a licensed traffic engineer per Engineering Bulletin # 03-08. As a minimum, the required right of way shall be for a length of 100 feet plus a variable dedication of an additional 50 feet. Other required improvements in the Adams Street right of way and/or adjacent landscape setback area include: b) All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to: curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs. c) Reconstruct the existing 6' meandering sidewalk along the deceleration/right turn only lane at the proposed realigned road connecting Adams Street and La Quinta Drive. The applicant shall extend improvements beyond the subdivision boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements (e.g., grading; traffic control devices and transitions in alignment, elevation or dimensions of streets and sidewalks). The applicant is responsible for construction of all improvements mentioned above. The development is eligible for reimbursement from the City's Development Impact Fee fund in accordance with policies established for that program. 3) The applicant shall install the traffic signal at the Adams Street and Avenue 47 intersection as conditioned of Tentative Parcel Map 28525. Applicant is responsible for 100 % of the cost to design and install the traffic signal. Applicant shall enter into a SIA to post security for 50 % I 1 Ra' ,Reports - PC1200517-26-05\Stamko\7-26 cond PC COA - SP 97-029, Amend No.4.doc 9 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 97-029, AMENDMENT NO. 4 STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO. ADOPTED: JULY 26, 2005 of the cost to design and install the traffic signal prior to issuance of an on -site grading permit; the security shall remain in full force and effect until the signal is actually installed by the applicant. Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, standard knuckles, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes and other features shown on the approved construction plans, may require additional street widths as may be determined by the City Engineer. 39. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design procedure for 20-year life pavement, and the site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows: Parking Lot 3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b. Primary Arterial 4.5" a.c./6.0" c.a.b. or the approved equivalents of alternate materials. 40. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test results confirming that design gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix designs are approved. 41. All access points and turning movements of traffic previously approved shall remain. Additional access points and turning movements of traffic as proposed for this amendment to the Specific Plan 97-029 are limited to the following: A. Adams Street entry for realigned road from Adams Street to La Quinta drive (Adams Street): Right turn in and out movements are permitted. Left turn in and out movements are prohibited. Q. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs and sidewalks. Mid -block street lighting is not required. Q. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, or as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. ':\Reports - PC\2005\7-26-05\Stamko\7-26 cond PC COA - SP 97-029, Amend No.4.doc 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 97-029, AMENDMENT NO. 4 STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO. ADOPTED: JULY 26, 2005 CONSTRUCTION 44. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly -maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets in residential developments are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the development or when directed by the City, whichever comes first. LANDSCAPING 45. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC. 46. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, common lots and park areas. 47. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. 48. The applicant shall submit the landscape plans for approval by the Community Development Department (CDD), prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking has been completed by CDD, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner, prior to submittal for signature by the City Engineer. NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. 49. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn areas shall be minimized with no lawn, or spray irrigation, being placed within 18 inches of curbs along public streets. 'UBLIC SERVICES 50. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by SunLine Transit Agency and approved by the City Engineer. ':\Reports - PC\2005\7-26-05\Stamko\7-26 cond PC COA - SP 97-029, Amend No.4.doc 11 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- :ONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 97-029, AMENDMENT NO.4 STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO. %DOPTED: JULY 26, 2005 1UALITY ASSURANCE 51. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 52. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such other appropriate professionals as are required to provide the expertise with which to prepare and sign accurate record drawings, and to provide adequate construction supervision. 53. The applicant shall arrange for, and bear the cost of, all measurements, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program, but which may be required by the City, as evidence that the construction materials and methods employed comply with the plans, specifications and other applicable regulations. 54. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City with reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing," "As -Built" or "As - Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy and completeness of the drawings. The applicant shall have all AutoCAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City, revised to reflect the as -built conditions. MAINTENANCE 55. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance), LQMC. 56. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual maintenance of all private on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. =EES AND DEPOSITS 57. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.180 (Fees and Deposits), LQMC. These fees include all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan check and permits. 58. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). ':\Reports - PC\2005\7.26-051Stamko\7-26 cond PC COA - SP 97-029, Amend No.4.doc 12 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 97-029, AMENDMENT NO.4 STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO. ADOPTED: JULY 26, 2005 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 59. Prior to final approval of the Specific Plan Amendment, applicant shall add the following language to the Specific Plan text: The applicant shall prepare a final street design including round -about design options at intersections for the proposed new internal road and submit plans, for approval by the Planning Commission, as an independent Site Development Permit or concurrent with the next Site Development Permit submittal in Planning Area 2 of the Specific Plan. 60. Prior to final approval of the Specific Plan Amendment applicant will add the following language to the Specific Plan text: A Traffic Study will be completed to consider operational expansion of the north bound turn pockets on Adams Street and Highway 111. The Traffic Study and any additional improvements needed, including reconstruction of the median island, shall be completed within two years of the application submittal date for the next Site Development Permit request within Planning Area 2 in the Centre at La Quinta. leports - PC\2005\7-26-05\Stamko\7-26 cond PC COA - SP 97-029, Amend No A.doc 13