Loading...
2005 11 08 PCF• - Fs CA`H OF'rktE� Planning Commission Agendas are now available on the City's Web Page @ www.la-quinta.org PLANNING COMMISSION AG EN DA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California NOVEMBER 8, 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 2005-055 Beginning Minute Motion 2005-015 1. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call 11. 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. Ill. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of the Minutes for the Joint Meeting with the City Council of October 25, 2005. B. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 25, 2005. r-\U/PnnrQ1Pr n..o A. %Ai A, , 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 - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005- 537 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33085 Applicant ......... Core Homes, LLC Location .......... Southwest corner of Madison Street and Beth Circle, north of Avenue 52. Request ........... Consideration of: (1) certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact; and (2) the subdivision of 4.3 acres into seven single-family lots. Action ............. Resolution 2005-, Resolution 2005- B. Item ................ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2004-085, EXTENSION #1 Applicant ......... Nextel of California Location .......... The southwest corner of Madison Street and Avenue 54 - 54-001 Madison Street Request ........... Consideration of a time extension to construct a 230 square foot one-story unmanned telecommunication building and 60-foot high antenna, camouflaged as a palm tree. Action ............. Resolution 2005- VI. BUSINESS ITEM: None. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Review of City Council meeting of November 1, 2005. IX. ADJOURNMENT: This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be held on November 22, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. r-11nlPnnrC%pr i e,.o,.domi H­ 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, November 8, 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 1 1 1, on Friday, November 4, 2005. DATED: November 4, 2005 BETTY J. SAWYER, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California Public Notices The La Quinta 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 (1) 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. r.-Imicnnrc�cr n..oM. %Al H,, LA QUINTA CITY COUNCIL LA QUINTA PLANNING COMMISSION LA QUINTA ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE LA QUINTA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION LA QUINTA INVESTMENT ADVISORY BOARD JOINT MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 25, 2005 A joint meeting of the La Quinta City Council, Planning Commission and Architecture and Landscape Review Committee was called to order at the hour of 5:07 p.m. by Mayor Adolph. CITY COUNCIL ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Council Members Henderson, Osborne, Perkins, Sniff, and Mayor Adolph ABSENT: None PLANNING COMMISSION ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Quill, Tyler, and Chairman Kirk ABSENT: Commissioner Ladner ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE PRESENT: Committee Members Bobbitt, Christopher, and Smith ABSENT: None Mayor Adolph led the Pledge of Allegiance. PUBLIC COMMENT: 1. Mr. Joe Broido, 77-510 Calle Nogales, gave a report from the Cove Neighborhood Association on the number of accidents that had been decreased due to lower speed limit in the Cove. He also noted the City Council Agenda had not been displayed at the Post Office. He asked if it would be displayed at the Post Office and at the Chamber offices in the future. He also could not find it on the internet. Mayor Adolph referred the matter to staff. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA - Confirmed STUDY SESSION 1. DISCUSSION REGARDING WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPING. City Council Joint Meeting October 25, 2006 The Mayor declared the PUBLIC MEETING OPEN. Community Development Director Doug Evans gave a brief summary on the issues of concern. They were: reworking the Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance to lower the Evapotranspiration Rate (ET) adjustment factor from 0.6 to 0.5. Chairman Kirk stated that even with the new ordinance, there is a lot of ornamental turf and it does not make sense to go to all that work if turf is not reduced. Committee Member Smith asked if this would have any affect on the existing turf. Staff stated it would only affect future projects. Commissioner Quill stated the Coachella Valley Water District was looking into granting property owners credits for converting to new meters, etc., to reduce water consumption. Council Member Sniff stated it was important to cut down on the amount of watering and defective sprinklers to be more efficient. Commissioner Alderson stated one condition they added was to require the irrigation jets be moved back 18 inches from the curb to cut down on the over spray. Mayor Adolph stated these ideas need to be promoted in order to make it work. Developers should be informed of these changes. Council Member Henderson asked what homes would be affected by this change. Commissioner Quill answered it would affect any residential tract. Back yards are not involved. Grass and sprinklers are the cheapest form of creating a greenscape to the developer. The biggest problem to the City is water in the street and encouraging desert landscaping. This could be accomplished by reducing the coefficient figure to .05. Council Member Henderson asked staff if reducing this figure would cause any unintentional consequences. She knows the problems she has with the drip irrigation and also believes concentrating on equipment is more important. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated they could contact CVWD to see if they could make a presentation on their anticipate changes. Committee Member Smith stated a lot of homeowners do not know how to operate the equipment and therefore do not turn it off when it isn't needed. Council Member Sniff stated there needs to be fairness to all when changes are City Council Joint Meeting October 25, 2006 made. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated staff needs to address the private custom homes as they are not required to obtain approval from CVWD or the City. Council Member Osborne asked how trees would be affected by this change. Commissioner Quill stated it will dictate what type of trees can be planted. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he had asked CVWD about what they were intending to do with this new water efficient landscape requirements. He was told their concern was not water efficiency as much as money generated. If they increase the price, the homeowner will find the least expensive method of maintaining a yard. Committee Member Christopher stated his homeowners' association had been informed their water costs were going up and they have budgeted for it. Council Member Osborne stated the City needs to look at the technology that is available. Council Member Henderson suggested looking at the mechanical equipment and different scenarios of decreasing the co -efficient numbers. Council Member Osborne questioned whether or not the City should be requiring a certain size of the shrubbery when it is first planted. Committee Member Bobbitt stated it is hard to stipulate a size when it comes to shrubbery. By requiring a five gallon it will at least be larger than the one gallon size. Council Member Sniff stated that if the point is to conserve water then several areas need to be addressed and not just one. We need to look into this more before making changes. Council Member Henderson stated that at the end of the day unless we can make conditions of approval, it will not be done. Committee Member Smith stated it would make a big effect to require developers to use the new energy efficient fixtures, such as the insta-hot water heaters to address some of the issues. 2. DISCUSSION REGARDING COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARDS. Community Development Director Doug Evans reported that a Request for Proposals had been circulated and proposals were submitted last year for design standards for Highway 1 1 1. Due to staff changes, nothing was done with the proposals. Staff is looking for direction as to whether or not to continue with 3 City Council Joint Meeting October 25, 2006 the project. Council Member Osborne stated he did not believe there is enough land along Highway 111 to pursue it. Staff stated there are about 60 acres left to be developed. Chairman Kirk stated his concern was that the Planning Commission has had projects before them that meet the City's requirements and the Commission has wanted to push those requirements to have higher standards. When the project meets Code the Commission has nothing to allow them to require better standards, and they are hesitant to do so without some provision that give them the authority to do so. Council Member Henderson stated she would be hesitant to require these 60 acres to do something that has not been required by every other property owner in the same area. Chairman Kirk asked if other members thought there was a need to require better design standards. Committee Member Christopher stated he would agree. He knows that when he reviews a project he sees several areas that could be made better, but he does not want to redesign someone else's project. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated that staff will give a developer a General Plan and Zoning Code and chances are they will never look at it. There are simple concepts that could be incorporated into a book to give the developer a concept of what the City is expecting to be developed. Mayor Adolph stated setbacks have to be included in that discussion. Following discussion, it was determined there was not enough land left along Highway 1 1 1 to pursue the issue. 3. DISCUSSION REGARDING SPHERE OF INFLUENCE. Community Development Director Doug Evans gave a report on what had been discussed at the Council level. Chairman Kirk stated the Commission would like some guidance as to the Council's direction in regard to density and design guidelines, or whether Council would prefer resolving the Sphere of Influence first. Council Member Osborne stated the Council looked at Planning Areas I and II and what they would like to have developed in that area. He would rather look at these issues sooner than later. He would like to keep some identify to this 4 City Council Joint Meeting October 25, 2006 area and not allow piecemeal designs. Mayor Adolph stated the City has not tried to change anyone lifestyle in this area, but the City does not want to put the financial impact of annexing this area on the City. The developers will need to create a funding source to pay for the areas annexed. Commissioner Quill asked if the City was going to allow the same type of development as what has been approved by the County, or allowing some smart growth applications if this area is to be annexed. Council Member Sniff stated the area should be retained as much as possible low density. He agrees with the City pursuing annexation of the area. Council Member Henderson stated new and innovative ideas should be considered remembering there are some who want to be living within a gated community. If a Sphere of Influence is approved for the Vista Santa Rosa area, a committee should be convened with strict guidelines that include those who have been meeting with the County to resolve the issues. These people have met over the years working on their designs and concerns and they should be able to articulate those design standards. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Quill to recess this meeting to the regular meeting of the Planning commission at 6:36 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved and seconded by Committee Members of the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee to adjourn the meeting at 6:37 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Adolph reconvened the Council and convened the Historic Preservation Commission and called the roll: PESENT: Commissioners Mouriquand, Puente, Sharp, Wright, and Chairman Wilbur. ABSENT: None. 1. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE HISTORIC SITE SURVEY Community Development Director Doug Evans gave an overview of the survey and what was intended to be gained by the survey. Commissioner Mouriquand stated the purpose was to add to the inventory those sites that would now be old enough to be included in the survey as well as any sites that came into the City by annexation. 5 City Council Joint Meeting October 25, 2006 Staff stated the first survey gets the easy sites and the second takes more studies to be found. Also, staff will want to see if any of the sites qualify for State or Federal status. When these are determined, we will need to see what the property owners want to do. As sites are developed the sites are being surveyed. Commissioner Wright stated the original survey dealt primarily with the Cove, and a photographic record of what would be needed with any annexed area. Commissioner Mouriquand noted the documents can be used someday to write a story on the Cove. Council Member Henderson suggested looking at grant funding to hire someone to put all of the materials together in a historical library. She believes the Historical Society as well as the Commission should work on this. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated it's somewhat premature to discuss curation but there are resources in the budget to start looking at that. He referenced the importance of proper storage of the materials. Council Member Henderson noted the plan was to have a repository at the museum, and Commissioner Wright commented on the possibility of Indian tribes putting something together. Council Member Sniff referenced the need to get the museum built so the material can be housed properly. Council Member Henderson commented on the complexities of using the previous design, but noted it is in the process. Council Member Sniff stated he understands staff has a lot of photo material. Staff indicated the Commission will want to look at a photo record as part of the survey. Council Member Henderson stated she believes the photographic materials could be used to develop a nice historical brochure. Commissioner Mouriquand agreed, and noted it could be done so as to cater to tourism. In response to Council Member Osborne, Commissioner Mouriquand confirmed the Martinez Slide area provides a lot of cultural history and should be included. Council Member Henderson referenced a documentary video produced by the San Jacinto/Santa Rosa National Monument that shows the Martinez Slide and suggested the Commission obtain a copy of it. She also referenced the video that L City Council Joint Meeting October 25, 2006 the City had produced a few years ago. Chairman Wilbur commented on the importance of having a way for citizens to view the materials that have been accumulated. He indicated they do not believe it would be difficult to get material together for a brochure. Staff pointed out a brochure would have to come back through the budget process and would take some time to complete because of the need to get permission for some of the material. Mayor Adolph stated he did not see any reason this could not move forward. 2. DISCUSSION REGARDING SPHERE OF INFLUENCE. Community Development Director Evans reviewed the potential boundaries for annexation on a map and indicated the Commission's concern is looking at surveying any annexation areas. Commissioner Wright referenced the need for a photographic record and noted a lot of old places have already been destroyed. Council Member Sniff stated he believes a survey in this area is logical if it is annexed, and Mayor Adolph noted annexations will not happen for a while. Council Member Henderson inquired about the status and condition of the Point Happy gate. Community Development Director Doug Evans responded that staff had not heard from the developer. Commissioner Wright stated there was an understanding with the developer that the gate would be used at some location in the project, but it is not part of the conditions of approval. Council Member Henderson suggested staff find out the status of the gates. If the developer doesn't plan to use them in the development, the City could look into alternative sites. It was moved by Commissioners SharplMouriquand to adjourn at 7:20 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Chairman Lewis convened the Investment Advisory Board at 7: 25 PM and called the roll: INVESTMENT ADVISORY BOARD ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners Deniel, Olander, and Chairman Lewis 7 City Council Joint Meeting October 25, 2006 ABSENT: Commissioner Moulin 1. DISCUSSION REGARDING A PORTFOLIO MANAGER Finance Director John Falconer stated the Board would like to discuss the issue of a portfolio manager. He noted the Council's approval is needed to move forward with it, and it may require some changes to the City Code. Mayor Adolph inquired as to what the portfolio manager would do. Mr. Falconer explained the portfolio manager would have a greater investment capability than the Finance Director currently has. The portfolio manager would have to abide by State Code and would be limited in certain areas but would also be able to invest in areas that the Finance Director cannot. In response to Council Member Sniff, Chairman Lewis stated the portfolio manager would be limited by State Code, which doesn't allow real high investment returns but does allow higher investment returns than the City currently has. He believes a portion of the City's portfolio should be placed with a portfolio manager. Mr. Falconer indicated the Board has discussed an amount of $10 million. He noted the total portfolio is $180 million but approximately $90 million is in bond proceeds. Chairman Lewis indicated a portfolio manager will not consider an amount less than $10 million. Council Member Sniff asked if the City has lost anything with the Finance Director handling the investments. He also inquired about the benefit of having a portfolio manager and what it would cost. Mr. Falconer indicated, "No," but explained the portfolio manager would have the ability to make greater investment returns. The benefit depends on the interest rate environment, and the portfolio manager fee is based on dollars invested. In response to Mayor Adolph, Commissioner Daniel indicated there are firms that provide portfolio manager services. Council Member Henderson asked if the Finance Director is comfortable moving in this direction, to which he responded that it has a lot to do with the interest environment. He noted the current six month Treasury Bill rate is at 4% and the five-year Treasury Note rate is at 4.40%. Council Member Sniff stated he believes the current inflation rate is 4.1 %, and Chairman Lewis indicated it's less. Council Member Osborne inquired about the current rate of return on the City's investments. Mr. Falconer indicated, as of September 30, it was 3.2% and the six month Treasury Bill was about 3.8%, which is 60 base points difference. Council Member Osborne commented on the period of time the City's portfolio H City Council Joint Meeting October 25, 2006 has performed so far below the T-Bill. He believes the City can raise it's rate of return for an additional $500,000 a year without a substantial increase in risk. He noted the City is losing income that it could be making because of the current strategy. He isn't sure $10 million would be enough to place with a portfolio manager. Commissioner Deniel stated she believes Mr. Falconer has done a great job but is not a professional money manager, and the Board believes the City needs professional help with its investments. She believes it would be better to go under the umbrella of a large firm instead of hiring an in-house portfolio manager. As for the amount, she noted the City could start with $10 million and adjust the amount as its performance is watched. Chairman Lewis stated a portfolio manager would manage the City's portfolio with the same safeguards currently in place. Commissioner Olander noted a portfolio manager will bring risks because they will have to be aggressive to out perform the existing investments. He believes a minimum of 50 basis points will be necessary for a good portfolio manager. He agrees the City is moving in the direction of needing a money manager but believes there is a need to move cautiously. He is a little skeptical about bringing in a money manager at this time. Mayor Adolph commented on the Wymer situation and the importance of making sure it doesn't happen again. He indicated he is very conservative but will trust Mr. Falconer's opinion on whether or not the City needs to do this. Council Member Osborne stated he agrees Mr. Falconer is doing a great job but the City is looking at $180 million plus today versus $30 million 10 years ago. He likes the idea of having a portfolio manager, and noted the City would still be able to maintain its conservative portfolio but have a portfolio manager that has more time and tools to manage it. An increase of one point, less any fee, would mean an increase of $400,000 to $500,000 in revenue without an increase in risk. Council Member Henderson stated she believes it's a philosophical choice, and going with a portfolio manager is something she is not comfortable with at this time. She prefers the Reserve Account being secure, and noted that is why the investment policy is so tight. She views this as a "crack." The City may get to the point of having a portfolio manager someday but she doesn't believe it's there yet. In response to Council Member Sniff, Commission Denial stated a portfolio 9 City Council Joint Meeting October 25, 2006 manager would spend more time on this because that is his job. Chairman Lewis noted the portfolio manager would be a team of people at a firm that deals with institutional companies, and not just one person. He referenced RNC Capital as being a group who manages investments for the City of Santa Monica. Commissioner Deniel indicated there are no firms in the Valley that deal with institutional money. Council Member Sniff asked if the firms ever lose money, and Chairman Lewis noted the City has unrealized losses but has not incurred a realized or actual loss. Council Member Osborne asked if a portfolio manager would be limited to the City's investment policy. Chairman Lewis stated the portfolio manager wouldn't be allowed to go to the full State Code. Mr. Falconer noted an example is that the portfolio manager would be allowed to invest in callable agencies, but the Treasurer would not be allowed. The City's investment policy does not allow it but the State Code does. Commissioner Olander noted a portfolio manager will not accept the job if his hands are tied. He must have room to justify his existence. In response to Council Member Sniff, Chairman Lewis stated the portfolio manager fee can range between 10-100 basis points., which is one tenth of 1 % to 1 % of the money being managed. Chairman Lewis confirmed the portfolio manager is paid whether they do good or not but they make more money if the portfolio grows, and they don't like losses. Council Member Henderson stated she realizes the portfolio manager will do the best they can but tomorrow could be the day it fails, and she doesn't want to be there when it does. Council Member Osborne stated the monies will be in Treasury notes and government secured investments as they are now but the portfolio manager will have the tools to actively manage the City's portfolio. Commissioner Daniel stated the portfolio manager would still be required to buy government paper but can buy and sell when he believes it's best. Currently, Mr. Falconer has to hold investments until they mature. In response to Council Member Sniff, Mr. Falconer stated he has the authority to hold investments from two to five years but with the current interest rate environment, the spread is narrow between six months and five years. He noted if the five year is 4.40% and the six months is 4%, the 40 basis points 10 City Council Joint Meeting October 25, 2006 would be taken up with the portfolio manager's fee. He believes it will take a lot for the money manager to earn the extra income to exceed what he currently does. He believes there are advantages to having a portfolio manager but now may not be the most opportune time. Chairman Lewis noted Mr. Falconer is limited on the investments he can look at. City Attorney Kathy Jenson noted the Request for Proposal (RFP) lists four things the portfolio manager could do that the Finance Director cannot do. She noted an amendment to the City Code would need to be done if an RFP for a portfolio manager is done. There is an Attorney General opinion that authorizes a money manager but there are a lot of checks and balances involved. There is legal authority for doing this but the City needs a system in place because one of the conditions to doing it is that the Council or the Finance Director has to remain responsible for the investments. She indicated an ordinance can be drafted if the Council wishes. Council Member Sniff asked who is responsible now, to which she responded, "the Finance Director." Mayor Adolph indicated he doesn't have a problem with drafting an ordinance when the timing is right. Council Member Sniff agreed there is no reason to do it now. Commissioner Daniel stated there is a lead time of about six months to do the RFP process. Council Member Henderson suggested looking at it with the Work Plan in July. Council Member Osborne noted the City is going to continue losing revenue. It was moved by Commissioners Olander/Deniel to adjourn the Investment Advisory Board at 8:20 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Council Members Sniff/Osborne to adjourn the City Council meeting at 8:20 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta 11 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA October 25, 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 lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Ed Alderson, Richard Daniels, Paul Quill and Chairman Kirk. It was moved and seconded by Commissioner Daniels/Quill to excuse Commissioner Ladner. Unanimously approved. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Doug Evans, City Attorney Kathy Jenson, Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer, Planning Manager Les Johnson, Associate Engineer Paul Goble, Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit, Assistant Planner Jay Wuu, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of October 11, 2005. There being no changes to the minutes, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Quill to approve the minutes as corrected. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Site Development Permit 2003-780 Extension No. 1 and Site Development Permit 2003-781 Extension No. 1; a request of Kleine Building and Development for consideration of one year extensions of time for construction of two office buildings, for the properties located at 79-215 and 79-245 Corporate Centre Drive; southeast corner of Corporate Centre Drive and Commerce Court within the La Quinta Corporate Centre Specific Plan. 1 . Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Assistant Planner Jay Wuu presented the information G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\ 1 0-25-05.doc Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2005 contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Alderson asked if staff knew the reason they were asking for the extension. Staff stated it was not stated. 3. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Bob Maniero, representing the applicant, stated the extension was needed as the owner has been focusing on a different phase of the development and is now ready for this project. 4. 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. 5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Quill to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-050 approving Site Development Permit 2003- 780, Extension #1, as recommended. 6. Chairman Kirk noted that if the City had adopted design guidelines for Highway 111 this building would have been reviewed differently and brought to a higher standard. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Quill, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Ladner. ABSTAIN: None. 7. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Alderson to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-051 approving Site Development Permit 2003-781, Extension #1, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Quill, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Ladner. ABSTAIN: None. B. Site Development Permit 2005-843; a request of East of Madison LLC for consideration of architectural plans and landscaping plans for a maintenance complex for the property located at the northwest corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 54, within the Madison Club. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\10-25-05.doc 2 Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2005 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 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Daniels asked if this was the original location of the building. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated it is the location shown on the subdivision map. Commissioner Daniels asked if staff had considered buffering whether or not the noise should be buffered. Staff noted the amount of landscaping and berming to reduce any noise. 3. Commissioner Alderson asked if the plants listed on the landscape list would require high water usage. Also, there needs to be assurance that there will be no ground contamination from the fertilizers that could be percolated into an adjacent working well. He would like to know how they plan to handle this. 4. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Daniels asked the necessity to have the doors on both sides of the building. Commissioner Quill stated that on this site, it is a necessity of the use. 5. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Ms. Cindy Zamora, representing the applicant, stated she did not know the specific on the containers, but will ensure they will not be a hazard. They would work it out with staff. Ms. Zamora stated they would like to delete Condition No. 33. Community Developer Director Doug Evans stated this project is designed so no structure can be seen off- or on -site except for a window at a gate. One foot of the canopies can be see from this one elevation and it is staff's belief the canopies can be lowered one foot. 6. Chairman Kirk asked if anyone else would like to address the Commissioner. There being none, Chairman Kirk closed the public hearing. 7. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Alderson/Daniels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-052 approving Site Development Permit 2005-843, as amended. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\ 1 0-25-05.doc i Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2005 a. Condition added: Application shall work with staff to ensure there is no ground water contamination. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Quill, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Ladner. ABSTAIN: None. C. Environmental Assessment 2005-537 and Tentative Tract Map 33085; a request of Core Homes, LLC for consideration of: 1) Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact; and 2) the subdivision of 4.3 acres into seven single-family lots for the property located at the southwest corner of Madison Street and Beth Circle, north of Avenue 52. 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. Staff noted Condition No. 71 was modified to state south and west property lines. 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Alderson asked if the entire site drains into the retention basin. Staff stated that is correct, the southeast corner of the site. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated there is no storm drain to take the water off -site. 3. Commissioner Daniels asked what the plotting pattern was to the south and should the street go through to the property to the south. Staff stated the property to the south is owned by Mr. Robert Smith. There is another ten acre tract, Tract 31852, to the south that has been approved. 4. Commissioner Quill asked if the intent was to leave the trees in place. Staff stated there will be some relocation to accommodate design and grading, but as many as possible are recommended to staff where they are. 5. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant wanted a narrower road, would staff support it. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated the applicant has not asked for a narrow width; staff has allowed 28 feet between the flow line with no parking on the street. Chairman Kirk stated he did not believe foliage did anything to G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\10-25-05.doc 4 Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2005 alleviate noise. Staff stated it may not provide much of a noise buffer, but it does add to the aesthetics. Chairman Kirk stated that all the exhibits he has shows the trees on the inside of the wall. Staff stated they are conditioned to provide a 20-foot landscaping strip along the street. 6. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. David Turner, Coachella Valley Engineers, representing the applicant, stated the drawing is conceptual. They intend to match the property to the north with trees and landscaping along the street. In regard to the property to the south, they would take their access off Madison Street. 7. Commissioner Daniels asked if that property would be a cul-de-sac by itself entering off Madison Street. Mr. Turner stated it would depend on how the applicant chose to design the tract. He then went on to explain the drainage of the site. 8. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Quill asked the purpose of the easement around the site. Mr. Turner stated it is a drainage easement. Commissioner Quill asked if the footprint on the plans was the footprint of the actual homes, or is this just typical. Mr. Turner stated they are conceptual. Commissioner Quill asked if more trees could be retained. Mr. Turner stated it is the intent to retain as many as possible. 9. Chairman Kirk asked the applicant to explain the street planting. Mr. Turner stated initially there will be two rows of trees outside the wall and when Madison Street is fully developed at least one row of trees would remain with a meandering sidewalk. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated the east half of the street is within the City of Indio. Madison Street is a Primary Arterial with a median. The City has rehabilitated their portion of Madison Street and there are no plans for any further development of the street at this time. Fees are being collected for when it is constructed. 10. Chairman Kirk asked if anyone else would like to address the Commissioner. Mr. Robert Smith, 51-425 Madison Street, immediate southerly property owner, stated his concern with the half acre lots of this project. He requested it be kept consistent with what is developed. He has no other issues. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\10-25-05.doc 5 Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2005 11. Commissioner Quill asked if there were any other subdivisions proposed in this area that are less than two acres. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated that on the northwest corner of Avenue 52 and Madison Street there is a tract approved with approximately 14 lots on 8.5 acre site. 12. Mr. Turner stated that in regard to density they believe the half acre lot size proposed is a good blend. 13. There being no further public comment, Chairman Kirk closed the public hearing and opened to Commission discussion. 14. Commissioner Daniels stated he had no problem with the half acre lots. 15. Commissioner Quill asked if this property was in the equestrian overlay zone. Staff stated yes, it is so zoned. 16. Chairman Kirk asked if this was the maximum number of lots that would be allowed. Staff stated the site is 4.3 acres so it could have 8.6 lots maximum. Chairman Kirk stated he is struggling with approving the higher density in a rural area. 17. Commissioner Alderson stated that given the configuration of the lots and access, he has no problem with the project as designed. 18. Commissioner Quill asked how many lots were being developed to the north. Staff stated there are two tracts approved to the north that are one acre lots and the drainage is contained on the individual lots. Commissioner Quill stated he thought that in this location, the lots should be one acre. 19. Chairman Kirk asked staff what their options were. Community Development Director Doug Evans explained they could approve, deny or request the applicant to remove the application from the calendar and allow them to redesign the project. City Attorney Kathy Jenson clarified that should they determine to deny the project, the application should be continued to allow staff to draft a resolution with findings for denial. Should the Commission vote and there is a tie vote, the project would automatically be continued to the next meeting. 20. Chairman Kirk reopened the public hearing. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\10-25-05.doc 6 Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2005 21. Mr. David Neale, owner of the property, stated they have made every effort to bring a project to the City that they can be proud of. He has met with the adjoining property owners to make them aware of his project. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would prefer to have a continuance or denial. Mr. Neale asked what his rights would be should he receive a negative vote. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated he would have a right of appeal to the City Council. Community Development Director Doug Evans asked that staff have an opportunity to speak with the applicant and bring this application back to the Commission in two weeks. Mr. Neale stated that if it is for less lots, he would prefer to have a vote at this time. 22. Commissioner Alderson asked how many lots could they design and have on -site drainage. Staff stated one -acre sites are the minimum to retain on site to get the retention needed. 23. Commissioner Daniels stated he supports the project as recommended by staff. Although the project to the north is one acre lots and this project has half acre lots, he does not see the reasoning for requiring this project to be one acre lots. 24. Chairman Kirk closed the public participation portion of the hearing. City Attorney Kathy Jenson recommended the Commission not close the public portion and allow testimony at the next meeting. Chairman Kirk reopened the public hearing. 25. Following discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Quill to continue the project to November 8, 2005. Staff to prepare a resolution with alternative findings for denial. Unanimously approved. Chairman Kirk recessed the meting at 8:23 p.m. and reconvened at 8:33 p.m. C. Specific Plan 2002-062 Amendment #1 and Tentative Parcel Map 33908; a request of Regency Marinita-La Quinta, LLC for consideration of amendments to the Specific Plan for a neighborhood shopping center to include a supermarket, drug store, and additional retail with a maximum building height of 35 feet. The amendments are sought to change the site plan to relocate the drug store site and amend certain design standards, including reducing certain landscape setbacks from 15 to five feet adjacent to Monticello park, and to subdivide the 10.6 acre site into G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\10-25-05.doe 7 Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2005 seven commercial parcels for the property located at the southwest corner of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive. 1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Consulting Planner Nicole Criste 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 Daniels clarified the zoning for Neighborhood Commercial does not allow for a drive-thru as well as the Specific Plan. Ms. Criste stated that is correct in regard to the zoning. There is an allowance for restaurants and drive-thrus in the Specific Plan, but there is not a clear allowance that they come together. 3. Commissioner Alderson asked how staff determined the gas station would not be constructed. Staff stated it is up to the grocery store as to whether or not it would be constructed. 4. Commissioner Quill asked if the bank "B" building condition restricting any fast foot was amenable. Staff stated it would eliminate the concern regarding the noise levels for 24-hours service. 5. Commissioner Alderson asked which pads could have fast food. Staff noted Bank A and Bank B are called out specifically. With an allowance for fast food, Pad C could have fast food, but it is not called out at this time. 6. Commissioner Quill asked if there was any phasing of the project. Staff stated the parcels could be developed individually within the limits of the Specific Plan. Commissioner Quill asked if there was a drug store under construction across the street. Staff stated it is approved and under construction. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated drive-thru restaurants are a prohibited use in a Neighborhood Commercial zone and staff would not recommend approving any specific plan allowing a use that the underlying zoning specifically does not approve. 7. Chairman Kirk asked for clarification. Staff stated the Specific Plan did not originally contain drive-thru restaurants. Chairman Kirk stated that he understood a specific plan could be used to G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\10-25-05.doc 9 Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2005 allow a use that is prohibited. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated it was his understanding that it was allowed with the submittal of a conditional use permit and that was not the case. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated the zoning is not being changed. Normally, a specific plan is used to deviate from some development standard; it is not used to allow a use that is prohibited in the underlying zoning. 8. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Paul Dubey, representing the applicant, stated they are not looking for approval of any drive-thru restaurant. Both pads are anticipated to be banks with drive-thru ATM machines. He went on to give a presentation on the project. Mr. James Cary, architect for the project gave a presentation on the project design. Staff asked that Condition No. 10 be deleted and Condition No. 14 be amended to read, "The retail uses on -site will operate from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. Monday through Sunday. All uses in Shop 1 and Pad C shall operate from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. Monday through Sunday." The next sentence shall be deleted. "The market drug store, bank ATM machines, and fueling station would be open 24-hours seven days a week." "All references to drive-thrus be removed from the Specific Plan." 9. There being no questions of the applicant, Chairman Kirk asked if there was any other public comment. Mr. Byron Woosley, 43-502 Torphin Hills, Indio, representing the HOA for Heritage Palms, asked that his e-mail be made a part of the minutes for this hearing. 10. Commissioner Quill asked how they intended to phase the project. Mr. Dubey stated they do not intend to phase the project. 11. Commissioner Alderson asked if the fueling station were to be constructed, would the lighting be reduced. Mr. Dubey stated it would be required to file a Conditional Use Permit and it could be regulated at this time. Commissioner Alderson asked the height of the Pad C, Shop 1. Mr. Cary stated it is 20 feet with a 22 foot tower and there will be an eight foot high masonry wall along the perimeter. 12. Commissioner Quill asked if the site gradually went lower the further you went back. Mr. Keith Gregori, stated the grade difference changes the farther you go back into the project. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\ 1 0-25-05.doc 9 Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2005 13. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion was closed and open for Commission discussion. 14. It was moved by Commissioners Quill/Daniels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-053, recommending to the City Council approval of Specific Plan 2002-062, Amendment #1, as amended: a. Condition No. 10: deleted b. Condition No. 14: amended to read, 'The retail uses on -site will operate from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. Monday through Sunday. All uses in Shop 1 and Pad C shall operate from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. Monday through Sunday." The next sentence shall be deleted. 'The market drug store, bank ARM machines, and fueling station would be open 24- houses seven days a week." C. Condition added: "All references to drive-thru restaurants shall be removed from the Specific Plan." d. Condition 11 modified to read, 'The average width of landscaping along the west property line shall be 7.6 fee instead of eight feet." ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Quill, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Ladner. ABSTAIN: None. 15. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill Daniels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-056, recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Map 33085, as amended: a. Condition No. 45: amended to add "...as approved by the City Engineer." ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Quill, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Ladner. ABSTAIN: None. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None. Vill. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\10-25-05.doc I n Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2005 A. Review of City Council meeting of October 18, 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 November 8, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:21 p.m. on October 25, 2005. Respectfully submitted, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California G\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\ 1 0-25-05.doc DATE: CASE NO: APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: REQUEST: 1 LOCATION: BACKGROUND: PH, STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 2005 TENTATIVE TRACT 33085 CORE HOMES, LLC CORE HOMES, LLC CONSIDERATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (EA 2005-537), AND; 2. CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE ±4.3 ACRES INTO SEVEN SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33085 SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MADISON STREET AND BETH CIRCLE, NORTH OF AVENUE 52 The proposed Tentative Tract Map 33085 was initially presented for review by the Planning Commission on October 25, 2005 (Attachment 1). At that meeting, a public hearing was held in accordance with City and State requirements; the minutes of this meeting have been attached (Attachment 2). During review of the project, the Planning Commission expressed concern over the density of the project as it relates to the surrounding land use intensity. This concern was also expressed by Mr. Robert Smith, owner of the 4.5 acres adjacent and to the south of the subject map. After discussion of the density of the project, and landscaping related items, the Planning Commission voted 4-0 (Commissioner Ladner absent) to continue the project application to the next regular meeting as scheduled for November 8, 2005. The Planning Commission also directed staff to prepare a draft Resolution presenting findings for denial of the proposed project, for consideration at the continued public hearing. If, after holding the Public Hearing, the Planning Commission decides to recommend denial to the City Council, staff will have a draft Resolution for Planning Commission consideration available. The Resolution would then be presented for entry into the project record. As Planning Commission action on tentative maps is advisory only, the project would go before the City Council with a recommendation for denial. Staff has attached resolutions and conditions for the approval of the project, which are unchanged from those presented on October 25, 2005. In the interim, the applicant has hired a licensed landscape architect to prepare revised landscape plans for the project, based on the recommended conditions of approval dated October 25, 2005. Staff has reviewed the project with the landscape architect, and provided direction based on the recommended approval conditions and Planning Commission discussion at the October 25 public hearing. Based on a preliminary plan presented at the time of this report's preparation, the plans will provide for a significant increase in the number of citrus stands than previously proposed. In addition, trees have been massed along Madison Street, with a meandering multi -use trail and staggered wall design. The interior lot areas will be provided with more tree stands, and turf will be reduced in the front yard areas and excluded from the retention basin site. Beth Circle will include a landscaped parkway, containing citrus trees as previously recommended. Staff recommends retaining the original condition pertaining to landscape design, as it relates to final plan check requirements. It is anticipated that a final revised concept landscaping plan will be prepared in time for inclusion with the Planning Commission packet. If not, the landscape plans will be available at the continued public hearing, along with a display rendering of the plan. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: Findings necessary to recommend adoption of Environmental Assessment 2005-537, and approval of Tentative Tract 33085, can be found in the Resolutions and attached hereto. However, a resolution with findings for a recommendation of denial have been prepared as well, and will be presented into the record if the Planning Commission decides to pursue such course of action. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005 - , recommending to the City Council certification of Environmental Assessment 2005-537, subject to findings, and; 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005 - , recommending to the City Council APPROVAL of Tentative Tract 33085, subject to conditions as recommended by staff; OR: 3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005 - , recommending to the City Council DENIAL of Tentative Tract 33085, subject to findings as contained in said Resolution (Resolution to be made available at the time of the Planning Commission meeting). Prepared by: Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Staff Report; October 25, 2005 2. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes; October 25, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33085 CASE NO. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-537 APPLICANT: CORE HOMES, LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 25th day of October, 2005 and continued to the 8`h day of November, 2005, a duly noticed public hearing to consider adoption of a recommendation on Environmental Assessment 2005-537, prepared for Tentative Tract 33085, a request to subdivide ±4.3 acres into seven single-family residential lots and several lettered lots, located on the southwest corner of Madison Street and Beth Circle, more particularly described as: BEING A PORTION OF PARCEL 3 OF PM 16457, MAP BOOK 100/48 OF MAPS WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment complies with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended, City Council Resolution 83-63, in that the Community Development Director has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 2005-537) and has determined that, although the proposed Tentative Tract 33085 could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures incorporated into the project approval will mitigate or reduce any potential impacts to a level of non -significance, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact should be filed; 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 findings to justify their recommendation for certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1. The proposed Tentative Tract 33085 will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, as the project in question will not be developed in any manner inconsistent with the General Plan and other current City standards when considering the required mitigation measures to be imposed. 2. The project will not have the potential to substantially reduce or cause the habitat or of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The site has Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Environmental Assessment 2005-537 Core Homes, LLC November 8, 2005 been identified as having the potential for cultural and paleontological resources. However, mitigation measures have been incorporated which will reduce these potential impacts to a less than significant level. In addition, the site may be suitable habitat for the burrowing owl, and a pre -construction survey for the species has been required. 3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed Tract 33085 will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends. A pre -construction survey for the burrowing owl species will be completed to determine if any members of that species exists on the site, with appropriate mitigation to be identified and carried out prior to any construction. 4. The proposed Tentative Tract 33085 will not have the potential to achieve short term goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the Environmental Assessment. The proposed project supports the long term goals of the General Plan by providing a variety of housing opportunities for City residents. 5. The proposed Tentative Tract 33085 will not have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, in that development activity in the area has been previously analyzed as part of the project approval process. Cumulative project impacts have been considered and mitigation measures proposed in conjunction with approval of those projects, and development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the proposed project. The construction of seven residential units will not have any significant cumulative impact and is consistent with the General Plan. 6. The proposed Tentative Tract 33085 will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect humans, either directly or indirectly, as the project contemplates land uses that are substantially similar to those already assessed under ultimate development of the La Quinta General Plan. No significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public services. 7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that Tentative Tract 33085 may have a significant effect on the environment. 8. The Planning Commission has considered Environmental Assessment 2005-537 and determined that it reflects the independent judgment of the City. 9. The City has, on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Environmental Assessment 2005-537 Core Homes, LLC November 8, 2005 adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d). 10. The location and custodian of City records relating to this project is the Community Development Department, located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California. 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; and 2. That is does hereby recommend certification of Environmental Assessment 2005-537 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist, Addendum, and Mitigation Monitoring Program, all attached hereto, and on file in the Community Development Department. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 8t' day of November, 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 2. Environmental Checklist Form Project Title: Lead agency name and address: Tentative Tract Map 33085 City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact person and phone number: Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner 760-777-7125 4. Project location: Southwest corner of Madison Street and Beth Circle. APN 772-270-013. 5. Project sponsor's name and address: Applicant: Core Homes, LLC Attn: David Neale 470 S. Market Street San Jose, CA 95113 6. General plan designation: Very Low Density 7. Zoning: Very Low Density Residential Residential (up to 2 du/acre) (up to 2 du/acre), Equestrian Overlay 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 project is a proposed residential development of seven detached single family dwellings which will be built upon 4.36 gross acres, upon which an active grapefruit orchard is now located. The project is located at the southwest corner of Beth Circle and Madison Street. Madison Street is designated as a primary arterial, with a 110 foot ultimate right of way, and is also an agrarian image corridor. Beth Circle is a private road. Beth Circle, rather than Madison Street, is to provide access to the tract, and has street improvements, although these were not installed in accordance with City -approved plans. The improvements were associated with Tentative Tract 30378, which remains unrecorded and which expired on June 18, 2004. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: North: A grapefruit orchard is located immediately north of the subject property. It is in transition from agriculture to residential. Some street improvements are in place including paving and three foot wide culverts along both sides of Old Orchard Lane. The land use designation for this property is VLDR (Very Low Density Residential of up to two dwellings per acre.) South: An active date farm is located immediately south of the proposed project. It has a land use designation of VLDR (Very Low Density Residential of up to two dwellings per acre.) West: These lands have a land use designation of Very Low Density Residential, and are also transitioning from agricultural to residential usage. -I- East: The property's eastern boundary is Madison Street. Properties east of this section of Madison Street are within the City of Indio, and these properties including the Empire Polo Club, have a land use designation of Country Estates, indicating that very low density residential usage is planned. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Coachella Valley Water District Coachella Valley Unified School District -2- ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Biological Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Mineral Resources Public Services Utilities / Service Systems Agriculture Resources Cultural Resources Hydrology / Water Quality Noise Recreation Air Quality Geology /Soils Land Use / Planning Population / Housing Transportation/Traffic Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the x 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 project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 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" impact 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 or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. d I&P Zr-or Signature Date -3- 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 referenced 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) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one of more "Potentially Significant Impact' entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact' to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigatior measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant tc applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigatior Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated of refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specifi( conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to informatior sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to , previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to tha page or pages where the statement is substantiated. -4- 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance -5- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a X scenic vista? (La Quinta General Plan Exhibit 3.6 "Image Corridors') b) Substantially damage scenic resources, X including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Aerial photograph; Site Inspection) c) Substantially degrade the existing X visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Application materials) d) Create a new source of substantial X light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application materials) I. a) Madison Street is an Agrarian Image Corridor. The City requires maximum building height in an image corridor to be 22 feet within 150 feet of an image corridor road. Because of the layout of the proposed development, the parcels that will be located within the image corridor include Parcel 6 (rear and sides); the retention basin in the southeast corner of the property; and the sides of parcels 5 and 7. The proposed project will be required to include parkway landscaping consistent with the agrarian image corridor, including citrus trees, which should be replanted from within the site. The proposed development is located along an agrarian image corridor, but if treated as discussed above, its adverse impacts upon this image corridor will be less than significant. b) Madison Street is not a state scenic highway, and the damage to scenic resources will be less than significant if the above City standards are implemented. c) The implementation of the City's standards for Agrarian Image Corridors will reduce the potential impacts associated with degradation of the character of the area to less than significant levels. d) Light and glare are expected to emanate from the seven proposed dwellings in the development. Likewise light and glare from vehicular traffic and future street lights will occur. -6- Standard design features included in the City's Municipal Code, such as low lighting levels should be used to mitigate potential light impacts to acceptable levels. These standards include features such as shielding and directing all outdoor lighting downward to preserve the night sky. No illumination of land outside the development perimeter and outside of any individual lot perimeters will be permitted. Building practices should minimize the use of glass and other reflective surfaces. Impacts associated with scenic resources are generally expected to be less than significant with the implementation of City standards discussed above. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide X Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. III-21 ff.) X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map) c) Involve other changes in the existing X environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use'? (General Plan Land Use Map; Site Inspection) II. a)-c) Maps from the California Department of Conservation's Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program indicate that the site under consideration is not prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance. The proposed subdivision will not impact local agricultural resources as numerous nearby farms continue in operation, including other grapefruit orchards, a date farm immediately to the south, and numerous large, active farms within one mile of the site. The La Quinta Comprehensive General Plan shows that the property has been set aside for residential use, rather than for farmland. There are no Williamson Act contracts on the land. Residential development of this property will not cause any significant impacts to agricultural resources. Ira Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct X implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) b) Violate any air quality standard or X contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation'? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) c) Result in a cumulatively considerable X 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, 2002 PM 10 Plan for the Coachella Valley) d) Expose sensitive receptors to X substantial pollutant concentrations? (Project Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a X substantial number of people'? (Project Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection) III. a), b) & c) It is expected that vehicle trips generated by the proposed project will be the most significant generators of air pollutants. The proposed project will result in seven single-family homes, which have the potential to generate up to 67 trips per day'. Based on this traffic generation and an average trip length of 15 miles, the following emissions can be expected to be generated from the project site. 1 "Trip Generation, Ob Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, category 210, Single Family Detached. -9- Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Build -out (pounds per day) Ave. Trip Tot Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Length (miles) miles/di 67 x 15 = 1,005 PMio PMio PM Pollutant ROC CO NOX Exhaust Tire Wear Brake We Grams at 50 mph 90 2,341 480 10.0 10 Pounds at 50 mph 0.20 5.17 1.06 SCAQMD Threshold (lbs./day) 75 550 100 150 Assumes 1,132 ADT. Based on California Air Resources Board's EMFAC7G Emissions Model. Assumes Year 2005 summertime running conditions at 75T, light duty autos, catalytic. 0.( As demonstrated above, the proposed project will not exceed any of SCAQMD's recommended daily thresholds for chemical emissions. The project's potential impacts to air quality resulting from vehicular emissions are therefore expected to be less than significant. The City of La Quinta and the Coachella Valley are a severe non -attainment area tot PM10 (Particulates of 10 microns or less). The Valley's 2002 PM10 Plan adopted much stricter measures for the control of dust both during the construction process and during project operations. These include the following, to be included in conditions of approval for the proposed project: CONTROL MEASURE TITLE & CONTROL METHOD BCM-1 Further Control of Emissions from Construction Activities: Watering.. chemical stabilization, wind fencing, revegetation, track -out control BCM-2 Disturbed Vacant Lands: Chemical stabilization, wind fencing, access restriction, revegetation BCM-3 Unpaved Roads and Unpaved Parking Lots: Paving, chemical stabilization, access restriction, revegetation BCM-4 Paved Road Dust: Minimal track -out, stabilization of unpaved road shoulders, clean streets maintenance The proposed project will generate It 5.1 pounds of dust per day during construction, This does not exceed the 150 pound per day SCAQMD threshold for PM 10. However, the City of La Quinta requires compliance with PM10 plan preparation and implementation through its own local ordinance (Chapter 6.16, LQMC), which this project is subject to. 10- III. d) & e) Sensitive receptors near the proposed Core Homes development are other residential developments. There are no schools or hospitals within a mile of the proposed sever unit development. The proposed subdivision is not expected to create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people, nor will it expose residents to concentrations of pollutants. Odors from grading, laying of asphalt, construction vehicles and other sources are expected to be minimal and very short-lived. Overall, the air quality impacts of this proposed development are expected to be less than significant with mitigation. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either X 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 (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any X riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on X federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (General Plan MEA, p. 78 tY.) d) Interfere substantially with the X movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites'? (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.) e) Conflict with any local policies or X ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (General Plan MEA, p. 73 ff) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, X Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservationplan'? (General Plan -12- MEA, p. 78 ff.) IV. a) The property is currently being used as a grapefruit grove and consists of relative]} level terrain with an elevation of approximately 15 feet above mean sea level. Ir addition to the grapefruit trees located in this densely planted orchard, vegetation observed within the project area includes sunflowers, saltbushes, goat weed, anc various grasses There were ten rows of grapefruit trees running east -west across the property anc terminating just west of Madison Avenue. The site has been an operating orchard for some time, and as such does not contair natural plant communities. The presence of agricultural rows creates the potential to] habitat for the burrowing owl, a species of concern. In accordance with the policies contained in the General Plan, the project proponent is required to complete a pre - construction survey of the parcel prior to construction, in order to assure that impact: to this species will not be significant. Therefore, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented. 1. Within 30 days of the initiation of any ground disturbing activity on the project site, the project proponent shall cause a protocol -compliant burrowing owl survey to be completed, submitted to the Community Development Department, and approved. Should the species be identified on the site, the biologist's recommendations for relocation shall be implemented prior to the issuance of any ground disturbing permit. b) Due to the long term use of the site in agriculture, the project is not expected to have z substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. c) There are no wetlands on the site. The project is not expected to have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands. d) The project is not expected to interfere substantially with the movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident of migratory wildlife corridors, e) There is no conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources such as a tree preservation policy. f) As the development site is already disturbed and has been used for agriculture, nc interference with a Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservatior Plan is expected. Overall, impacts to biological resources from this proposed development are expectec to be less than significant. 13- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Imps Impact Mitigation Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would theproject: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in X the significance of a historical resource as defined in ' 15064.5? (Historical Archaeological Resources Survey ... TTM 33085 CRM Tech, January 2005) X b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to'15064.5? (Historical Archaeological Resources Survey...TTM 33085 CRM Tech, January 2005) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique X paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (Paleontologic Resources Assessment TTM 33085...CRM Tech, January 2005) d) Disturb any human remains, including X those interred outside of formal cemeteries'? (General Plan META p. 123 ff.) V. a) A historical resources survey was performed by CRM TECH and after close inspection of the 4.36 acre site, no evidence of any human activities dating to the historic of prehistoric periods was found on the property. The nearby area has yielded a number of significant historic resources, however, and the paleontologic resources monitor for the project should also be aware of the possibility of finding such resources'. b) No archaeological resources have been found on the site and CRM TECH (cited below) has recommended a finding of no impact with respect to this resource, Nevertheless, archaeological resources have been found within a mile of the site, and E qualified archaeological monitor will need to be present during all earth moving and grading activities due to the general sensitivity of the area for subsurface cultural deposits, to assure that potential impacts to archaeological resources are less thar significant. An archaeological monitor shall be present during all earth moving activities The monitor shall be empowered to stop or redirect such activities if resources are identified. The findings of the monitoring effort shall be documented in "Historical.' Archeological Resources Sunray Report for Tentative Tract Map No. 33085", by CRM TEO January 17, 2005; with Addenda April 14, 2005, and May 19, 2005. -14- report delivered to the Community Development Department no more than 30 days from the completion of monitoring activities. c) Based on previous discoveries over a mile from the project area, the San Bernardino County Museum has assigned the project area a high paleontological sensitivity, and declared the proposed project to have a high potential to impact significant nonrenewable fossil resources. The on -foot field survey did find shell material mixed throughout the soil of the project site. The material consisted mainly of shell fragments. The top layer of soil has been disturbed by the agricultural use of the property. However, the study area's ancient lakebeds have a moderate to high potential for invertebrate remains below the disturbed top. Because of this, paleontological monitoring of earth -moving activities is warranted once the undisturbed subsurface is reached. Because of previous surface disturbance, no monitoring of tree removal, grubbing, or surface grading is recommended. Monitoring should be restricted to undisturbed Lake Cahuilla beds and any undisturbed subsurface older alluvium, which might be present below the surface. Earth moving activities impacting the undisturbed subsurface soils of the project area are likely to encounter paleontological resources within the Holocene -age sediments present at the site. In the entire proposed project area, beneath the quaternary dune sands, there may be older Quaternary deposits, including deposits of lacustrine and fluvial origin known as the Lake Cahuilla beds, that may well contain significant terrestrial and freshwater vertebrate fossils. These Lake Cahuilla beds occur at the surface immediately adjacent to the southeastern portion of the proposed project area'-. The closest fossil vertebrate localities are slightly higher in elevation, but in the same continuous Lake Cahuilla beds, almost directly south of the proposed project area, and just east of the current Lake Cahuilla on both sides of Madison Street north of 58t' Avenue. The following mitigation measure shall be implemented for the site: 1. On -and off -site monitoring of earth -moving and grading for the entire site shall be conducted by a qualified paleontological monitor. Monitoring shall be especially thorough in the southeastern portion of the site. The monitor shall be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove samples of sediments that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. Proof that a monitor has been retained shall be given to the City prior to issuance of the first earth -moving permit. 2 Letter from Samuel A. McLeod. Ph.D., of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, dated December 15, 2004, to CRM TECH re: Paleontological Resources for Proposed Tract 22085 Core Homes. -15- 2. Recovered specimens shall be prepared to the point of identification and permanent preservation, including washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates. d) The site does not occur in an area known to have previously been used for burial. California law requires that anyone uncovering human remains during a construction project notify the authorities. The project contractor will be required to conform to these regulations, and will report any remains, should they be identified. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, X 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? (MEA Exhibit 6.2) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (MEA X Exhibit 6.2; October 2004 Geotechnical Investigation by Stadden Engineering for adjacent property, immediately north of the Core Homes site.)) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, X including liquefaction'? (MEA Lxhibit 6.3) iv) Landslides? (MEA Exhibit 6.4) X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or X the loss of topsoil? (MEA Exhibit 6.5) c) Be located on expansive soil, as X defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property (MEA Exhibit 6.1) d) Have soils incapable of adequately X supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems 16- where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water'? (General Plan Exhibit 8.1) VI. a) i) & ii) The site is not located in an Earthquake Fault Zone as designated by the State. Major fault zones considered to be the most likely to create strong ground shaking are the San Andreas Fault and the San Jacinto Fault, the former of which is 9.5 km (5.9 miles) from the site and the later of which is 32.4 km (20.1 miles) from the project site. The site is located within a seismically active area of Southern California and it is likely that the proposed structures will experience strong ground shaking as a result of an earthquake event during the life of the development. The City requires that structures be designed based upon Uniform Building Code Seismic Zone 4 design criteria. iii) The potential for liquefaction or other geologic/ seismic hazards occurring at the site is considered to be quite negligible, as the applicable soil profile type is SD, generally described as stiff or dense soil I. The geology of the site has been shown as recent alluvial -fan, flood -plain, lake, and sand dune deposits. The soil is a mixture of sandy silt and clay. iv) The project site is surrounded by other lands which are fairly level, and the site is not subject to significant landslide hazards. b) The project is located within the edge of a very severe wind erosion hazard area. Tc prevent erosion and loss of topsoil, the PM 10 mitigation measures discussed in the Ail Quality section of this Initial Study will mitigate potential erosion. Retention of significant grapefruit trees should also help mitigate erosion and topsoil loss. c) The surface soils within the upper five feet consist primarily of silty sands. Expansior testing indicates that the surface silty sands are generally non -expansive and are classified as "very low" expansion category soils in accordance with Table 18-1B of the 1997 Uniform Building Code.2 d) The City requires connection to the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) sewer system, and the District has indicated in its April 11, 2005 letter to the La QuintE Planning Commission that the proposed subdivision will be annexed into Improvement District Numbers 55 and 82 for sanitary sewer service. 1 October 2004 Geotechnical Investigation by Sladden Engineering for adjacent property, immediately north of the Con Homes site (page 4). 2 April 2002 Geotechnical Investigation by Sladden Engineering for adjacent property, immediately north of the Con Homes site (page 2). -17- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact :Mitigation Impact VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS --would theproject: a) Create a significant hazard to the X public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Application materials) b) Create a significant hazard to the X public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment'? (General Plan MLA, p. 95 ff.) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle X hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school'? (Application materials) d) Be located on a site which is included X on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Application materials) e) For a project located within an airport X 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) t) For a project within the vicinity of a X 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 X interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ft) -18- h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (General Plan land use map) km VII. a)-h) The construction of seven homes on the subject site will not have an impact on hazards and hazardous materials. The City implements Household Hazardous Waste programs through its trash hauler, which are designed to provide for safe disposal of hazardous substances generated in the home. Development of the seven parcels needs to occur in accordance with all applicable fire and safety codes and will not hinder or conflict with any adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. The project is not expected to result in the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials and is not expected to create a significant hazard to the public of the environment. The subject property is not known to previously have been a hazardous materials site, and therefore, the proposed development is not expected to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The Core Homes development is not located adjacent to wildlands, and is not expected to pose any risks related to wildland fires. Impacts of the project related to hazards and hazardous materials are considered to be negligible. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impa Impact Mitigation Impact VIIL HYDROLOGY AND WATER UALITY -- Would theproject: a) Violate any water quality standards or X waste discharge requirements? (General Plan EIR p. 111-187 ff.) b) Substantially deplete groundwater X 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 (e.g., 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 p. 111-187 ff.) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage X pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or off -site'? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage X 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 p. 111-187 ff.) e) Create or contribute runoff water which X would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (General Plan EAR p. I11-187 ff.) f) Place housing within a 100-year flood X hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation -20- map? (General Plan E.IR p. 111-187 ff.) 1 1 I I g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard X area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Enviromnental Assessment Exhibit 6.6) VIII. a) The proposed project is not expected to violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. b) The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) has indicated that it wishes to reviev plans for grading, landscaping, and irrigation to ensure efficient water management The project proponent will be required to implement the City's water efficien landscaping and construction provisions, including requirements for water efficien fixtures and appliances, which will ensure that the least amount of water is utilize( within the homes. The proposed project is not expected to substantially deplete groundwater supplies o interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net defici in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. The applicant wil be required to comply with the City's NPDES standards, ensuring that potentia pollutants not be allowed to enter surface waters. These standards will assure tha impacts to water quality and quantity will be less than significant. c) The development site is about 15 feet above sea level. The terrain is relatively level but slopes slightly to the east. The applicant is proposing to accommodate drainage it the subdivision by way of a retention basin in the southeast corner of the property. Th, 10,366 square foot retention basin would be located between proposed lots 5 and 6 ii the development. The project site includes Bureau of Reclamation hrigation Lateral 119.2, an irrigatioi water line. Prior to development of the site, the line must be relocated to assure tha these waters are not impacted by project development. In order to assure that th irrigation water is not impacted by the proposed project, the following mitigatioi measure shall be implemented: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project proponent shall relocat Bureau of Reclamation Irrigation Lateral No. 119.2 to the satisfaction of th Bureau of Reclamation and the Coachella Valley Water District. d) The development is not expected to increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in manner that would result in flooding on- or off -site. However, the capacity of th retention basin must be reviewed to make certain of this, and the following mitigatio measure shall be implemented: -21- The project shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.120 (Drainage), LQMC, Engineering Bulletin #97.03, and the approved preliminary hydrology plan dated 9/14/05. The City requires that all projects retain the 100-year storm on site. The City Engineer will review final plans and hydrology analysis to assure that these basins are sufficient to adequately retain water, prior to the issuance of grading permits. Stormwater and project -generated urban runoff will be managed through the use of catch basins, stormwater retention facilities, and other standards in accordance with the California Storm Water Pollution Plan. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be required of the project prior to grading. e) The District has indicated that the development site is protected from regional stormwater flows by the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel and may be considered safe from regional stormwater flows except in rare instances. f & g) According to the Coachella Valley Water Districts, the property under consideration is designated as being in Flood Zone X on Federal Flood insurance rate maps. Flood zone X refers to areas that are outside the 500-year floodplain. Letter to La Quints Planning Commission from Mark L. Johnson, Director of Engineering, Coachella Valley Ware. District, re: Tentative Tract 33085, Core [tomes, L1.C, dated April 11, 2005. -22- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established X community? (Aerial photo) b) Conflict with any applicable land use X plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (General Plan Land Use Element; General Plan Exhibit 2.1 Land Use) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat X conservation plan or natural community conservation plan]? (Master Emironmental Assessment p. 74 tT.) IX. a)-c) Construction of the seven unit Core Homes residential development will not divide ar established community. The development does not conflict with habitat conservatior plans or natural community conservation plans. Historically the 4.36 acre property has been a grapefruit orchard. There are no houses or other buildings currently onsite. Conversion of this property from a grapefruit orchard into a residential development of one-half acre parcels conforms with the City's land use plan. The land use designation for the property is Very Low Density Residential, allowing up to two dwellings pen acre. The permitted maximum project density is 8.6 units for the site, so the proposed lots are below the density allowed and are consistent with the City's Lanc Use Plan. -23- Potentially Significant Less Than Significant w/ Less Than Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a X known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 tY.) b) Result in the loss of availability of a X locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff.) X. a) & b) The proposed project consists primarily of silty, fine-grained sands. The site is locatec in an area of the City that is transitioning from agricultural to residential uses. It is it Mineral Resource Zone MRZ-1. This refers to areas where adequate informatior exists to support the conclusion that no significant mineral deposits are present, of where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence. -24- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Xl. NOISE Would the project result in: X 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 MEA p. I I I ff. Impact Sciences Noise Study for Tentative Tract Map No. 33085, April 2005) b) Exposure of persons to or generation X of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels'? (General Plan MEA p. I I I ff. Impact Sciences Noise Study for Tentative Tract Map No. 33085, April 2005) c) A substantial permanent increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan MEA p. l l l ff.) d) A substantial temporary or periodic X increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan MEA p. Ill ff) e) For a project located within an airport X 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? (General Plan land use map) f) For a project within the vicinity of a X private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (General Plan land use map) XI. a)-d) Noise will be generated during project construction. There are no major sensitive receptors located adjacent to the project site. -25- In general, increases in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity are expected to fal' into two categories, short-term and long-term. Short-term, temporary noise impact: associated with the operation of heavy machinery are expected to occur during the grading and construction process. This requires the following mitigation measure: 1. To minimize impacts during the grading and construction process, all construction equipment shall be fitted with well -maintained mufflers. 2. Construction activities shall take place only during hours permitted by the City's noise ordinance. Exterior Noise Based upon measurements from April 2005, noise levels at the site were approximately 55 dB(A) and thus are at the upper range of normally acceptable levels per Table 8.1 of the City of La Quinta General Plan. Traffic on Madison Street an( Avenue 52 are both expected to increase dramatically by year 2020. Based upor Avenue 52's greater distance from the site and the intervening orchards, noise from Madison Street is the primary concern. Up to 28,200 daily trips are expected on Madison Street in 2020, based upon the City's General Plan traffic element, and CEQA requires long term noise levels to be a acceptable levels. The CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) that would be 8( feet from the centerline of Madison (where the closest residence would be located) is 68.7 dB(A) CNEL. This exceeds conditionally acceptable exterior noise levels — the City considers 55 to 65 dB(A) to be conditionally acceptable. A six foot block wall would reduce noise by 6.5 dB(A). This will bring the development to 62.2 dB(A) CNEL — and this is within the range that is considered tc be conditionally acceptable according to the City's noise element. Based upon this, the following measures are required for the mitigation of exterior noise levels, to allow the proposed development to comply with interior and exterior noise level thresholds: I . Construct a six-foot block wall that separates the entire eastern edge of the site from Madison Street. 2. If Lots 5, 6, or 7 are proposed as two-story homes, any exterior balconies. decks, or patios on the second stories for homes on these three lots must face away from Madison Street. Interior Noise Interior noise should not be a problem as Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code call: for insulated walls, glazed windows, and weather stripping on all doors and window opening to the exterior. Insulated stucco walls and double paned windows can reduce exterior noise levels of 25.0 to 31.0 dB(A). As such, interior noise levels experience( in the proposed residential units will remain below the 45.0 dB(A) CNEL threshol( required by Title 24. e & f) The Core Homes development site is over three miles from the Desert Resort: Regional Airport, so noise impacts will be minimal. The proposed development site is -26- not within an airport land use plan. With the implementation of mitigation measures, the noise impacts from the Core Homes development are expected to be less than significant. -27- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact :Mitigation Impact XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth X 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, p. 9 ff., application materials) b) Displace substantial numbers of X existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) c) Displace substantial numbers of X people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) XII. a)-c) The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan designation for the project site. The City's build -out population of 60,639 not including adjacent planning areas or spheres of influence, will not be significantly challenged or impacted by growth from the seven proposed dwellings. No individuals will be displaced to create this development. No replacement housing will need to be built elsewhere. The impacts of this development upon housing and population will be insignificant. -29- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57) X Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57) X Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.) X Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks X Master Plan) Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, X p. 46 ff.) XIII. a)Build-out of the site will have a less than significant impact on public services. The proposed project will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, under City contract. Build -out of the proposed project will generate sales and property tax that will offset the costs of added police and fire services, as well as the costs of general government. The project will be required to pay the mandated school fees, fire mitigation fees, and park in lieu fees at the time of issuance of building permits to reduce the financial impacts to those services. The Police Department has recommended that construction materials be kept in a locked storage facility during the construction period for this project, and that the homes to be constructed should incorporate wide -angled peepholes into all dwelling front doors and all solid doors where visual scrutiny is compromised. The proposed development site has been designated to provide for outdoor lighting and other measures that will reduce the need for police protection. These requirements will be included in the conditions of approval for the project. Schools are managed by the Coachella Valley Unified School District, and the developer will need to pay fees to the School District. The District has indicated that, -29- due to overcrowding, students from the development may need to be transferred to o school within the district that can accommodate them. Parks and recreation areas are provided by both the City and the County, and the impact of the development upon these parks is expected to be less than significant. The property owner will be required to pay a parkland fee prior to recordation of the final map. -30- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impacl Impact Mitigation Impact XIV. RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of X existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Application materials; General Plan Exhibit 5.1 Existing and Proposed Parks) b) Does the project include recreational X facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application materials) XIV. a) & b) The City's 2002 Comprehensive General Plan indicates that the closest existing of planned parks in La Quinta are over two miles west of the proposed Core Home: development. The City has numerous parks, and has set a standard of at least 3.0 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. Due to the small size of the proposed development, however, impact of the development on recreational resources will be less than significant. Irregardless, the project will be required to pay Parkland Dedication fees as required by Chapter 13.48 of the City Subdivision Ordinance. -31- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is X 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. 111-29 ff.) b) Exceed, either individually or X cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways'? (General Plan EIR, p. 111-29 ff.) c) Result in a change in air traffic X patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks'? (No air traffic involved in project) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a X design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (TTM 33085) e) Result in inadequate emergency X access'? (TTM 33085) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X (TTM 33085) X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project description; META Exhibit 3.10 Trails) XV. a) & b) The proposed project is not expected to cause any substantial increase in traffic it relation to existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. Madison Street has a right of way of 110 feet and is designated as a Primary Arterial. The proposed -32- development will not exceed the level of service standard established by the City for Madison Street or other nearby roads such as Avenue 50 or Avenue 52. c) The project will not result in a change in air traffic patterns. Likewise, rail and waterborne traffic patterns will not be impacted. d) The project does not substantially increase hazards due to any design features. In fact, the choice of access from Beth Circle rather than from Madison Street adds a significant safety -enhancing feature to the development. The City's Engineering Department has already specified in a memorandum of April 8, 2005, that left turn movements out of Beth Circle will not be permitted, and this adds an additional layer of safety to the proposed project, as well as to motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists utilizing Madison Street. e) The project is not expected to result in inadequate emergency access. The private roads inside the development are "T" shaped and extend southward from the private street called Old Orchard Lane. These private roads meet minimum standards for safety including two dead ends, each of which meet the required minimum turning radius of 38 feet. f) With the proposed parcels each being one half acre, no shortage of parking capacity is anticipated. In addition, no streets in the proposed development will be less than 36 feet wide at any point, and, therefore parking on both sides of the street is permissible. g) The proposed development and division of land are not expected to conflict with any adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. According to the City's Trails Map, this section of Madison Street is a pedestrian/ hiking trail; an on -road bicycle lane; and a multi -purpose trail. These improvements will be required as part of the project approval conditions. -33- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment X requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff) b) Require or result in the construction of X new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) c) Require or result in the construction of X new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) d) Have sufficient water supplies X available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) e) Result in a determination by the X wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient X permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) g) Comply with federal, state, and local X statutes and regulations related to solid waste'? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) -34- XVI. a) The Core Homes proposed subdivision will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District, and CVWD has already indicated the requirement to annex the seven proposed parcels into CVWD's Districts 55 and 82 for sanitation service. b) The proposed project will ultimately lead to the creation of seven dwellings, therefore it will not require the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities, or the expansion of existing facilities. c) The area is protected from regional storm flows by the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel and may be considered safe from regional storm flows except in rare instances. d) The Coachella Valley Water District will famish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with the current regulations of the District Sufficient water supplies are available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, and CVWD has indicated that certain fees and charges will be paid by the subdivider to obtain water service. CVWD has also indicated that additional domestic water pipelines will have to be installed by the subdivider in order for the District to provide service to all parcels. Impacts to water supplies can be reduced by incorporating a variety of water - conserving techniques which include the use of low -flow toilets and showerheads, and the use of drought -tolerant plant materials in landscape and open space areas. e) CVWD has indicated in its letter of April 11, 2005, that it has sufficient wastewater treatment capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to its already existing commitments. f) Waste Management of the Desert serves residences within the City of La Quinta, and no strains on landfill capacity are expected to result from the seven parcels in the Core Homes development. g) The project complies with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, and future homes on site will participate in the City's recycling program, that is coordinated through Waste Management of the Desert. On -site recycling and solid waste source reduction programs must be implemented at project build -out in accordance with local and state requirements. -35- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact !Mitigation Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- a) Does the project have the potential to X 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 X achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals'? b) Does the project have impacts that are X 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 projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental X effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. a) The site has the potential to impact cultural and paleontologic resources. These impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant level, as stated in Sections IV (Cultural Resources) and V (Biological Resources). XVII. b) The proposed project will augment the housing options offered to the City's residents, a goal of the General Plan. XVII. c) The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan vision for this area, and construction of the project will have no significant cumulative impacts. -36- XVII. d) The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect human beings, due to noise impacts. Mitigation measures have been included to reduce the potential impacts related to noise. These are outlined in Section XI. XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one 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 analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Not applicable. 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 et2ects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. Not applicable. -37- ( _ \� (} (E § { b ) u \ ( \ 4 E \ d) \ ^0 \ Ka ! m' )/ \ § } /§ M; ! } ) j(( _ � _[§ �\\ ( c \� k/ uU � a a ! § 2 2 ° - � ( % 4 \ ® / / \ \ ) j 3\ G= § A\d \ k§))\ )f / /\8 \Cc) § e � \� )§ q § w b = ( \ 2 ] ° \ \ \ § r / / \ ) ) /§ � §o e / z2 /n \ § ° a ) [ $2E� ( \{ \ �) ) PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT 33085, DIVIDING ±4.3 ACRES INTO SEVEN SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS CASE NO. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33085 APPLICANT: CORE HOMES, LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 251h day of October, 2005 and continued to the 8"' day of November, 2005, a duly noticed Public Hearing, to consider a recommendation on Tentative Tract 33085, a request to subdivide ±4.3 acres into seven single-family residential lots and certain lettered lots, located on the southwest corner of Madison Street and Beth Circle, more particularly described as: BEING A PORTION OF PARCEL 3 OF PM 16457, MAP BOOK 100/48 OF MAPS WHEREAS, the La Quinta Community Development Department has prepared Environmental Assessment 2005-537, and has determined that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures incorporated into the project approval will mitigate or reduce any potential impacts to a level of non -significance; 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 findings to justify their recommendation on Tentative Tract 33085: 1. The proposed Tentative Tract Map 33085 is consistent with the City's General Plan, with the implementation of Conditions of Approval. The project density of 1.6 units per acre is consistent with the adopted Very Low Density Residential land use designation of up to two dwelling units per acre, as set forth in the General Plan. 2. The design and improvements of the proposed Tentative Tract Map 33085 are consistent with the City's General Plan, to provide for adequate storm water drainage, and other infrastructure improvements with the implementation of recommended conditions of approval to ensure proper street widths, perimeter walls, storm drainage facilities, and timing of their construction. 3. The La Quinta Community Development Department has prepared Environmental Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Tentative Tract 33085 - Core Homes November 8, 2005 Assessment 2005-537. Based on this Assessment, the Community Development Department has determined that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures incorporated into the project approval will mitigate or reduce any potential impacts to a level of non - significance. A pre -construction survey will be conducted for burrowing owl species, the only species of concern identified for this site. 4. The design of Tentative Tract 33085 and type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems, in that this issue was considered in Environmental Assessment 2005-537, in which no significant health or safety impacts were identified for the proposed project. 5. As conditioned, the design of Tentative Tract 33085 and type of improvements, will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public -at -large, for access through, or use of property within the proposed subdivision. 6. The site for Tentative Tract 33085 is physically suitable for the proposed subdivision, as natural slopes do not exceed 20%, and there are no identified geological constraints on the property that would prevent development pursuant to the geotechnical study prepared for the subdivision. 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 hereby require compliance with those mitigation measures specified by the Mitigation Monitoring Program of Environmental Assessment 2003-537, prepared for Tentative Tract Map 33085; 3. That it does recommend approval of Tentative Tract Map 33085 to the City Council, 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 8" day of November, 2005, by the following vote to wit: Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Tentative Tract 33085 - Core Homes November 8, 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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33085 CORE HOMES. LLC NOVEMBER 8, 2005 r;FNFRAI 1. 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 Tentative Tract Map, 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. This Tentative Tract Map, and any Final Map recorded thereunder, shall comply with the requirements and standards of Government Code § § 66410 through 66499.58 (the "Subdivision Map Act"), and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code ("LQMC"). 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 • Coachella Valley Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) • SunLine Transit Agency • South Coast Air Quality Management District, Coachella Valley 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. Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 33085, Core Homes, LLC November 8, 2005 A project -specific NPDES construction permit must be obtained by the applicant, who shall then submit a copy of the Regional Water Quality Control Board's ("RWQCB") acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent ("NO["), prior to the issuance of a grading or site construction permit by the City. 4. 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. 4) Tracking Control. 5) Non -Storm Water Management. 2 Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 33085, Core Homes, LLC November 8, 2005 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. PROPERTY 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. 6. 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. 7. The public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this development include: 1) Madison Street (Primary Arterial, Option A 1 10' ROW) — The standard 55 feet from the centerline of Madison Street for a total 1 10-foot ultimate developed right of way. 8. The applicant shall retain for private use on the Final Map all private 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. 9. The private street right-of-ways to be retained for private use required for this development include: A. PRIVATE STREETS 11 Residential Streets measured at gutter flow line to gutter flow line shall have a 36-foot travel width. 3 Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 33085, Core Homes, LLC November 8, 2005 B. CUL DE SACS 1) The cul de sac shall conform to the shape shown on the tentative map with a 38-foot curb radius at the bulb or larger as shown on the tentative map. 10. When the City Engineer determines that access rights to the proposed street right-of-ways shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map 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. 11. 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. Madison Street (Primary Arterial) - 20-foot from the R/W-P/L. The listed setback depth shall be the average depth where a meandering wall design is approved. 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. Direct vehicular access to Madison Street from lots with frontage along Madison Street is restricted, except for those access points identified on the tentative tract map, or as otherwise conditioned in these conditions of approval. The vehicular access restriction shall be shown on the recorded final tract map. 15. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as appropriate, from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading, 0 Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 33085, Core Homes, LLC November 8, 2005 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 Tentative Tract Map and the date of recording of any Final Map, unless such easement is approved by the City Engineer. 17. The applicant shall enter into a reciprocal agreement with the owners► of the property to the north, Tentative Tract Map No. 30378 for access to Madison Street via Beth Circle. The applicant is advised that the approval of this Tentative Tract Map No. 33085 is dependent on the completion of street improvements for the development to the north, Tentative Tract Map No. 30378. FINAL MAPS 18. Prior to the City's approval of a Final Map, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCAD files of the Final Map that was approved by the City's map checker on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. Such files shall be in a standard AutoCAD format so as to be fully retrievable into a basic AutoCAD program. Where a Final Map was not produced in an AutoCAD format, or produced in a file that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will accept a raster -image file of such Final Map. The Final Map shall be of a 1 " = 40' scale. IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect," refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 19. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans), LQMC. 20. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department. A separate set of plans for each line item specified below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is 5 Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 33085, Core Homes, LLC November 8, 2005 desired. Note, the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors. A. On -Site Rough Grading Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal B. PM10 Plan: 1" = 40' Horizontal C. SWPPP: 1 " = 40' Horizontal NOTE: A through C to be submitted concurrently. D. Off -Site Street Improvement/Storm Drain Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical E. Off -Site Signing & Striping Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal The Off -Site street improvement plans shall have separate plan sheet(s) (drawn at 20 scale) that show the meandering sidewalk, mounding, and berm design in the combined parkway and landscape setback area. F. On -Site Street Improvements/Signing & Striping/Storm Drain Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical NOTE: D through F to be submitted concurrently. The following plans shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Department for review and approval. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the Building and Safety Director in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors. G. On -Site Residential Precise Grading Plan: 1 " = 30' Horizontal Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing plan preparation. [ Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 33085, Core Homes, LLC November 8, 2005 All Off -Site Plan & Profile Street Plans and Signing & Striping Plans shall show all existing improvements for a distance of at least 200-feet beyond the project limits, or a distance sufficient to show any required design transitions. All On -Site Signing & Striping Plans shall show, at a minimum; Stop Signs, Limit Lines and Legends, No Parking Signs, Raised Pavement Markers (including Blue RPMs at fire hydrants) and Street Name Signs per Public Works Standard Plans and/or as approved by the Engineering Department. "Rough Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls with Top Of Wall & Top Of Footing elevations shown. All footings shall have a minimum of 1- foot of cover, or sufficient cover to clear any adjacent obstructions. 21. The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes for elements of construction which can be accessed via the Online Engineering Library at the City website (www.la-quinta.org). Navigate to the Public Works Department home page and look for the Online Engineering Library hyperlink. 22. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the AutoCAD files of all approved improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall be saved in a standard AutoCAD format so they may be fully retrievable through a basic AutoCAD program. At the completion of construction, and prior to the final acceptance of the improvements by the City, the applicant shall update the AutoCAD files in order to reflect the as -built conditions. Where the improvement plans were not produced in a standard AutoCAD format, or a file format that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will accept raster -image files of the plans. IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS 23. Prior to approval of any Final Map, the applicant shall construct all on and off - site improvements and satisfy its obligations for same, or shall furnish a fully secured and executed Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") guaranteeing the construction of such improvements and the satisfaction of its obligations for same, or shall agree to any combination thereof, as may be required by the City. 24. Any Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") entered into by and between the applicant and the City of La Quinta, for the purpose of guaranteeing the completion of any improvements related to this Tentative Tract Map, shall F Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 33085, Core Homes, LLC November 8, 2005 comply with the provisions of Chapter 13.28 (Improvement Security), LQMC. 25. Improvements to be made, or agreed to be made, shall include the removal of any existing structures or other obstructions which are not a part of the proposed improvements; and shall provide for the setting of the final survey monumentation. 26. If the applicant elects to utilize the secured agreement alternative, the applicant shall submit detailed construction cost estimates for all proposed on -site and off -site improvements, including an estimate for the final survey monumentation, for checking and approval by the City Engineer. Such estimates shall conform to the unit cost schedule adopted by City resolution, or ordinance. For items not listed in the City's unit cost schedule, the proposed unit costs shall be approved by the City Engineer. At the time the applicant submits its detailed construction cost estimates for conditional approval of the Final Map by the City Council, the applicant shall also submit one copy each of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " reduction of each page of the Final Map, along with a copy of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " Vicinity Map. Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved by those agencies and submitted to the City along with the applicant's detailed cost estimates. Security will not be required for telephone, natural gas, or Cable T.V. improvements. 27. Should the applicant fail to construct the improvements for the development, or fail to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits, and/or final building inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. 28. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements), LQMC. 29. 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. 0 Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 33085, Core Homes, LLC November 8, 2005 30. 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. 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. 31. 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. 32. 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 0 8") behind the curb. E Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 33085, Core Homes, LLC November 8, 2005 33. Building pad elevations on the rough grading plan submitted for City Engineer's approval shall conform with pad elevations shown on the tentative map, unless the pad elevations have other requirements imposed elsewhere in these Conditions of Approval. 34. Building pad elevations of perimeter lots shall not differ by more that one foot higher from the building pads in adjacent developments. 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. 35. 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 Tentative Tract Map, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance finding review. 36. 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. IDI:7e\ILIISNtl 37. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.120 (Drainage), LQMC, Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03 and the approved preliminary hydrology plan dated September 14, 2005 for Tentative Tract Map No. 33085. More specifically, stormwater falling on site during the 100 year storm shall be retained within the development, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Additionally, the 100 year stormwater shall be retained within the interior street right of way. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets and include any resulting uncaptured tributary stormwater flows. The design storm shall be either the 3 hour, 6 hour or 24 hour event producing the greatest total run off. 38. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 33085, Core Homes, LLC November 8, 2005 route. 39. For properties where sump conditions exist, the applicant must either define a diversion/overflow strategy or retain upstream stormwater as required for existing as -built conditions from all off -site tributary flow from the respective high points. The applicant must provide either on -site retention or alternative facilities of diversion/pass through, if selected. Historical flow paths should be identified and routing provided in the hydrology analysis equivalent to historical flow direction. As local topography allows, tributary areas may exceed limits of property lines adjacent to public roads. The 100-year storm shall be the governing event in the designer's evaluation. 40. 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. In residential developments, nuisance water shall be passed through a pre -filter system comparable to the MaxWell Plus Primary Settling Chamber (or equivalent) before being disposed 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 surges of up to 3 gph/1,000 sq. ft. of landscape area, and infiltrate 5 gpd/1,000 sq. ft. The sand filter and leach field shall be designed to contain nuisance water surges from landscape area, residential unit, and off -site street nuisance water. Flow from adjacent well sites shall be designed for retention area percolation by separate infiltration system approved by the City Engineer. 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. 41. 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. 42. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. 43. 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. 11 Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 33085, Core Homes, LLC November 8, 2005 44. Stormwater may not be retained in landscaped parkways or landscaped setback lots; 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. 45. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. 46. 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. UTILITIES 47. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.1 10 (Utilities), LQMC. 48. Applicant is advised that there are existing Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) facilities that affect this development. There may be conflicts with Irrigation Lateral #119.2, and no final map can be approved until utility clearances have been accomplished through CVWD. The final map shall reflect this facility and its respective easement. 49. 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. 50. 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. 51. 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. 12 Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 33085, Core Homes, LLC November 8, 2005 STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 52. 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. 53. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform to the General Plan (street type noted in parentheses.) A. OFF -SITE STREETS 11 Madison Street (Primary Arterial; 110' R/W): Widen the west side of the street along all frontage adjacent to the Tentative Map boundary to its ultimate width on the west side as specified in the General Plan and the requirements of these conditions. Rehabilitate and/or reconstruct existing roadway pavement as necessary to augment and convert it from a rural county -road design standard to La Quinta's urban arterial horizontal and vertical design standard. The west curb face shall be located forty three feet (43') west of the centerline. These improvements may be deferred to be completed with future Madison Street Improvements. If full Madison Street improvements are deferred, the applicant shall construct interim street improvements as approved by the City Engineer. In addition, the applicant is required to bond for the ultimate width widening on Madison Street. Other required improvements in the Madison Street right of way and/or adjacent landscape setback area include: a) All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to: curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs. b) A 10-foot wide Multi -Purpose Trail. The applicant shall construct a multi -use trail per La Quinta Standard 260 along the Madison Street frontage within the landscaped setback. The location and design of the trail shall be approved by the 13 Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 33085, Core Homes, LLC November 8, 2005 City. A split rail fence shall be constructed along the roadway side of the multi -purpose trail in accordance with Section 9.140.060 (Item E, 3a) of the Zoning Ordinance. Bonding for the fence to be installed shall be posted prior to final map approval. At grade intersection crossings shall be of a medium and design and location as approved by the Engineering Department on the street improvement plan submittal. Improvements in the Madison Street right of way eligible for DIF reimbursement but not conditioned of the applicant include: c) Half width of an 18 - foot wide raised landscaped median along the entire boundary of the Tentative Tract Map. 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). B. PRIVATE STREETS 11 Construct full 36-foot wide travel width improvements measured gutter flow line to gutter flow line where the residential streets are double loaded. 2) The location of driveways of corner lots shall not be located within the curb return and away from the intersection when possible. C. PRIVATE CUL DE SACS 1) Shall be constructed according to the lay -out shown on the tentative map with 38-foot curb radius or greater at the bulb similar to the layout shown on the rough grading plan. 54. 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: Residential Primary Arterial 3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b. 4.5" a.c./6.0" c.a.b. 14 Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 33085, Core Homes, LLC November 8, 2005 or the approved equivalents of alternate materials. 55. 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. 56. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: Primary Entry (Beth Circle at Madison Strreet): Right turn movements in and out and left turn movement in are permitted. Left turn out is prohibited. 57. 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. 58. 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. 59. Gated vehicular entry shall be limited to a common gated entry between Tentative Tract Map No. 30378 and Tentative Tract Map No. 33085 on Beth Circle at Madison Street, subject to review and approval by the Public Works Department and Fire Marshal. The developers/owners of Tracts 30378 and 33085 shall be required to provide a copy of an executed agreement for access, construction and maintenance, and provide notice in the respective CC&R's for both tracts, to show concurrence with the gating restriction. In addition, this shall be incorporated into the reciprocal access agreement as required under Condition 18 of this approval, if deemed appropriate by the Public Works Department. Condition 55 of City Council Resolution # 2002-96, as adopted for Tract 30378 to the north, shall govern with respect to the gate design and improvement requirements. Wall and gate design, color and materials will be subject to review by the Community Development Department when permits for those improvements are applied for. FIRE MARSHAL 15 Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 33085, Core Homes, LLC November 8, 2005 60. Any turn or turn -around requires a minimum 38-foot outside turning radius. 61. All structures shall be accessible from an approved roadway to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior of the first floor. 62. The minimum dimension for roads and gates is 20 feet clear and unobstructed width, and a minimum vertical clearance of 13 feet, 6 inches. All gated entry designs shall require review and approval by the Fire Marshall and incorporation into street improvement plans to be submitted for approval. 63. Streets must be a minimum of 36 feet wide at all points if on -street parking is to be allowed on both street sides. Areas between 28 and 36 feet will be permitted parking on one street side, and streets less than 28 feet shall be painted and posted as NO PARKING - FIRE LANE. 64. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible materials being placed on any individual lot. Two sets of water plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval. 65. The applicant or developer shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane painting and/or signs. 66. Final fire protection requirements will be determined when final maps/building plans are submitted for review. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are submitted. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building and water system plans are submitted. Any interpretation as to the meaning of any fire -related conditions shall be the sole responsibility of the Fire Marshal. CONSTRUCTION 67. 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 two homes within the development or when directed by the City, whichever comes first. 16 Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 33085, Core Homes, LLC November 8, 2005 LANDSCAPING 68. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC. 69. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, common lots and park areas. Plans for these areas shall be submitted for review and approval through the Community Development Department (CDD), prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. As part of CDD review, the plans will require review and approval by the City's Architecture and Landscape Review Committee, and the Planning Commission, prior to issuance of any on or off -site improvement permits. All plans submitted for review shall include water use calculations demonstrating plan compliance with the requirements of Chapter 8.13, LQMC (Water Efficient Landscaping), along with written acceptance of the plans by CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, etc. shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. When all reviews have been completed by CDD, the applicant shall submit the approved plans for signature by the City Engineer. NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. 70. 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. 71. A minimum two rows of existing citrus trees shall be preserved in place along the Madison Street perimeter of the tract, and a minimum one row of existing citrus trees shall be preserved along the north, south and west perimeters of the tract. If trees cannot be preserved in place, then they shall be relocated to the extent needed to address this requirement. All preserved trees as existing or relocated shall be called out on the landscape plans when submitted for plan check. QUALITY ASSURANCE 72. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 73. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such 17 Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 33085, Core Homes, LLC November 8, 2005 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. 74. 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. 75. 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 76. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance), LQMC. 77. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual maintenance of all private on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. FEES AND DEPOSITS 78. 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. 79. 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). 80. A fee of $1,314.00, payable to Riverside County, is due to this office within 24 hours of any City Council approval. This is required by the County to post the Notice of Determination and offset costs associated with AB 3158 (Fish and Game Code 711.4)• 18 Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 33085, Core Homes, LLC November 8, 2005 81. Applicant shall pay the fees as required by the Coachella Valley Unified School District, as in effect at the time requests for building permits are submitted. 82. Applicant/developer shall pay any mandated fees associated with fire protection facilities, as may be required by the Fire Marshal and/or the City of La Quinta. Any required fee(s) shall be paid to the appropriate agency, prior to issuance of the first dwelling unit permit. 83. Tentative Tract 33085 shall provide for parks through payment of an in -lieu fee, as specified in Chapter 13.48, LQMC. Based on the requirements of Section 13.48.050 LQMC, the amount of park land required for 7 lots is 0.06 acres. The in -lieu payment(s) shall be based upon this acreage requirement. In -lieu fees may be paid for each proposed final map phase of a multiple -phased map. Payment of the in -lieu fee shall be made prior to, or concurrently with recordation of the first final map within the tentative map. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 84. Within 30 days of the initiation of any ground disturbing activity on the project site, the project proponent shall cause a protocol -compliant burrowing owl survey to be completed, submitted to the Community Development Department, and approved. Should the species be identified on the site, the biologist's recommendations for relocation shall be implemented prior to the issuance of any ground disturbance permit. 85. An archaeological monitor shall be present during all earth moving activities. The monitor shall be empowered to stop or redirect such activities if resources are identified. The findings of the monitoring effort shall be documented in a report delivered to the Community Development Department no more than 30 days from the completion of monitoring activities. 86. On and off -site monitoring of earth -moving and grading for the entire site shall be conducted by a qualified paleontological monitor. Monitoring shall be especially thorough in the southeastern portion of the site. The monitor shall be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove samples of sediments that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. The applicant shall have entered into a contract for archaeological monitoring with a qualified archaeologist, with a copy of that contract/agreement to be submitted with civil plans for any grading or other land disturbance. The contract shall be reviewed and accepted by Community Development prior to any grading permit approval. 19 Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 33085, Core Homes, LLC November 8, 2005 87. Recovered specimens shall be prepared to the point of identification and permanent preservation, including washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates. 88. The following measures are required for the mitigation of exterior noise levels, to allow the proposed development to comply with interior and exterior noise level thresholds. A. The developer shall construct a six-foot block wall, as measured from the inside wall at pad elevation, that separates the entire eastern edge of the site from Madison Street, and extending 100 feet west of Madison along the north and south tract boundary. B. A final acoustical analysis shall be completed and submitted for review at time of building permit plan check, based on final lot layout and pad elevations, to demonstrate that the City's standards for interior and exterior CNEL levels will be met for each proposed dwelling unit. 89. Review of architecture and landscaping for production and/or individual custom homes, shall be subject to Title 9, Section 9.60.330 and 9.60.340, LQMC, as applicable. The Community Development Director or designee shall determine whether the unit(s) applied for constitute custom homes or production -level development. Any custom home design guidelines that may be required shall be reflected or referenced in the CC&R's for TT 33085. 90. The entire perimeter wall design and location, including sound wall areas, entry wall areas, and property line walls, shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department through a master wall plan. The plan shall include a staggered, recessed or meandering wall along Madison Street, corner cutback walls at all street corners, and a landscaped between back of curb and the wall along the south side of Beth Circle. The landscaped setback shall be of sufficient width to accommodate relocation or retention of existing citrus tree stands. The west end of the wall along Beth Circle shall be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the back of curb at the tract entry, with the opposing tract entry wall section set back a minimum of 5 feet from back of curb, so as to create an offset appearance at the entry to the tract. The wall plan shall specify colors and materials to be used for the walls, capping, pilasters, entry monuments, planters, and any other such features. 91. All lots within TT 33085 shall be limited to homes that are one story, 22 feet in height. 20 Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 33085, Core Homes, LLC November 8, 2005 92. Should any guest house/casitas be part of the floor plans designed for TT 33085, whether production or custom homes, a master Minor Use Permit for all such guest houses/casitas shall be secured in conjunction with the recordation of the Final Map. A covenant or provision in the CC&R's shall be recorded informing all property owners of the Minor Use Permit and its conditions of approval for the production homes. 21 ATTACHMENT I STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 25, 2005 CASE NO: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-537 AND TENTATIVE TRACT 33085 APPLICANT: CORE HOMES, LLC PROPERTY OWNER: CORE HOMES, LLC REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF: 1. CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (EA 2005-537), AND; 2. TENTATIVE TRACT 33085, A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A SUBDIVISION OF t4.3 ACRES INTO SEVEN SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS LOCATION: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MADISON STREET AND BETH CIRCLE, NORTH OF AVENUE 52 (ATTACHMENT 1) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-537, FOR TT 33085. BASED ON THIS ASSESSMENT, THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HAS DETERMINED THAT, WHILE THE PROPOSED PROJECT COULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT, THE POTENTIAL FOR SUCH IMPACTS CAN BE MITIGATED THROUGH MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT APPROVAL. ACCORDINGLY, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: VLDR (VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - UP TO 2 UNITS PER ACRE) ZONING: RVL/EOD (VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, WITH EQUESTRIAN OVERLAY DISTRICT) BACKGROUND: Site Background The property is currently being farmed as a grapefruit grove and consists of relatively level terrain with an elevation of approximately 15 feet above mean sea level. There are no Williamson Act contracts on the property. Agricultural lands occur on the north side of the site (grapefruit trees), and to the east, across Madison Street into Indio; however, the north side parcel has an approved tentative map, and has street improvements in place associated with that map. To the south is a 4.5 acre parcel currently in active production as a date ranch. The only development in the immediate vicinity of the site consists of large lot residential home sites associated with the La Quinta Polo Estates area. The site is not located in an area of sensitivity for any of the species of concern mapped in the General Plan, but could conceivably support habitation by burrowing owls. Project Background The applicant is requesting approval of a single-family detached home subdivision with seven lots, on approximately 4.3 acres (Attachment 2). The lots are generally one-half acre in size, ranging in area from 20,227 to 21,780 square feet, averaging 21,337 square feet. This map and TT 30378, adjacent to the north, will share common access via Beth Circle, which will serve as a gated entry for both tracts. The street system within the subject tract consists of a street segment extending south from Beth Circle, into an east -west segment that forms two cul-de-sacs. It is proposed as a private street system, with a 40 foot right-of-way. The street profile is based on a wedge curb design, which provides a travel width of 36 feet to allow parking on both street sides. Madison Street will be improved to a 55-foot ROW half -width. A small detention basin is shown in the southeast corner of the site, between Lots 5 and 6. Public Notice This case was originally advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on October 3, 2005. All property owners within 500-feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required. One negative comment has been received (Attachment 3). Any additional correspondence received prior to the meeting will be transmitted to the Planning Commission. Public Agency Review Staff transmitted the applicant's request to all responsible and concerned public agencies. All comments received are on file at the Community Development Department, and have been incorporated into the attached Conditions of Approval, where necessary and appropriate. Historic Preservation Commission On May 19, 2005, the City's Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) reviewed the applicant's Phase I Archaeological and Paleontological Surveys, prepared by CRM TECH, and accepted the reports' and findings, subject to conditions. The HPC concurred with both report recommendations for monitoring of the site, and staff has incorporated those measures as recommended by the HPC into the conditions of approval. ANALYSIS Staff has reviewed this tentative map design against the current General Plan, Zoning Code, Subdivision Regulations and related City ordinances and policies. Circulation — The General Plan designates Madison Street as an Agrarian Image Corridor, in addition to it's classification as a Primary Arterial. Development standards in the Zoning Code require that structure heights be limited to one story/22 feet for any buildings within 150 feet of a General Plan -designated image corridor, and an appropriate condition has been incorporated. In addition, Madison Street is designated to include a multi -purpose trail, which will be required along the frontage of this development. Noise - An acoustical study was completed for the proposed project, finding that noise levels for lots within 80 feet of Madison Street centerline will exceed the City's Community Noise Equivalent Levels (CNEL) exterior noise standards at buildout. A six-foot block wall would reduce the CNEL noise levels by 6.5 dB(A), bringing the development to 62.2 dB(A) CNEL, consistent with the La Quinta General Plan threshold of 65 dB(A) CNEL for sensitive receptors (i.e. residential use). Building heights on lots located along Madison Street (Lots 5 — 7) will be limited to 22 feet/one story, which will further reduce potential for noise impacts, as well as preserving the Image Corridor designations as previously discussed. No interior noise levels in excess of the CNEL threshold of 45 dB(A) are anticipated. Burrowing Owl - The presence of agricultural rows creates the potential for habitat for the burrowing owl, a Species of Special Concern under State Department of Fish and Game rules, and a protected migratory species under the international Migratory Bird Treaty Act. In accordance with the policies contained in the General Plan, the project proponent is required to complete a pre -construction survey of the parcel prior to construction, in order to assure that impacts to this species will not be significant. This requirement has been included in the recommended project conditions. With the above mitigations, the tentative map is consistent with the 2002 La Quinta General Plan, and other current City policies and programs regulating residential developments. Land Use — Staff has received a letter from Mr. Robert Smith, owner of the 4.5 acres adjacent and to the south of the subject map (Attachment 4). Mr. Smith is concerned that the proposed lot sizes for this development are out of character with the surrounding area, and that 1 acre lots would be more appropriate. The adopted City Land Use Plan allows up to two units per acre for this site, under the Very Low Density Residential land use category. The density of this tract is 1.6 units per acre, within the limits of the designated land use. While the density of the La Quinta Polo Estates is generally 0.5 units per acre, the extremely low density of this existing area indicates that even a development at one unit per acre might face significant challenges in maintaining rural densities such as those established in the Polo Estates, let alone larger parcels such as the 4.5 acre ranch Mr. Smith owns. The Polo Estates area, a unique development that existed prior to the City's annexation of the area, is a restricted access development, and is governed by established covenants that prevent any owner from creating 20,000 s.f. lots, which would otherwise be permissible under the City Zoning Code as constituted. Conversion of this property from a citrus orchard into a residential development of approximately one-half acre parcels conforms with the City's land use plan. The proposed project density represents an appropriate transitional land use within the Very Low Density Residential category, in consideration of the varying residential densities in the surrounding area, and how they interface at their boundaries. It also serves a transitional purpose in relation to the separation of Madison Street from lower density properties. Staff does recommend a condition to extend the one- story, 22-foot height limit to all seven lots, to maintain a measure of the lower density character consistent with the surrounding properties, and to be consistent internally with the proposed development. A condition requiring retention of existing citrus rows will also help maintain the rural appearance of the current grove and provide some buffer to surrounding uses and streets. Adjacent Tract 30378 — Tract 30378 is situated immediately north of the subject property. It was approved on June 18, 2002, and subsequently initiated plan checking which remains incomplete. There are existing street improvements associated with Tract 30378 for which permits were not issued, improvement plans have not been approved, and inspections have not been conducted. As this tract takes access directly from these improvements, the applicant has been advised that approvals associated with this tentative tract are dependant upon proper completion of the improvements associated with Tract 30378. Conceptual Landscaping — The applicant has submitted a rendered perspective and plan view, showing generalized landscaping improvements, which will be presented with the staff report. The perspective view is intended to illustrate a view of the project once developed. It shows single story homes and reflects an over -use of turf and other lush materials. This would likely be out of compliance with the City and CVWD water allowance thresholds. Landscape plans are required to meet those criteria, and plan -check landscaping will be reviewed against them, as well as for overall use of drought -tolerant groundcovers and plant materials. The plan view shows general landscape and wall improvements. Staff recommends a condition to require the walls and landscaping along the perimeters to be less uniform, provide more separation of the wall from the curb line, and set back and offset the wall design at the tract entry to allow a landscaped setback along the entry and Beth Circle. This will accommodate the retained citrus trees along the street to avoid a stark wall abutting the curb. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: Findings necessary to approve this proposal can be found in the attached Resolution to be adopted for this case. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005 recommending to the City Council certification of Environmental Assessment 2005-537, subject to findings, and; 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005 - , recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract 33085, subject to conditions as recommended by staff. Prepared by: ,� /V_� Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Proposed TT 33085 3. Letter from Mr. Robert Smith, adjacent property interest ATTACHMENT W AVENUE -4- 50 T.5S. T.6S W WSTA y BONITA 1RAIL AVENUE 51 AVENUE 1 52 I VICINITY MAP N.T.S. OLD ORCHARD LANE BETH CIRCLE ATTACHMENT 2 y y#!'I i ► ! i � g ' y'•S ► pit eeege, � i � �;�� ' � it \ � Ilgllliltts��s�al!IB111101�99 � 1 666 ]I,g m�:� i Q e a !; ►1 1► let;i 7.; ��.. 0. ► sF•�°� I i _ to 'W ' g�Sl Ip±l i� i1 Qjj} ■ylll W ' 1 � 1 F I ►yt, , ( ATTACHMENT # TO: LA QUINTA PLANNING DEPT. ATTN: WALLY NESBITT FROM: ROBERT SMITH, 51425 MADISON (W):, JUN - 6 2005 RE: TENATIVE TRACT MAP NO.33085 BY CORE HOMES . I' i 7h , v ji -INT i, At iviT+IDE' LLOPi ,, DEAR MR. NESBITT, --- - [FavTnFN ..... .__. THANK YOU FOR TALKING TO ME ABOUT THE CORE HOMES TENATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 33085 FOR THE 4.5 ACRES DIRECTLY NORTH OF OUR 4.5 ACRE DATE RANCH AT 51425 MADISON. AS I TOLD TO YOU, I FEEL % ACRE LOTS ARE NOT CONSISTANT WITH ANY OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. IN ADDITION TO MY 4'/2 ACRE RANCH TO THE SOUTH, THE 9 ACRES OF THE ORCHARD TO THE NORTH ARE 1 ACRE LOTS, AND THE POLO ESTATES TO THE WEST ARE 96 ACRES OF 2 ACRE LOTS. ACROSS THE STREET TO THE EAST ARE THE POLO GROUNDS YET TO BE DEVELOPED BUT HOPEFULLY THEY WILL LEAVE A GOOD AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE. OVER THE YEARS THE DEVELOPERS HAVE DESTROYED A GOOD DEAL OF THE THINGS THAT MADE LA QUINTA GREAT AND I HOPE WE CAN TRY TO MAINTAIN WHAT IS LEFT OF THE TREES AND OPEN AREAS. WE NOW HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THIS AS THE DEMAND FOR LARGER LOTS HAS RECENTLY INCREASED DRAMATICALLY. THE SHAPE OF THE CORE HOMES 4'/e ACRES LENDS ITSELF MUCH BETTER TO 1 ACRE LOTS. THE ROAD COMES INTO THE MIDDLE OF THE PIECE FROM THE ORCHARD, NOT MADISON. BY COMBINING LOTS 1 +2, 3+4, 5+E, AND 6+7 INTO I ACRE LOTS WOULD MAKE THE DEVELOPMENT MUCH MORE COMPATABLE WITH THE ORCHARD. THE LARGER LOTS WOULD REQUIRE LESS PAVED ROAD, BE MORE ATTRACTIVE AND OPEN, AND HAVE BETTER VIEWS. THIS WOULD ALLOW NICER HOMES, GREATER SET BACKS FROM OUR PROPERTY WITH ITS CHEMICALS AND PESTICIDES, AND THE PRESERVATION OF MORE OF THE MATURE CITRUS TREES LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY NOW. I FEEL THAT GOOD PLANNING FOR THIS AREA SHOULD KEEP THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE TO I ACRE TO CONFORM WITH WHAT IS ALREADY THERE AND SUCCESSFUL. SINCERELY, ROBERT SMITH C(3 353 ATTACHMENT #2 Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2005 a. Condition added: ApplicatfeTi- shall work with staff to ensure there is no grourfr�water contamination. ROLL CALL: AYES: mmissioners Alderson, Daniels, Quill, and Chaff n Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner L63ner. ABSTAIN: None. C. Environmental Assessment 2005-537 and Tentative Tract Map 33085; a request of Core Homes, LLC for consideration of: 1) Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact; and 2) the subdivision of 4.3 acres into seven single-family lots for the property located at the southwest corner of Madison Street and Beth Circle, north of Avenue 52. 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. Staff noted Condition No. 71 was modified to state south and west property lines. 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Alderson asked if the entire site drains into the retention basin. Staff stated that is correct, the southeast corner of the site. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated there is no storm drain to take the water off -site. 3. Commissioner Daniels asked what the plotting pattern was to the south and should the street go through to the property to the south. Staff stated the property to the south is owned by Mr. Robert Smith. There is another ten acre tract, Tract 31852, to the south that has been approved. 4. Commissioner Quill asked if the intent was to leave the trees in place. Staff stated there will be some relocation to accommodate design and grading, but as many as possible are recommended to staff where they are. 5. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant wanted a narrower road, would staff support it. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated the applicant has not asked for a narrow width; staff has allowed 28 feet between the flow line with no parking on the street. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\10-25-05.doc 4 Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2005 Chairman Kirk stated he did not believe foliage did anything to alleviate noise. Staff stated it may not provide much of a noise buffer, but it does add to the aesthetics. Chairman Kirk stated that all the exhibits he has shows the trees on the inside of the wall. Staff stated they are conditioned to provide a 20-foot landscaping strip along the street. 6. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. David Turner, Coachella Valley Engineers, representing the applicant, stated the drawing is conceptual. They intend to match the property to the north with trees and landscaping along the street. In regard to the property to the south, they would take their access off Madison Street. 7. Commissioner Daniels asked if that property would be a cul-de-sac by itself entering off Madison Street. Mr. Turner stated it would depend on how the applicant chose to design the tract. He then went on to explain the drainage of the site. 8. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Quill asked the purpose of the easement around the site. Mr. Turner stated it is a drainage easement. Commissioner Quill asked if the footprint on the plans was the footprint of the actual homes, or is this just typical. Mr. Turner stated they are conceptual. Commissioner Quill asked if more trees could be retained. Mr. Turner stated it is the intent to retain as many as possible. 9. Chairman Kirk asked the applicant to explain the street planting. Mr. Turner stated initially there will be two rows of trees outside the wall and when Madison Street is fully developed at least one row of trees would remain with a meandering sidewalk. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated the east half of the street is within the City of Indio. Madison Street is a Primary Arterial with a median. The City has rehabilitated their portion of Madison Street and there are no plans for any further development of the street at this time. Fees are being collected for when it is constructed. 10. Chairman Kirk asked if anyone else would like to address the Commissioner. Mr. Robert Smith, 51-425 Madison Street, immediate southerly property owner, stated his concern with the half acre lots of this project. He requested it be kept consistent G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\I0-25-05.doc 5 Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2005 with what is developed. He has no other issues. 11. Commissioner Quill asked if there were any other subdivisions proposed in this area that are less than two acres. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated that on the northwest corner of Avenue 52 and Madison Street there is a tract approved with approximately 14 lots on 8.5 acre site. 12. Mr. Turner stated that in regard to density they believe the half acre lot size proposed is a good blend. 13. There being no further public comment, Chairman Kirk closed the public hearing and opened to Commission discussion. 14. Commissioner Daniels stated he had no problem with the half acre lots. 15. Commissioner Quill asked if this property was in the equestrian overlay zone. Staff stated yes, it is so zoned. 16. Chairman Kirk asked if this was the maximum number of lots that would be allowed. Staff stated the site is 4.3 acres so it could have 8.6 lots maximum. Chairman Kirk stated he is struggling with approving the higher density in a rural area. 17. Commissioner Alderson stated that given the configuration of the lots and access, he has no problem with the project as designed. 18. Commissioner Quill asked how many lots were being developed to the north. Staff stated there are two tracts approved to the north that are one acre lots and the drainage is contained on the individual lots. Commissioner Quill stated he thought that in this location, the lots should be one acre. 19. Chairman Kirk asked staff what their options were. Community Development Director Doug Evans explained they could approve, deny or request the applicant to remove the application from the calendar and allow them to redesign the project. City Attorney Kathy Jenson clarified that should they determine to deny the project, the application should be continued to allow staff to draft a resolution with findings for denial. Should the Commission vote and there is a tie vote, the project would automatically be continued to the next meeting. GnWPDOCS\PC Minutes\10-25-05.doc 6 Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2005 20. Chairman Kirk reopened the public hearing. 21. Mr. David Neale, owner of the property, stated they have made every effort to bring a project to the City that they can be proud of. He has met with the adjoining property owners to make them aware of his project. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would prefer to have a continuance or denial. Mr. Neale asked what his rights would be should he receive a negative vote. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated he would have a right of appeal to the City Council. Community Development Director Doug Evans asked that staff have an opportunity to speak with the applicant and bring this application back to the Commission in two weeks. Mr. Neale stated that if it is for less lots, he would prefer to have a vote at this time. 22. Commissioner Alderson asked how many lots could they design and have on -site drainage. Staff stated one -acre sites are the minimum to retain on site to get the retention needed. 23. Commissioner Daniels stated he supports the project as recommended by staff. Although the project to the north is one acre lots and this project has half acre lots, he does not see the reasoning for requiring this project to be one acre lots. 24. Chairman Kirk closed the public participation portion of the hearing. City Attorney Kathy Jenson recommended the Commission not close the public portion and allow testimony at the next meeting. Chairman Kirk reopened the public hearing. 25. Following discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Quill to continue the project to November 8, 2005. Staff to prepare a resolution with alternative findings for denial. Unanimously approved. Chairman Kirk recessed the meting at 8:23 p.m. and reconvened at 8:33 p.m. C. Specific lan 2002-062 Amendment #1, and Tentative Parcel Map 33908; a request of Regency Marinita-La Quinta, LLC for consideration of amendments to t Specific Plan for a neighborhood shopping center to include a supermarket, ug store, and additional retail with a maximum building height of 35 feet. a amendments are sought to change the site plan to relocate the drug re site and amend certain design standards, including reducing certain dscape setbacks from 15 to five c• G:\WPDOCSRC Minutes\10-25-05.doc 7 PHI PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: NOVEMBER 8, 2005 CASE NO: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2004-085, EXT. #1 APPLICANT: NEXTEL OF CALIFORNIA REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A TIME EXTENSION TO CONSTRUCT A 230 SQUARE FOOT ONE-STORY UNMANNED TELECOMMUNICATION BUILDING AND 60- FOOT HIGH ANTENNA, CAMOUFLAGED AS A PALM TREE LOCATION: PROPERTY OWNER: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING DESIGNATIONS: SURROUNDING LAND USES: 54001 MADISON STREET (RCFD STATION 70) CITY OF LA QUINTA THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DETERMINED THAT THE EXTENSION REQUEST IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15332 (CLASS 32), PER THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION MAJOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES NORTH: ACROSS AVENUE 54, HIDEAWAY DEVELOPMENT SOUTH: PGA WEST GOLF COURSE MAINTENANCE AREAS EAST: ACROSS MADISON STREET, RESIDENTIAL UNDER DEVELOPMENT (GRIFFIN RANCH) WEST: PGA WEST RESIDENTIAL AND GOLF COURSE BACKGROUND: The project site, located at the southwest corner of Avenue 54 and Madison Street (Attachment 1), is developed as a Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) facility, Station 70. The station site was dedicated in 1985, and its construction completed in 1986. On September 14, 2004, Nextel Communications received Planning Commission approval to install a 60-foot high digital cellular telephone antenna within the 1.95-acre fire station site (Attachment 2). The antenna tower will be camouflaged as a palm tree (i.e., mono -palm), to be replicated with synthetic materials. PROJECT REQUEST: Nextel of California is requesting a time extension to complete permitting and installation of the 60-foot high digital cellular telephone antenna (Attachment 3). Nextel cites their merger with Sprint, vendor reorganization issues, and status of the proposed lease as reasons for requesting this extension. The original Planning Commission staff report has been included for reference of specific project details (Attachment 4). None of the provisions from the original application have been changed, beyond those as required by the approval conditions. Public Notice The extension request was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on October 28, 2005, and mailed to surrounding property owners and residents within 500 feet as required under Section 9.210.020 of the Zoning Code. To date, no written correspondence has been received; any correspondence received will be forwarded to the Commission prior to the meeting. Minutes of the Public Hearing before the Planning Commission on September 14, 2004, have been included for review (Attachment 5). Based on resident testimony, a condition was added to address Nextel's obligation to respond to and resolve complaints of interference with frequencies related to residential and/or life safety communications and operations. Public Agency Review A copy of this request was sent to all applicable public agencies and City Departments on October 17, 2005. All written comments received are on file with the Community Development Department. Applicable comments received have been included in the recommended Conditions of Approval. ANALYSIS: In their letter of request, Nextel cites their merger with Sprint, vendor reorganization issues, and status of the proposed lease as reasons for requesting this extension. The lease was placed on hold by the City once it was determined that Nextel would not be able to meet the permitting time frame of the original approval. Therefore, the lease will be completed subsequent to this action. Nextel has met all conditions of approval as required in order to issue the permit and Building and Safety has authorized release of the permit as well. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the staff review of the time extension request for Conditional Use Permit 2004-085, no further conditions -are recommended beyond those related to procedural requirements. MANDATORY FINDINGS: As required by Section 9.210.020 (Conditional Use Permits) of the Zoning Code, and based on the provisions of the General Plan and Zoning Code, findings necessary to approve this time extension request can be made, as noted in the attached Resolution to be adopted for this case. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-_ approving a one-year extension of time for Conditional Use Permit 2004-085, subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Site Plan 3. Elevations 4. Planning Commission Staff Report; 9/14/04 5. Minutes of Planning Commission meeting; 9/14/04 Prepared by: Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A ONE- YEAR TIME EXTENSION TO ESTABLISH USE OF A 60- FOOT HIGH MONO -PALM COMMUNICATION ANTENNA AND 230 SQUARE FOOT, ONE-STORY UNMANNED EQUIPMENT BUILDING ON A PORTION OF A 1.95-ACRE FIRE STATION SITE, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2004-085, EXTENSION #1 APPLICANT: NEXTEL OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 81h day of November, 2005, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Nextel of California, for a one-year time extension to establish a 60-foot high mono -palm communication antenna and unmanned one story equipment building of 230 sq. ft., located on the southwest corner of Avenue 54 and Madison Street, more particularly described as: PER DEED RECORDED JULY 9, 1985 AS DOCUMENT # 149778 RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 14`h day of September, 2004, adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-063, approving the above said mono -palm communication antenna and equipment building, subject to conditions; and, WHEREAS, the extension of time for Conditional Use Permit 2004-085 is hereby determined to be exempt from CEQA review, based on the original determination under Guidelines Section 15332 (Infill Development); 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 find the following facts and reasons to justify approval of a one-year extension of time for Conditional Use Permit 2004-085, pursuant to Section 9.210.020 of the Zoning Code: 1. Consistency with General Plan. The design and improvements of the proposed mono -palm are consistent with La Quinta General Plan (Chapter 7) that requires utilities and communication facilities to blend in with the surrounding improvements and insures residents have access to reliable services such as wireless telephones. This communication antenna is designed to replicate a palm tree to be compatible with existing mature landscaping thereby limiting its visibility from surrounding public Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Conditional Use Permit 2004-085, Extension #1 November 8, 2005 Page 2 thoroughfares and land uses. The proposed antenna is located over 150-feet from existing PGA West residential units, ensuring adequate space separation between both land uses. Approval of the time extension does not affect or alter any provisions of the original application as approved under Planning Commission Resolution 2004-063. 2. Consistency with Zoning Code. The proposed mono -palm antenna and equipment building are consistent with current standards of the Zoning Code (Chapters 9.130 and 9.170) in that potential adverse visual effects have been mitigated by design of the structures through the integration of palm trees, fencing, and other man-made structures. Approval of the time extension does not affect or alter any provisions of the original application as approved under Planning Commission Resolution 2004-063. 3. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The mono -palm antenna and equipment building have been determined to be exempt from CEQA, under Guidelines Section 15332 (Infill Development), in that the site is fully developed as a public service land use (fire station) that is surrounded by urban infrastructure improvements (e.g., water, sanitation, etc.). Approval of the time extension does not affect or alter any provisions of the original application as approved under Planning Commission Resolution 2004-063. 4. Compatibility with Surrounding Uses. The proposed improvements are located over 150-feet from the closest existing PGA West residential units, ensuring adequate space separation between both land uses and compliance with the requirements of Chapter 9.170. The mono -palm will be camouflaged by multiple stands of existing palm trees. Approval of the time extension does not affect or alter any provisions of the original application as approved under Planning Commission Resolution 2004-063. 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; and, 2. That the extension of time for Conditional Use Permit 2004-085 does not affect the original exemption under Section 15322 (Class 32) of the California Environmental Quality Act; and, Planning Commission Resolution 2005-_ Conditional Use Permit 2004-085, Extension #1 November 8, 2005 Page 2 3. That it does hereby approve a one-year extension of time for Conditional Use Permit 2004-085, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the Conditions attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission, held on the 8"' day of November, 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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2004-085, EXT. #1 NEXTEL OF CALIFORNIA NOVEMBER 8, 2005 GENERAL 1. This extension permit shall expire on September 14, 2006, unless a subsequent time extension is applied for and granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 9.200.080 of the Zoning Code. A request for a time extension shall be filed with the Community Development Department on, or before, August 14, 2006. This condition shall supercede Condition 19 of Planning Commission Resolution 2004-063. 2. All other conditions of approval pertaining to Conditional Use Permit 2004- 085, as approved by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution 2004-063 on September 14, 2004, are hereby retained and incorporated under this extension approval, except as modified herein and where determined to have been complied with. P:\Reports - PC\2005\11-08-05\CUP 085 Ext 1\coaCUP085X1.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-063 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — FINAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2004-085 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 GENERAL 1. 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 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. 2. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the applicant shall obtain applicable permits and/or clearances from the following agencies, if applicable or required: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department (CDD) • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department (RCEHD) • Coachella Valley Unified School District (CVUSD) • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) • Waste Management of the Desert • Public Utilities Commission (PUC) • Federal Communications Commission (FCC) • Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits or clearances from the above listed agencies and departments. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit. P:\Reports - P02005\11-08-05\CUP 085 Ext 1 \coaCUP085final.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004-063 Conditions of Approval - Final Conditional Use Permit 2004-085 September 14, 2004 Page 2 GRADING 3. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements), LQMC. 4. 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. 5. 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 grading plan that a soils report has been prepared in accordance with the California Health & Safety Code § 17953. 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. 6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a building pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or surveyor. P:\Reports - PC\2005\1 1 -08-05\CUP 085 Ext 1 \coaCUP085final.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004-063 Conditions of Approval - Final Conditional Use Permit 2004-085 September 14, 2004 Page 3 UTILITIES 7. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within the right of way and all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electrical vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. PARKING/ACCESS POINTS 8. The applicant shall protect existing hardscape along the proposed Communication Facility Building and Monopole construction area to include but not limited to garden walls, landscaping, irrigation systems, curb and gutter, sidewalk and pavement. Restoration to any damaged hardscape shall be to the satisfaction of the City of La Quinta. QUALITY ASSURANCE 9. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 10. The applicant shall employ or retain qualified civil engineers, geotechnical engineers, surveyors, or other appropriate professionals to provide sufficient construction supervision to be able to furnish and sign accurate record drawings. 11. The applicant shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program but required by the City as evidence that construction materials and methods comply with plans, specifications and applicable regulations. 12. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were signed by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the CAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City to reflect as -constructed conditions. P:\Reports - PC\2005\11-08-05\CUP 085 Ext 1\COaCUP085final.dOc Planning Commission Resolution 2004-063 Conditions of Approval - Final Conditional Use Permit 2004-085 September 14, 2004 Page 4 MAINTENANCE 13. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. The applicant shall maintain required public improvements until expressly released from this responsibility by the appropriate public agency. FEES AND DEPOSITS 14. The applicant shall pay the City's established fees for plan checking and construction inspection. Fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. 15. A minimum 2A-10BC fire extinguisher shall be mounted on the inside of the equipment building. 16. A KNOX padlock shall be installed on the gate and a KNOX key box installed on the building. In lieu of the KNOX padlock, a key storage box may be mounted at the gate entrance with both gate and building keys. Please contact the Fire Department Planning & Engineering staff (c/o Dale Evenson, Fire Safety Specialist) at (760) 863-8886 if you have any questions. MISCELLANEOUS 17. The applicant shall protect all existing landscaping and irrigation to include the existing palm trees. A landscaping plan, to include any necessary restoration of existing landscaping and irrigation systems, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department at the time of submittal for building permit plan check. The plan shall include provision of 8 to 10 foot high plantings (e.g. shrubs, trailing vines, etc.) in the gravel area, behind the proposed equipment building wall, along with 2 to 4 foot high plantings in front of the wall, along all four sides. 18. The 4-foot wide access gate into the equipment building area shall be opaque, and shall be painted to match the proposed wall areas. P:\Reports - PC\2005\11-08 05\CUP 085 Ext 1 \coaCUP085final.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004-063 Conditions of Approval - Final Conditional Use Permit 2004-085 September 14, 2004 Page 5 19. This permit shall expire on September 14, 2005, unless a one-year time extension is applied for and granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 9.200.080 of the Zoning Code. A request for a time extension shall be filed with the Community Development Department on, or before, August 14, 2005. 20. Building and monopalm setbacks shall comply with the rules and regulations of Chapters 9.130 and 9.170 of the Zoning Code. A minimum of two of the existing paved parking spaces shall be reserved for maintenance personnel, in close proximity to the equipment building. 21. The synthetic palm fronds shall extend a minimum of three feet beyond the communication antennas. Placement of the palm fronds shall be heaviest around the antenna assembly to guarantee that off -site locations (e.g., 200 feet and beyond) do not see the telecommunication equipment. A visual inspection by the Community Development Department shall be required before a Certificate of Occupancy permit is issued by the Building and Safety Department. 22. Nextel of California shall have a continuing obligation to respond to and resolve any and all complaints associated with any potential interference with frequencies related to residential and/or life safety communications and operations. Response shall be within 48 hours of receipt of notice of any such complaint. P:\Reports - P02005\11-08-05\CUP 085 Ext 1\coaCUP085final.doc ATTACHMENT O o I Willlk a 0 S¢S 3 o EyFpF�gN E �00000® ass 0 0 I --ATTACHMENT # ©� .z -Ai ("fl W01 wOmEt"C'NoUrNoll v z a w c \ ci LO J .a AR EAgo =�N8gg EN ATTACH ff ME e � } N _ a � � N 1 Q G ( ' 1k ��w OIIN'.NNI 1 ATTACHMENT PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 CASE NO: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2004-085 APPLICANT: NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A 230 SQUARE FOOT UNMANNED TELECOMMUNICATION BUILDING AND 60-FOOT HIGH ANTENNA LOCATION: PROPERTY OWNER: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING DESIGNATIONS: SURROUNDING LAND USES: 54-001 MADISON STREET (RCFD STATION 70) CITY OF LA QUINTA THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15332 (CLASS 32) IN THAT THIS IS AN IN - FILL PROJECT SURROUNDED BY URBAN SERVICES AND EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS. MAJOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES NORTH: ACROSS AVENUE 54, HIDEAWAY DEVELOPMENT SOUTH: PGA WEST GOLF COURSE MAINTENANCE AREAS EAST: ACROSS MADISON STREET, VACANT RESIDENTIAL WEST: PGA WEST RESIDENTIAL AND GOLF COURSE BACKGROUND: The project site, located at the southwest corner of Avenue 54 and Madison Street (Attachment 1), is improved as the Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) facility, Station 70. The station was constructed in 1986. PROJECT REQUEST: Nextel Communications is requesting to install a 60-foot high digital cellular telephone antenna within the 1.95-acre site, southeast of the fire station and adjacent to its parking lot (Attachment 2). The site has no perimeter wall adjacent to the streets, and sits outside the PGA West development. The monopole antenna is designed to replicate a palm tree (e.g., flexible green resin palm fronds), thus the support pole will simulate the round, textured trunk of a typical fan palm. The height of the antenna does not require guy wires. The monopole will incorporate a total of 12 radial antennae mounted on three arrays. Existing mature date palm trees are located in close proximity to the new "monopalm" which will help camouflage its presence when viewed from off -site locations. The applicant also proposes installing a small equipment shelter of about 230 square feet. This structure is clad in stucco to match existing on -site walls and will be 10'-1 " high. The equipment building will be surrounded by a six-foot high masonry wall, stuccoed and painted to match the existing walls at the fire station. The area between the new wall and the equipment building will be covered in pea gravel or similar material. No other landscaping improvements are proposed. Applicable Zoning Code Provisions: Under Chapters 9.130 and 9.170 of the Zoning Code, small equipment buildings are required to be located 20 feet from the property boundaries while this monopalm base requires an 85-foot setback (i.e., tower height (60') + 25 feet = 85'-0"). A minimum of two parking stalls shall also be provided. Public Utility Commission (PUC) Authority Under Appendix A (Section II) of General Order 159 of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, the "Commission delegates its authority to regulate the location and design of cellular facilities to local agencies, except in those instances when there is a clear conflict with State-wide interests. In those instances, the Commission will review the need to preempt local jurisdiction, allowing local agencies and citizens an opportunity to present their positions. The cellular utility will have the burden of proof to demonstrate that accommodating to local agency requirements for any specific site would frustrate the Commission's objectives. If the cellular utility is able to prove this point, the Commission will preempt local jurisdiction pursuant to its authority under Article IX, Section 8 of the California Constitution." Existing Monopalm Sites Currently, there are other monopalm antennas within the City (e.g., La Quinta Resort and Club, Frances Hack Park, 111 La Quinta Shopping Center, Avenue 48 and Jefferson Street, PGA West Fire Station, Storage USA, etc.) which have been approved by the Planning Commission. In August of this year, the Planning Commission approved a similar monopalm design for Verizon at the IID substation, southwest corner of Avenue 48 and Jefferson Street (CUP 2004-084). Public Notice The case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on September 4, 2004, and mailed to surrounding property owners and residents within 500 feet as required under Section 9.210.020 of the Zoning Code. To date, no written correspondence has been received; any correspondence received will be forwarded to the Commission prior to the meeting. Public Agency Review A copy of this request was sent to all applicable public agencies and City Departments on August 5, 2004. All written comments received are on file with the Community Development Department. Applicable comments received have been included in the recommended Conditions of Approval. FINDINGS: This project is being proposed to enhance service coverage needs for voice, e-mail, Internet and other wireless access requirements for Coachella Valley customers. This facility will be unmanned and will not require any water, waste treatment, or management of hazardous materials. The visual impact of the monopalm is considered less than significant for PGA West homeowners, as existing trees scattered throughout the fire station property range between 15 and 40 feet tall. Several existing palm trees will help to camouflage the monopalm's appearance, which is consistent in design to other approved monopalm sites in the City CONCLUSION: The proposed building and Monopalm antenna meet all the required setbacks set forth by Chapter 9.170 (Communication Towers and Equipment). The closest residential structures are in PGA West along the southwesterly side of Southern Hills, and are approximately 150 feet from the monopalm base mount, while the fire station itself is about 90 feet away at its closest point. There is existing parking adjacent to the proposed equipment building and outside the gated access into the fire station, from which the two required parking stalls can be reserved for Nextel's use. ISSUES: The applicant has not proposed any landscape plan as part of the project, as required by Section 9.170.070.B. Staff has proposed a condition to require a landscape plan for the area around the wall to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. The landscape plan should include eight to ten foot high plantings in the gravel area, behind the proposed equipment building wall, along with two to four foot high plantings in front of the wall, subject to staff review at plan check. The Planning Commission may want to require Nextel to allow another service provider the opportunity to locate on the proposed monopalm. Should the Commission desire to require this determination, a condition is required; however, the number of users is limited with a monopalm design. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: Findings necessary to approve this project can be made and are contained in the attached Resolution. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_ approving Conditional Use Permit 2004-085, subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Site Plan 3. Elevations 4. Photo simulations (3) Transmitted by: Wallace Nesbit Associate Planner PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE USE OF A 60-FOOT HIGH MONOPALM COMMUNICATION ANTENNA AND UNMANNED EQUIPMENT BUILDING ON A PORTION OF A 1.95-ACRE FIRE STATION SITE, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2004-085 APPLICANT: NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 141" day of September, 2004, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Verizon Wireless to install a 60-foot high monopalm communication antenna and unmanned one story equipment building of 230 sq. ft., located on the southwest corner of Avenue 54 and Madison Street in the MC (Major Community Facility) district, more particularly described as: PER DEED RECORDED JULY 9, 1985 AS DOCUMENT # 149778 RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY WHEREAS, on the 5" day of August 2004, the Community Development Department mailed case file materials to all affected agencies for their review and comment, with all written comments received on file with the Community Development Department; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department published the public hearing notice in the Desert Sun newspaper on the 4" day of September, 2004, for the 14`" day of September, 2004 Planning Commission meeting as prescribed by Section 9.200.110 (Public Notice Procedure) of the Zoning Code, and by mailing a copy of said public hearing notice to all property owners and residents 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 find the following facts and reasons to justify approval of said Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Section 9.210.020 of the Zoning Code: 1. Consistency with General Plan. The design and improvements of the proposed monopalm are consistent with La Quinta General Plan (Chapter 7) that requires utilities and communication facilities to blend in with the surrounding improvements and insures residents have access to reliable services such as wireless telephones. This communication antenna is designed to replicate a palm tree to be compatible with existing mature P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Nextel\resoCUP085.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_ Conditional Use Permit 2004-085 - Nextel Communications September 14, 2004 Page 2 landscaping thereby limiting its visibility from surrounding public thoroughfares and land uses. The proposed antenna is located over 150-feet from existing PGA West residential units, ensuring adequate space separation between both land uses. 2. Consistency with Zoning Code. The proposed monopalm antenna and equipment building are consistent with current standards of the Zoning Code (Chapters 9.130 and 9.170) in that potential adverse visual effects have been mitigated by design of the structures through the integration of palm trees, fencing, and other man-made structures. 3. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The monopalm antenna and equipment building have been determined to be exempt from CEQA, under Guidelines Section 15332 (Infill Development), in that the site is fully developed as a public service land use (fire station) that is surrounded by urban infrastructure improvements (e.g., water, sanitation, etc.). 4. Compatibility with Surrounding Uses. The proposed improvements are located over 150-feet from the closest existing PGA West residential units, ensuring adequate space separation between both land uses and compliance with the requirements of Chapter 9.170. The monopalm will be camouflaged by multiple stands of existing palm trees. 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; and, 2. That the in -fill project, as designed, is consistent with the guidelines of Section 15322 (Class 32) of the California Environmental Quality Act; and, 3. That it does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit 2004-085 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the Conditions attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission, held on the 14t" day of September, 2004, by the following vote, to wit: P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Nextel\resoCUP085.dOc Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_ Conditional Use Permit 2004-085 - Nextel Communications September 14, 2004 Page 3 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: OSCAR ORCI, Interim Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Nextel\resoCUP085.doo PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2004-085 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 GENERAL 1. 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 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. 2. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the applicant shall obtain applicable permits and/or clearances from the following agencies, if applicable or required: Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department (CDD) • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department (RCEHD) • Coachella Valley Unified School District (CVUSD) • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) • Waste Management of the Desert • Public Utilities Commission (PUC) • Federal Communications Commission (FCC) • Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits or clearances from the above listed agencies and departments. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit. GRADING 3. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements), LQMC. P:NReports - PC\9-14-2004\Nextel\coaCUP085.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Conditional Use Permit 2004-085 September 14, 2004 Page 2 4. 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. 5. 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 grading plan that a soils report has been prepared in accordance with the California Health & Safety Code § 17953. 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. 6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a building pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or surveyor. UTILITIES 7. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within the right of way and all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electrical vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Nextel\coaCUP085.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Conditional Use Permit 2004-085 September 14, 2004 Page 3 PARKING/ACCESS POINTS 8. The applicant shall protect existing hardscape along the proposed Communication Facility Building and Monopole construction area to include but not limited to garden walls, landscaping, irrigation systems, curb and gutter, sidewalk and pavement. Restoration to any damaged hardscape shall be to the satisfaction of the City of La Quinta. QUALITY ASSURANCE 9. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 10. The applicant shall employ or retain qualified civil engineers, geotechnical engineers, surveyors, or other appropriate professionals to provide sufficient construction supervision to be able to furnish and sign accurate record drawings. 11. The applicant shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program but required by the City as evidence that construction materials and methods comply with plans, specifications and applicable regulations. 12. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were signed by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the CAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City to reflect as -constructed conditions. MAINTENANCE 13. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. The applicant shall maintain required public improvements until expressly released from this responsibility by the appropriate public agency. PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Nextel\coaCUP085.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Conditional Use Permit 2004-085 September 14, 2004 Page 4 FEES AND DEPOSITS 14. The applicant shall pay the City's established fees for plan checking and construction inspection. Fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. FIRE DEPARTMENT 15. A minimum 2A-10BC fire extinguisher shall be mounted on the inside of the equipment building. 16. A KNOX padlock shall be installed on the gate and a KNOX key box installed on the building. In lieu of the KNOX padlock, a key storage box may be mounted at the gate entrance with both gate and building keys. Please contact the Fire Department Planning & Engineering staff (c/o Dale Evenson, Fire Safety Specialist) at (760) 863-8886 if you have any questions. MISCELLANEOUS 17. The applicant shall protect all existing landscaping and irrigation to include the existing palm trees. A landscaping plan, to include any necessary restoration of existing landscaping and irrigation systems, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department at the time of submittal for building permit plan check. The plan shall include provision of 8 to 10 foot high plantings in the gravel area, behind the proposed equipment building wall, along with 2 to 4 foot high plantings in front of the wall, along all four sides 18. The 4-foot wide access gate into the equipment building area shall be opaque, and shall be painted to match the proposed wall areas. 19. This permit shall expire on September 14, 2005, unless a one-year time extension is applied for and granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 9.200.080 of the Zoning Code. A request for a time extension shall be filed with the Community Development Department on, or before, August 14, 2005. 20. Building and monopalm setbacks shall comply with the rules and regulations of Chapters 9.130 and 9.170 of the Zoning Code. A minimum of two of the existing paved parking spaces shall be reserved for maintenance personnel, in close proximity to the equipment building. P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Nextel\coaCUP085.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Conditional Use Permit 2004-085 September 14, 2004 Page 5 21. The synthetic palm fronds shall extend a minimum of three feet beyond the communication antennas. Placement of the palm fronds shall be heaviest around the antenna assembly to guarantee that off -site locations (e.g., 200 feet and beyond) do not see the telecommunication equipment. A visual inspection by the Community Development Department shall be required before a Certificate of Occupancy permit is issued by the Building and Safety Department. P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\NextelXcoaCUP085.dOc ATTACHMENT VICINITY MAP 10 54001 MADIWN AVENUE LA QUINTA, CA 0053 N 52nd AVENUE N W 5" AVENUE W N cJ 21 ATTACHMENT 2 x�Yl o ypgg oo so as ul ZD y��A 30 A 4poln ypp yypp W a y2h N N A P,P IY DUI g � v A � ERE i� � pills � • ��� op E\ � Y6 X � A � Fd 4-1 ®o®oo ® y w - 0000000© � p A�Ap S y x O O O 000IL �- p fY i i Z Ig a 101 r ° �• ° lip®g r 'R" �`' �° a an �• 3 J � ATTACHMENT 3 p �y 2 UD N R V a s W g�g 55 Photo Simulation # 1 ATTACHMENT 4 Before DEL 8' Project: CA-8586 PGA West Address: 54-001 Madison St. Photo Simulation #2 Before After ExrE- Project: CA-8586 PGA West Address: 54-001 Madison St. Photo Simulation #3 r E Before F W. After Exnm Project: CA-8586 PGA West Address: 54-001 Madison St. fhatitsim Lc9&�A d / #1 r � •s 0 SITE PLAN 7 -f 'L v � r rp ATTACHMENT Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 2004 D. Conditional Use Permit 2004-085; a request of Nextel Communication for — / consideration of a 60 foot high telecommunications monopole and 230 square foot equipment shelter for the property located at the southwest corner of Avenue 54 and Madison Street, within Riverside County Fire Department Station #70 property. 1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit presented the information contained in the report a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Daniels stated he is a resident of PGA West and the homeowners' association is within 500 feet of this property, but he does not feel there is any conflict of interest. 3. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Ladner asked the distance between the top of the live tree to the bottom of the monopalm. Staff stated the highest tree is 42 feet in height, so about a 15-22 foot difference. 4. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. John Beke with Tetra Tech Wireless, representing the applicant, stated they have reviewed the conditions and have no objections. With regard to the opposition letter submitted by Mr. Glen Hart, the FCC does not allowed them to interfere with any other electrical appliances; in terms of unsightliness, it is planted among live palms of the same species; in regard to lighting, they have not applied for any and none are required; in regard to adjacency to his front yard it is over 200 feet away. To view this pole, Mr. Hart will have to view this through a grove of trees to even see this pole. They tried to locate at the PGA Clubhouse, but were unable to do so. In regard to staff's recommendation for plantings 8-10 feet tall between the perimeter wall and their shelter, they would prefer to use vines to grow up onto the shelter. 5. Chairman Kirk stated the monopalm dominates the view as it appears to be twice as tall and large, but in the photos contained in their packet, the palms were indistinguishable. Mr. Beke went over the process of how they produce the photos and determine the height needed. G:MPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-14-04.doc Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 2004 6. Chairman Kirk asked if there was any other public comment. Mr. John Bobbitt, 80-432 Pebble Beach stated he is the president of the homeowners' association that will be affected by this pole. A number of residents are away and not available to speak to this project. They object to an object of this height. He appreciates their attempt to disguise it, but it will still be unsightly. The potential to interfere with their equipment room that controls a lot of their equipment is a great concern. He understands they have to conform to FCC rules and yet he knows these things do not operate perfectly. He reaffirmed his protest against the project. 7. Commissioner Daniels asked if their concern was that the tower may interfere with their communication equipment. Mr. Bobbitt stated yes as well as the aesthetics. They have had trouble with the Fire Department radio equipment interfering with their equipment, and Mr. Beke has already had problems even though they cannot prove it. Mr. Bake stated that in regard to the interference, they would be happy to have a condition added that they would remedy any interference within a time frame. They would begin a remedy within 48-hours of notice by the claimant to resolve the problem. 8. There being no other public comment, Chairman Kirk closed the public participation portion of the hearing. Commissioner Quill asked if the Riverside County Fire Department had reviewed this request and found there were no issues. Mr. Bake stated yes. 9. Commissioner Daniels asked how they chose this site and what other sites were reviewed. 10. Chairman Kirk reopened the public hearing. Mr. Bake stated their customer, KSL, requested they improve their service. They do not like to go with vacant land as it is unknown what will be there and this site was then chosen. 11. Commissioner Daniels asked why the height had to be 60-feet. Mr. Bake stated this is the lowest functional height to give them the coverage they need. 12. Commissioner Daniels asked if the Verizon pole was approved at a lower height. Staff stated it was 60-feet. G:\WPDOCSTC Minutes\9 14 04.doc Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 2004 13. Mr Bobbitt stated he would recommend KSL use a different company and reduce the need for the tower. 14. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Ladner to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-063, approving Conditional Use Permit 2004-085, as recommended and amended: a. Condition added: If any complaints regarding interference are received, the applicant will address them within 48 hours. b. Condition added: Vines shall be added to the equipment building between the perimeter wall and the building. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Ladner, Quill, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Krieger. ABSTAIN: None. E. Environmental Assessment 2004-516 and Site Development Permit 2004-81 1; a request of Rich Boureston for consideration of adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact and development ns to construct a 42,000 square foot medical office building on 3.44 acr for the property located at the southeast corner of Washington Stree nd Lake La Quinta Drive. 1. Ch ' man Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff repor Associate Planner Martin Magana presented the informa 'on contained in the report a copy of which is on file in the Communi Development Department. Staff clarified there will be outpatient rgery, but no overnight stays. 2. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would - e to address the Commission. Mr. Richard Boureston, the app\eption tated they were in agreement with the conditions, with thion of the condition for the deceleration lane. Mostoftheion lanes on Washington Street are for the projects with dass to their site. There are other places along Washington do not have a deceleration lane who have access off anree Because of the distance off Lake La Quinta Drive tve t requirement for a deceleration lane is not warranother jection is for them to pay the 25% for the signal that will someday, be installed. The 25% is a difficulty for them and they are the last to build at this location. Other developments will be constructed further south who should G:\WPD0CSTC Minutes\9-14-04.doc