Loading...
2005 06 14 PC5 w� OFT9 Planning Commission Agendas are now available on the City's Web Page @ www.la-guinta.org PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California JUNE 14, 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 2005-020 Beginning Minute Motion 2005-009 I. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call II. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of the Minutes for the Regular Meeting of May 24, 2005. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PCAgendaW.doc V. PUBLIC HEARING: For all Public Hearings on the Agenda, a completed "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Executive Secretary prior to the start of the Planning Commission consideration of that item. The Chairman will invite individuals who have requested the opportunity to speak, to come forward at the appropriate time. Any person may submit written comments to the La Quinta Planning Commission before a public hearing, may appear and be heard in support of, or in opposition to, the approval of the project(s) at the time of the hearing. If you challenge any project(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to the public hearing. A. Item ................ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-544, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2005-104, ZONE CHANGE 2005- 124, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-826 Applicant.......... City of La Quinta Redevelopment Agency Location........... West of Adams Street, on the north side of Miles Avenue Request............ Consideration of a request to certify a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact, change to the General Plan Land Use and Zoning designation from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential; and approval of an 80-unit multi -family residential project. Action .............. Resolution 2005-_, Resolution 2005-_, Resolution 2005- , and Resolution 2005- B. Item ................ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-536, ZONE CHANGE 2005-123, & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31434 Applicant.......... Monroe Dates, LLC Location........... West side of Monroe Street, at Avenue 61 Request............ Consideration of a request to certify a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact, Zone Change from Low Density/Agricultural-Equestrian Residential to Low Density Residential, and the subdivision of 28.7 + acres into 118 single-family lots. Action .............. Resolution 2005-_, Resolution 2005-_, Resolution 2005- C. Item ................ SPECIFIC PLAN 97-029, AMENDMENT NO. 4 Applicant.......... Stamko Development Co. Location........... East of Adams Street, south of Auto Centre Drive Request............ Consideration of a new driveway access on Adams Street and a design change to the internal circulation pattern, access, a retention basin, high density housing with an affordable component. Action .............. Request to continue to June 28, 2005 G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PCAgendaW.doc D. Item ................ SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-835 Applicant.......... Stamko Development Co. Location........... The southwest corner of Highway 111 and Dune Palms Road Request............ Consideration of development plans and conceptual landscaping plans for a multi -tenant retail store consisting of 23,000 square feet Action .............. Resolution 2005- E. Item ................ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-541 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33597 Applicant.......... R. T. Hughes Co. LLC Location........... The southwest corner of Avenue 60 and Madison Street Request............ Consideration of a request to certify a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact and the subdivision of 22.97 acres into 57 single-family lots, as well as lots for streets and retention basins. Action .............. Resolution 2005- , Resolution 2005- F. Item ................ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-533 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-822 Applicant.......... KKE Architects Location........... North side of Highway 1 1 1, 1,300 + east of Dune Palms Road Request............ Consideration of a request to certify a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact and review of development plans for Phase 1 (44,300 sq. ft.) of a 61,650 square foot center on a 6.38 acre site. Action .............. Resolution 2005- and Resolution 2005- G. Item ................ SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-830 Applicant.......... John Garrison — GSR Andrade Architects Location........... East side of Washington Street, ± 400 feet south of Avenue 47 Request............ Consideration of development plans for construction of a + 36,000 square foot, two-story medical office building Action .............. Resolution 2005- VI. BUSINESS ITEM: None. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None Vlll. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Review of City Council meeting of June 7, 2005. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PCAgendaW.doc IX. ADJOURNMENT: This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be held on June 28, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. DECLARATION OF POSTING I, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary of the City of La Quinta, do hereby declare that the foregoing agenda for the La Quinta Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, June 14, 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, June 10 2005. DATED: June 10, 2005 'BETTY J.;8QWYER, 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. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PCAgendaW.doc MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA May 24, 2005 I. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Kirk who asked Commissioner Daniels to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Ed Alderson, Rick Daniels, Kay Ladner, Paul Quill and Chairman Kirk. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Doug Evans, City Attorney Kathy Jenson, Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planners Fred Baker and Stan Sawa, Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: A. Ms. Marty Butler, Trans West Housing, spoke regarding front yard landscaping. She requested a study session be held to review the City's standards and requested her company be able to participate. Chairman Kirk thanked her for their interest and stated this would be discussed at a future meeting. B. Ms. Kay Wolff, 77-227 Calle Ensenada, noted the amount of new construction being proposed and asked if it fits into any kind of plan for the City. Do the new projects fill a need in the City, or a demographic need? She is struck by how many developments that have large footage, multi -tenant retail, fast foot restaurant, one-story medical facility, another big box store, and home occupations. Her question is whether or not all these projects fit into an overall plan. Can we shape commercial development to meet the needs of our diverse community? III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: A. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of April 26, 2005. There being none, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Ladner to approve the minutes as submitted. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of May 10, 2005. There being none, it was moved and seconded by Commissioner Daniels/Ladner to approve the minutes as submitted. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\5-24-05.doc Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2005 IV. CONSENT ITEMS: None. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Site Development Permit 2005-835; a request of Stamko Development Co. for consideration of development plans for a multi -tenant retail store consisting of 23,000 square feet, located at the southwest corner of Highway 111 and Dune Palms Road 1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Fred Baker informed the Commission the applicant had requested a continuance to June 14, 2005. 2. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Ladner/Alderson to continue Site Development Permit 2005-835 to June 14, 2005. Unanimously approved. B. Site Development Permit 2005-829; a request of Tarlos & Associates for consideration of development plans to allow the construction of a 3,100 square foot Wendy's restaurant on a 0.80 acre site, located at the northeast corner of Auto Center Drive and La Quinta Drive. 1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planning Consultant Nicole Criste presented the information 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 the applicant. Commissioner Alderson asked if the parking was reciprocal. Staff stated the owner of the site has confirmed in writing there is shared parking. Commissioner Alderson questioned why the entry to the south went right by the trash enclosure. Staff stated that due to the configuration of the site this was the only resolution. Commissioner Alderson asked about the 35-foot high light fixtures. Staff stated it was consistent with the Specific Plan for this site. Commissioner Alderson asked about the "no left turn" sign at the end of the drive-thru aisle. Staff stated it was to deter cars from entering the drive-thru lane at the wrong location. 3. Commissioner Daniels asked if the circulation could be improved by closing the exit onto Auto Center Drive, removing two parking spaces on the east side, and putting in an access to keep from having an exit onto a street. It would be better to have them enter and exit into the larger parking lot. Staff reviewed the circulation G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\5-24-05.doc 2 Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2005 plan and their concerns regarding changing the access points. Commissioner Daniels stated additional stacking could be created if the drive -up window were moved further south. Also, the trash location could be moved to where there is only one parking space. 4. Commissioner Quill asked for identification of the plants along the drive-thru lane. Staff explained the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee (ALRC) requested it be lantana. Commissioner Quill asked the elevation of the curve in relation to La Quinta Drive. Staff stated it was their understanding they were flush. 5. Commissioner Ladner asked why lantana instead of the Bird of Paradise. Staff stated the Bird of Paradise was a species that would grow very tall and branch out to block the driveway. 6. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. John Tarlos, the applicant, gave a presentation on the project. In regard to the trash enclosure location, it was chosen by Waste Management. In regard to the plant material, they were asked to replace the Bird of Paradise with lantana by the ALRC. 7. Commissioner Daniels asked about closing the access onto Auto Center Drive and extending the one way exit through the drive-thru and to the southeast. Also, relocating the existing driveway out of the parking lot to the north to make it a one-way circulation plan. Mr. Tarlos stated that to take the double drive, on the right side of the project, it does not line up with the driveway across. It would be difficult as to do this would be a traffic issue internally as well as a conflict with the Goodyear to the north. Commissioner Daniels asked the distance between the southern point on Auto Center Drive and the corner of this side with the driveway on the east. Mr. Tarlos stated about 30 feet or two cars. 8. Commissioner Quill asked the elevation of the pavement at the drive thru window as it relates to directly across the top of curb elevation on La Quinta Drive. Mr. Tarlos stated it is the same as the top of the curb. The bottom of the pavement to the top of the wall is four feet. 9. Commissioner Alderson asked why the trash enclosure could not be moved to the west side. Mr. Tarlos stated the trash truck cannot make the turn to get out of the parking lot. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated that if the Commission is G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\5-24-05.doc 3 Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2005 concerned about this location, the Commission can request the applicant work further with Waste Management to relocate the enclosure. He would suggest the east side. 10. Chairman Kirk asked if Waste Management would allowed sunken trash enclosures. Staff stated it was a negotiating issue with Waste Management. 11. Commissioner Daniels asked about the driveway on the east as his concern is the access onto Auto Center Drive. Discussion followed regarding alternative access points. Staff stated the Specific Plan shows this access. 12. Commissioner Ladner asked if Wendy's had a long-range plan to maintain the landscaping. The construction manager stated their goal is consumer satisfaction. They will do what is necessary to maintain the landscaping. Commissioner Ladner stated the Bird of Paradise blends better with the architecture. 13. Commissioner Daniels asked if there would be plant material between the curb and wall. Mr. Tarlos stated the landscaping is already installed. 14. Chairman Kirk asked if there was any other public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 15. Commissioner Ladner asked if the Commission had the latitude to deny the use. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated there is a large group of people where this use meets a need. It is less visible as it is not located directly on Highway 111. 16. Chairman Kirk stated the Commission has expressed concern as to the number of fast food and/or gas stations in La Quinta. 17. Commissioner Ladner asked if this was the right location for this use. 18. Commissioner Daniels stated his concerns were the access. He would like to see a shared access with Goodyear to the north. He would like to see landscaping in the median. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\5-24-05.doc 4 Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2005 19. Commissioner Quill stated his concerns were the landscaping. He would like to see the landscape plans brought back to the Commission for review prior to a Certificate of Occupancy or final inspection. He would like the Chilean Mesquite replaced with a different variety tree. He would also like to see a different plant than the lantana. The landscape plans need to show what is planted on the Highway 1 1 1 landscaping. If there is no berm he wants adequate screening in addition to the four foot wall. He would like to see the grading plans as well. 20. Commissioner Alderson stated he too did not like this type of use along Highway 1 1 1, but if there is to be one, this location is the best. He agrees with the landscaping being returned to the Commission for review. 21. It was moved by Commissioners Quill/Ladner to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-016, approving Site Development Permit 2005-829, as recommended by staff and as amended: a. Condition #37: amended to add with lantana as ground cover and an espaliered vine. b. Condition #38: Amended to read, "The final landscaping and grading plans for the project shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. d. Condition added: The Chilean Mesquite shall be replaced with an alternate tree. e. Condition added: The parkway landscaping shall be added to the final landscaping plan. f. Condition added: The applicant shall work with staff to see if there is an alternate site for the trash enclosure. 22. Commissioner Daniels stated he would be voting no as he is not convinced this is a good circulation plan. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Ladner, Quill and Chairman Kirk. NOES: Commissioner Daniels. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. C. Site Development Permit 2005-832; a request of Alfred H. Cook, AIA/William R. Kelly Trust for consideration of architectural plans for a 4,600 square foot, one-story medical office building in the La Quinta Professional Plaza, located on Parcel 12 of Tentative Parcel Map 29889 — the east side of Washington Street + 300 feet south of Avenue 47. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\5-24-05.doc 5 Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2005 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 is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Alderson asked if staff was concerned with aesthetics or the Title 24 issue on the east elevation. Staff stated it related to requiring shading on the east elevation. 3. Commissioner Daniels asked why the landscaping along the common driveway is not extended. Staff noted the circulation pattern and why the landscaping ends at the property line. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated a wide area of asphalt or nonuse would not be attractive in this location. They may not want consider a condition that this be resolved in the final landscaping design stage and if, in the event, it does not become part of the circulation for the adjoining property, then require it to be landscaped further. If there is going to be parking a buffer should be provided. Commissioner Daniels agreed 4. Chairman Kirk stated he had a concern on the number of parking spaces. He stated there appears to be an administrative decision that allowed Parcel 11 to become a restaurant. Staff noted the applicant indicated at the time of that application, it was to be an office or restaurant, but they also increased the size of the parcel from 3,600 to 5,600 square feet. Chairman Kirk asked the number of parking spaces needed for all the parcels. Staff stated they are required to have 275 parking spaces and they are providing 211. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated that during the day the parking will be difficult at peak times. 5. Commissioner Ladner asked if the other restaurant was dinner only. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated there are no restrictions on when the restaurant can be open. 6. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Cook, the architect and Dr. Kelly, the owner, stated they were available to answer questions. Mr. Cook stated the pad site is developed. All they have to do is build the building. He did question the landscaping on the adjacent property owner. According to him he did have the number of required parking G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\5-24-05.doc 6 Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2005 spaces. Dr. Kelly stated the intended use of the building is to have an MRI practice. Rarely are there more than two patients and five employees. The other tenant would have four employees with a low level of patients at any one time. 7. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Daniels asked if any of the patients would come by transit. Dr. Kelly stated rarely. The employees could, but probably not. 8. Chairman Kirk asked if there was any other public comment. There being none, it was open for Commission discussion. 9. Commissioner Alderson confirmed he has no room for modifications as the parking lot is built and this applicant has nothing but the pad site to work with. 10. Commissioner Quill stated he likes the plans as submitted and thanks the applicant for the thoroughness of the application. 1 1 . Commissioner Daniels stated it is an attractive building. 12. Chairman Kirk stated he is concerned with the number of parking spaces. This applicant may not be there in 40 years and should he move would there enough parking for a different use. He was concerned whether this site had a dedicated right turn deceleration lane along Washington Street. Associate City Engineer Paul Goble stated this may be an opportunity to require the deceleration lane, but it would not serve any interest to require it at this time. 13. It was moved by Commissioners Ladner/Daniels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-017, approving Site Development Permit 2005-832, as recommended by staff and as amended: a. The landscaping between the two parcels shall be resolved in final landscaping design stage and if in the event it does not become part of the circulation for the adjoining property, the site shall be landscaped further. If there is going to be parking, a buffer should be provided. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Ladner, Quill and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\5-24-05.doc 7 Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2005 D. Site Development Permit 2005-827; a request of Colbourn -Currier -Noll Architecture, Inc. for Innovative Resort Communities, for consideration architectural and landscaping plans for four prototypical residential plans and clubhouse for use in Tract 31732, located at the southeast corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 60. E. Site Development Permit 2005-828; a request of Colbourn -Currier -Noll Architecture, Inc. for Innovative Resort Communities, for consideration architectural and landscaping plans for four prototypical residential plans and clubhouse for use in Tract 31733, located at the northeast corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 61. 1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. He asked staff to address the concerns of the ALRC and how they were resolved. Staff discussed the streetscape, variety of garage doors proposed, and how the elevations had changed. 3. Commissioner Quill asked about the major arterial corridor that may be planned along the alignment for Avenue 62, shifting up to Avenue 60, going to a significant arterial at the intersection of Monroe Street. The map has been approved for this tract, but the right-of-way on the north side of Avenue 60 may not be adequate for that future thoroughfare. Associate Engineer Paul Goble stated staff has not reviewed the tracts in regard to this proposal, but rather with how it meets the current City standards. Staff is trying to better define the City's arterial upgrades in terms of profile as well as structure sections and what will happen with the Travertine development. Commissioner Quill stated this road is not a reality, but the problem he sees is that if this arterial is not upgraded and this thoroughfare is as substantial as what the County is proposing along the 601h corridor, this row of lots adjacent to Avenue 60 will go away. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated this is a CVAG transportation staff's recommendation to evaluate a south Valley parkway. Staff is concerned that a different roadway cross section might be proposed for our community, but staff would not be able to evaluate it as it is speculative. Discussions are still taking place and staff is encouraging north/south linkages. Kathy Jenson, City G:\WPDQCS\PC Minutes\5-24-05.doc 8 Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2005 Attorney, stated it cannot be done at this time in regard to this project. Discussion followed as to the potential location of the roadway and its impacts on development. 4. Commissioner Alderson asked if the neighborhood around this project was built. Staff stated to the east, north and south is vacant. Trilogy to the west, is under construction. 5. Commissioner Daniels asked if any of these lots were prohibited from two story. Staff stated Monroe Street may be the only street that has a height limitation. Commissioner Daniels stated his concern was that there were no two story units along the perimeter lots. 6. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Pete Bilicki, Innovative Resort Communities, gave a presentation on the project. 7. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Daniels asked about the sprinkler setback. Mr. Bilicki stated that from a design prospective, they meet CVWD requirements. The ALRC requested the sod be brought to the curb with sprinklers setback 18-inches from the curb. This is subject to CVWD approval, but they will do a meandering setback for the strip. 8. Commissioner Alderson stated there does not appear to be any real elements to say this is a Mediterranean style. Mr. Bilicki stated they have added curved windows, garages setback, gable roofs, the gable with no overhang with the tile wrapping around, color changes, and added stone. 9. Commissioner Quill asked if there was any wood fascia. Mr. Bilicki stated they were exposed rafter tails. 10. Commissioner Alderson asked if the flat clay the was more Tuscany instead of Mediterranean. Mr. Bilicki stated they were going for a variation in the roofs and color. Commissioner Alderson noted two of the unit plans have a casita on the second floor. Mr. Bilicki stated this has been a successful design on other projects they have developed. 11. Commissioner Ladner asked if they are planned unit developments. Mr. Bilicki stated yes, and the homeowner will insure the units. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\5-24-05.doc 9 Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2005 Commissioner Ladner asked about the color palette for the rear of the units. She also asked the price range of the units. Mr. Bilicki stated $400,000 to $800,000. 12. Chairman Kirk asked what the logic was behind the request of the ALRC to have a higher percentage of hip roofs rather than gable. Staff stated they do not believe they set any requirement on the number. Chairman Kirk asked if there was an elevation for the clubhouse. Mr. Bilicki stated no. Chairman Kirk asked if there was a pedestrian link between the two projects. Mr. Bilicki stated there is none. Chairman Kirk noted on the plans when the link was shown. He asked if there was any objection to there being no gate between the two projects. Mr. Bilicki stated he would not, but the HOA may choose to have it at the option of the HOA. Chairman Kirk asked if CVWD had the right to override the City's conditions in regard to the 18-inch setback for the sprinkler heads. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated no. They are to approve the water useage; the City approves the design. 13. Chairman Kirk asked if there was any other public comment. There being none, it was open for Commission discussion. 14. Commissioner Alderson stated his initial impression of the product was that they are lacking in design. The site layout is very well done, but in his opinion the unit types still need work. 15. Commissioner Quill agreed. He likes the idea of the second story casitas along with the rear loaded garages. The elevations, however, are lacking. He is concerned that we are not creating walkable, habitable communities. 16. Commissioner Daniels also agreed. In regard to the 18-inch setback he would like to see the same treatment they required on a previous tract; grass to the curb, recessed two inches with a 1 % swale back to the sprinkler. 17. Commissioner Ladner stated she also agreed. In regard to the architectural style, she does not believe they are high end designs. We may not like gated communities, but they do save the City money. She would not agree with requiring an opening between the two tracts due to insurance issues for the HOA. She does like the floor plans. The lack of the design is made up by the floor plans. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\5-24-05.doc 10 Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2005 18. Chairman Kirk stated this project represents a turning point in some ways. This is the only section of the City that is east of Monroe Street and he wonders if this sets a different set of standards. This project is surrounded mostly by agricultural land. He too does not like all the wall compounds throughout much of the Coachella Valley. There are too many and yet he understands there is a demand for them. Yet, he believes there is also a demand for more open pedestrian -friendly communities. This is particularly the case where this City, with respect to the northern property, has significantly increased the density. Before that property was agriculturally zoned in the County and there was some consideration for low density housing, yet today it is much higher density. When he looks at a high density project he believes there is a higher standard in terms of architectural detail and pedestrian connection. The land plan is reasonable, but the clubhouse plans and common facilities are also reasonable. Yet, as he looks at these designs he cannot support them. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated the applicant was counseled by the ALRC at their first submittal to redesign the product. From the standpoint of the Commission's action, the Commission may want to give the applicant guidance and let him come back without having to go to the appeal process. 19. Chairman Kirk reopened the public comment and asked the applicant if he would prefer a vote or continuance. Mr. Bilicki stated they spent the energy and time to redesign their project according to ALRC's recommendation. He would be open to constructive comments. 20. Commissioner Alderson noted his concern about the flat concrete roof, exposed rafter tails, and wrought iron railing. The designs are more Tuscan and he does not believe they are what he is trying to achieve. His only concern is the front elevations. 21. Chairman Kirk stated he would still like to see a colored elevation of the clubhouses. He would also like to see the alley layouts as well as the landscaping of the alleys. 22. Commissioner Daniels stated he agrees so far and would like to see the access between the two tracts kept open. 23. Chairman Kirk asked if staff could set a meeting between CVWD and the Commission, at a future date, to work out these issues on streetscape landscape. Staff would look into the request. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\5-24-05.doc 11 Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2005 24. Chairman Kirk reopened the public hearing and asked for a motion. 25. Following discussion, it was moved by Commissioners Quill/Daniels to continue Site Development Permit 2005-827 to June 28, 2005, subject to the following requests: a. The applicant shall submit colored elevations of the clubhouse and facilities; b. Additional detail shall be added to the front elevations; C. A description of the rear yards, alley layout as well as the landscaping shall be submitted; d. The pedestrian access shall be kept open; and e. The streetscape shall have grass to the curb, recessed two inches with a 1 % swale back to the sprinkler head. Unanimously approved. 26. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Daniels to continue Site Development Permit 2005-828, to June 28, 2005, with the following recommendations: a. The applicant shall submit colored elevations of the clubhouse and facilities; b. Additional detail shall be added to the front elevations; C. A description of the rear yards, alley layout as well as the landscaping shall be submitted; d. The pedestrian access shall be kept open; and e. The streetscape shall have grass to the curb, recessed two inches with a 1 % swale back to the sprinkler head. Unanimously approved. F. Site Development Permit 2004-831 and Sign Permit 2005-879; a request of Thomas Enterprises for consideration of development plans for Phase 2 of the Pavilion at La Quinta project consisting of 72,770 square feet and a sign permit for Best Buy for the property located at the northeast corner of Highway 1 1 1 and Adams Street. 1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\5-24-05.doc 12 Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2005 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Quill asked that detail be added to the rear elevation. Staff has requested that each use have a different color. Commissioner Quill asked if the landscaping was approved under the first phase. Staff stated the perimeter landscaping was approved under the first phase. 3. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Norman Barrett, architect representing the applicant, gave a review of the project. In regard to the rear elevation, they are behind the Post Office and World Gym. They are set back from Highway 1 1 1 and there is a ten foot screen wall between the Post Office and a six foot screen wall between World Gym. They will have a landscape strip. On the Phase 1 they did address the rear elevations for the Henry's Market and Best Buy buildings. There is a color change between the buildings to contrast them. In regard to the conditions he would like clarification to the blue background. Staff stated the blue element that wraps around should be removed on the Best Buy building. Mr. Barrett explained the ALRC agreed to allow it after he explained the purpose and reduction. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated the blue will be the fastest fading color. Condition #3 is not an objection to the blue as much as it is an objection to the material proposed that will hold the color. In regard to the Best Buy sign, for the size of the tenant staff did a comparison to other buildings with the same leaseable space. Discussion followed. 4. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Daniels asked if there was a gate at the end of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Barrett stated it is an emergency access gate. 5. Chairman Kirk asked if there was any other public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 6. Commissioner Daniels stated he likes the overall design and agrees with staff that some detail is needed on the rear elevation. In regard to the blue color strip, he agrees it should be a different material. 7. Commissioner Quill stated he likes the design of the building, but does not like the sign. He believes the blue color is part of the overall sign and is too much. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\5-24-05.doc 13 Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2005 8. Commissioners Ladner and Alderson agreed that the blue should be considered part of the sign. 9. Chairman Kirk stated he too believes the blue is part of the total sign area and should not wrap around the building. 10. It was moved by Commissioners Alderson/Daniels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-018, approving Site Development Permit 2004-831, as recommended by staff and as amended: a. The rear elevations shall be painted accent colors for each occupant and additional treatment shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Ladner, Quill and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 11. It was moved by Commissioners Alderson/Daniels to adopt Minute Motion 2005-008, approving Sign Permit 2005-879, as recommended by staff and as amended: a. The east side blue element on the Best Buy side elevation that wraps around, shall be eliminated. Unanimously approved with Commissioner Quill voting no. G. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2005-082; a request of the City for consideration of an Amendment to Title 9 of the La Quinta Charter and Municipal Code amending Chapters 9.60 and 9.210 relating to Home Occupations 1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Community Development Director Doug Evans presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Kirk asked if there were any public comment. Ms. Kay Wolff asked if this was similar to a child care facility. Staff stated they are different ordinances. There being no further public comment, the public participation was closed and open for Commission discussion. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\5-24-05.doc 14 Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2005 3. It was moved by Commissioners Daniels/Alderson to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-019, approving Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2005-0825, as recommended by staff and as amended: ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Ladner, Quill and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Review of City Council meeting of May 17, 2005. B. Department report: Community Development Director Doug Evans stated at the direction of the Commission, staff would work on some proposals to bring back to the Commission for their review on landscape requirements. Chairman Kirk stated the concerns were more global in regard to the current City Landscape Ordinance. Staff suggested two Commissioners be assigned to work with staff on this subject. Commissioners Quill and Ladner were assigned. IX. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Ladner/Daniels to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on June 14, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:22 p.m. on May 24, 2005. Respectfully submitted, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\5-24-05.doc 15 PH #A STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 14, 2005 CASE NOS.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-544 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2005-104 ZONE CHANGE 2005-124 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-826 REQUEST: 1) CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO CERTIFY A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; 2) & 3) CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATION FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL; AND 4) APPROVAL OF AN 80-UNIT MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-544 WAS PREPARED FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2005-104, ZONE CHANGE 2005-124, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-826 IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED. THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HAS RECOMMENDED THAT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BE CERTIFIED IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONSIDERATION LOCATION: WEST OF ADAMS STREET ON THE NORTH SIDE OF MILES AVENUE APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ARCHITECT/ LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: NESTOR+GAFNEY ARCHITECTURE ZONING: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) SURROUNDING D•\D.,.....+� 1 A nR\%/r%RALAD\Dr a+„ff .-+ \/:..+., n.....,.. r..... ,.n..1 u....,.,.. a..., ZONING/LAND USE: NORTH: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR)/ SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SOUTH: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) / SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL EAST: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR)/ CHURCH WEST: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) / SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: Vista Dunes Courtyard Homes is a City of La Qunita Redevelopment Agency project of a mobile home park conversion to a multi -family residential project. Proposed are 80 affordable residential units, a community center, and recreational amenities on 9.44 acres located west of Adams Street on the north side of Miles Avenue (Attachment 1). Site Development Permit 2005-826 proposes architectural and landscape plans for the entire project. The proposed project site has been a mobile home park for a number of years. The park contained up to 93 mobile homes, as well as accessory structures. The park is in the process of closure, 14 occupied coaches remain on -site. The proposed Vista Dunes Courtyard Homes is an City Redevelopment Agency (RDA) project that will provide affordable housing for very low-income families. The project will be developed by the RDA and sold to an owner/operator. The Environmental Assessment has a detailed project description. Applications Under Consideration General Plan Amendment and Zone Change The applicant is requesting to change the General Plan and Zoning land use designation from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. The Medium Density Residential General Plan designation allows up to eight units per acre; the proposal is for 80 residential units on 9.44 acres. The existing Mobile Home Park was a Medium High Density project. The proposal achieves the General Plan Land Use Goals in that it provides for the protection of residential neighborhoods, assures that future housing needs are met, and provides a range of housing types and choices. It also achieves the Housing Element Goals. In particular, the State mandated City's Regional Housing Fair Share (RHNA) of affordable housing units. The proposal meets or exceeds Zoning Code development standards such as height, setbacks, parking, and landscaping. Site Development Permit Site Plan The Courtyard Homes take access from Miles Avenue and all units have vehicular access to parking from a central driveway. The proposed units are within a gated community and consist of one story attached and detached units providing one, two D-10-- r+e Dr1%1)A r1Q 1 n tArN%/nKAWD%D!` a+,4; m+ %/;e+n M..,.,e f ^. +.. 4 U....+.+e .J-, and three bedroom units. All units are oriented towards the interior of the project. Units are provided covered carport parking with 40 guest spaces provided along the driveway curb in parallel parking pockets; this complies with Zoning Code parking requirements. (Attachment 2). Architectural Plans Proposed architectural design integrates the fundamentals of functionality, safety, and durability. The structures have simple form and expansive transparent connections to the outdoors. All of the proposed units are oriented to the interior of the site providing courtyards and common open space along the paseo. The proposed units are flat roof and slightly sloped roofs behind parapets at a maximum height of 12 feet with 17 foot high air vent towers. In addition, all of the units utilize solar panels on the roof. Carports are proposed to be painted metal, which are either attached to, or in close proximity to the units, with low block wall storage units. The units are proposed to be wood frame with a plaster veneer in a variety of earthy colors. The horizontal and overlapping trellises provide shade and shadows contributing to an enhanced visual contrast. Landscape Plans The proposed landscape plan includes drought tolerant perimeter landscaping around the entire property and along green space in the central paseo and courtyards. Landscape setbacks include a 32 foot setback on Miles Avenue at the project entry; a 22 foot setback on the west property line adjacent to existing residential homes; a 15 foot on the east property line adjacent to an existing Church and parking lot; and a minimum 22 foot setback on the north property line (which is integrated with an open space lawn area) adjacent to existing residential homes and a City park. The perimeter and paseo landscaping includes a variety of drought tolerant trees, shrubs and ground covers common in the desert climate. Trees provided include Acacia, Crape Myrtle, Palo Verde, Willow, Date Palm and Evergreen Elms with a variety of shrubs and ground cover. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Based on California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, staff prepared Environmental Assessment (EA) 2005-544 for the project. Staff recommends certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact. ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE (ALRC) REVIEW: The ALRC reviewed this request at its meeting of June 1, 2005 (Attachment 3). The Committee unanimously adopted Minute Motion 2005-021, recommending approval subject to the following conditions which have been incorporated into this review: D.%0- n.+e - Or%'MAR\R 1 n nR\\/nnauD\Dr e+-ff .-+ %/in+e n... - r--+-. 4 u„m.,...d.... 1. Final location and design of trash enclosures to be approved by the Community Development Director. 2. The landscape plan shall reduce the dependence on Crape Myrtle trees; and substitute all Date Palm trees that pose a safety risk with another palm tree to be approved by the Community Development Director. 3. The retention basin design shall incorporate a transition from the existing turf basin to a more drought tolerant basin. 4. Eliminate the Evergreen Elms from the plant palette and substitute another tree such as a non -flowering Olive tree. 5. At the driveway entrance, provide decorative textured paving, such as a paving stones or stamped concrete. 6. Increase the size of the support beam of the shade structures to provide a "heavier" appearance. COMMENTS FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES: The project was sent out for comment to City departments and affected public agencies on May 3, 2005, requesting comments be returned by May 18, 2005. All applicable comments are incorporated in the Conditions of Approval. PUBLIC NOTICE: This project was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper and posted on, June 1, 2005. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required by the La Quinta Municipal Zoning Code. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: The findings, as noted in the attached Resolution, can be made, subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission 2005- recommending to the City Council certification of Environmental Assessment 2005-544; and, 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005 recommending to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 2005-104; and, 3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-_, recommending to the City Council approval of a Zone Change 2005-124; and, D•\D.,.,...+� Df`\9n nr,\R I f1G\\/r%KAUD\Df �+ss . + \/;.+, M.— r1_, +.. A IJ.,..,.,o A— 4. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-_, recommending to the City Council approval of Site Development Permit 2005-826, subject to the findings and Conditions of Approval. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map 2. Plans and Elevations 3. Draft minutes of the of the June 1, 2005 meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee Prepared by: Fred Baker, AICP Principal Planner D•\Dn...,.+e D(%W)nR\R In 1)9.\\/r*%rfiUD\Df` ..+ass . + Xr..+., M.- u,,....,.. A^- 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 PREPARED FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2005-104, ZONE CHANGE 2005-124, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-826 CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-544 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the 141" day of June, 2005, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a request of City of La Quinta Redevelopment Agency for approval of a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change from a Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential designation, and Site Development Permit (SDP) 2005-826 consisting of 80 multi- family residential units, a community building, and on -site amenities collectively (the "Project") generally, located west of Adams Street and north of Miles Avenue and more particularly described as: A.P.N.: 604-032-022: and, WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared for the Project; and WHEREAS, the City has prepared the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., (CEQA Guidelines); and WHEREAS, the City mailed a Notice of Intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration in compliance with Pubic Resources Code Section 21092 on the 27" day of May, 2005 to landowners within 500 feet of the Project Site, and notified all public entities entitled to notice under CEQA, which notice also included a notice of the public hearing date for the City Council; and, WHEREAS, the City published a Notice of Intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Initial Study in the Desert Sun newspaper on June 4, 2005, and further caused the notice to be filed with the Riverside County Clerk in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines; and PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\VDMHP\PC RESO EA 2005-544.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Environmental Assessment 2005-544 La Quinta Redevelopment Agency June 14, 2005 Page 2 WHEREAS, during the comment period, the City received no comment letters. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that -the Project is consistent with Goals of the General Plan Land Use Element for residential uses and assists in achieving the Quantified Objectives of the General Plan Housing Element. WHEREAS, the above recitations are true and correct and are adopted as the Findings of the Planning Commission as follows: 1. The Planning Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and processed in compliance with the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's implementation procedures. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and finds that it adequately describes and addresses the environmental effects of the Project, and that, based upon the Initial Study, the comments received thereon, and the entire record of proceeding for this Project, there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record that there may be significant adverse environmental effects as a result of the Project. The mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration have been incorporated into the Project and these measures mitigate any potential significant effect to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects will occur as a result of this Project. 2. The Project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2005-544. 3. The Project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number, or restrict the range of, rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history, or prehistory. 4. There is no evidence before the City that the Project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends. f �l P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\VDMHP\PC RESO EA 2005-544.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Environmental Assessment 2005-544 La Quinta Redevelopment Agency June 14, 2005 Page 3 5. The Project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the Environmental Assessment. 6. The Project will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the Project. 7. The Project will not have the environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public services. 8. The Planning Commission has fully considered the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and the comments, if any, received thereon. 9. The Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission. 10. The location of the documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission decision is based is the La Quinta City Hall, Community Development Department, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California 92253, and the custodian of those records is the Community Development Director. 11. A Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, is hereby adopted pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21081.6 in order to assure compliance with the mitigation measures during Project implementation. 12. Based upon the Initial Study and the entire record of proceedings, the Project has no potential for adverse effects on wildlife as that term is defined in Fish and Game Code § 711.2. 13. The Planning Commission has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 California Code of Regulations 753.5(d)• P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\VDMHP\PC RESO EA 2005-544.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Environmental Assessment 2005-544 La Quinta Redevelopment Agency June 14, 2005 Page 4 14 The Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby recommended for certification. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct, and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment. 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental Assessment 2005-544 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist on file in the Community Development Department and attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 14th day of June, 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: DOUGLAS R. EVANS Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\VDMHP\PC RESO EA 2005-544.doc 2 3. 9 91 Environmental Checklist Form Project title: General Plan Amendment 2005-104, Change of Zone 2005-124, Site Development Permit 2005-826, Vista Dunes Redevelopment Project Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Contact person and phone number: Fred Baker 760-777-7125 Project location: North side of Miles Avenue, approximately 350 feet west of Adams Street. The site address is 78990 Miles Avenue. The Assessor's Parcel Number is 604-032-022. Project sponsor's name and address: City of La Quinta Redevelopment Agency 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 General plan designation: Current: Low Density Residential Proposed: Medium Density Residential 7. Zoning: Current: Low Density Residential Proposed: Medium Density Residential 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 site consists of a single 9.44 acre parcel. The proposed project would redevelop the site by relocating the residents of the existing mobile homes, removing the mobile homes, and constructing 80 single story attached and detached units, as well as common area amenities (please see below). The proposed project site has been a mobile home park for a number of years. The park contained up to 93 mobile homes, as well as accessory structures. The mobile homes on the north half of the site occur immediately adjacent to the eastern and western property lines, and in the center of the site, with a loop road separating them. On the south half of the site, a loop road occurs adjacent to the eastern and western property line, and the mobile homes occur in the center of this area. An Environmental Assessment (EA 2003-489) was prepared to address the purchase of the mobile home park by the Redevelopment Agency. At that time, there was no specific project proposal for the redevelopment of the site. EA 2003-489 therefore did not address the construction of a new project on the site. This Environmental Assessment (EA 2005-544) is being prepared to analyze the project now proposed by the Redevelopment Agency for the site. The project will consist of 80 one, two and three bedroom rental units, both attached and detached. The units will be available for rental by very low income households. Strict criteria for acceptance as a tenant have been -1- implemented, requiring that eligible tenants have a good credit history, pass a criminal background check, and maintain current car insurance. All units are proposed to be single story, with a unit heights of no more than 12 feet with air vents of 17 feet. Units will be clustered in groups of 6. The site plan includes landscaped building setbacks of 22 feet (which is integrated with an open space lawn area)on the northern property line, 22 feet on the western property line, and 15 feet on the eastern property line. Common areas are also provided, including a passive open space lawn on the northern property line; a community room, pool, basketball court and park area in the southeastern corner of the site. A stormwater retention basin is proposed for the southwestern corner of the site, and will connect to the retention basin located immediately west of the site. A single access point is proposed from Miles Avenue. The units will be accessed from this central drive, with individual access from this drive to the parking areas for each building cluster. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: North: Low Density Residential, Open Space Park; Single family homes, park South: Low Density Residential; Miles Avenue, Single family homes West: Low Density Residential; Single family homes East: Low Density Residential; Church, fire station 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Coachella Valley Water 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 environment, X 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. Signature June 24, 2005 Date bJ} -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 or 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 mitigation 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 to 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 Mitigation Measures 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. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) 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. 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? (General Plan Exhibit 3.6) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, X including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Aerial photograph) 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)-d) The proposed project will result in the replacement of existing mobile homes (single story structures) with stick -built single story structures. The existing mobile homes are located immediately adjacent to the eastern and western property lines on the north half of the site, whereas the proposed project will include building setbacks of either 15 or 22 feet. Under existing conditions, the homes located immediately west of the site have clear view of the mobile homes located immediately adjacent to the property line. The building setbacks will provide relief from this condition, insofar as the distance between structures will increase by 22 feet. Miles Avenue is designated a secondary image corridor in the General Plan. As such the project site plan includes a 32 foot landscaped setback on the Miles Avenue frontage, which will improve the aesthetic appeal of the area. There are no scenic resources (trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings) on the project site. The current mobile homes are old and in need of repair, and provide no scenic resource for the site. The primary sources of light on the property has been, and will continue to be from car headlights and landscape lighting. The City regulates lighting levels and does not allow lighting to spill over onto adjacent property. The site will include a 6 foot high decorative wall which will block both landscaping and vehicle headlights from adjoining properties. Car headlights will represent only a temporary and periodic minor impact to light in the area. Impacts are expected to be less than significant. -5- 0 . Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique X Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide 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 environment which, due to their location X or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (General Plan Land Use Map) H. a)-c) The proposed project is located in the City's urban core, and is fully developed. No agricultural lands occur within several miles of the project site. There are no Williamson Act contracts on the property. The General Plan and Zoning designations for the site are for residential development. There will be no impact to agricultural resources. -6- 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, Project Study) 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 PM10 Plan for the Coachella Valley) d) Expose sensitive receptors to X substantial pollutant concentrations? (Project Description) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a X substantial number of people? (Project Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection) III. a), b) & c) Air emissions will be generated from demolition, construction and operation of the redeveloped site. Emissions relating to demolition and construction will be associated with heavy equipment and dust generation. Emission relating to operations will be from the vehicles of residents. Each of these potential impacts is addressed below. Demolition The demolition of the existing improvements will include primarily asphaltic and cement materials from interior roads and pads. Heavy equipment will be required to remove these materials. The Table below illustrates typical daily emissions from heavy equipment associated with demolition of on -site improvements. -7- Table 1 Demolition Equipment Emissions - Diesel powered (hounds Der dav) Equipment Pieces hrs/day CO ROC Nox Sox PMlo Tracked Loader 1 8 1.608 0.760 6.640 0.608 0.472 Scraper 2 8 20.000 4.320 61.440 7.360 6.560 Wheeled Loader 1 8 4.576 1.840 15.200 1.456 1.360 Miscellaneous 1 8 5.400 1.200 13.600 1.144 1.120 Total: 31.584 8.120 96.880 10.568 9.512 SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 550.00 75.00 100.00 150.00 150.00 As demonstrated in Table 1, the heavy equipment emissions associated with demolition of the existing improvements will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for criteria pollutants. Impacts are expected to be less than significant. Construction The Coachella Valley is designated a severe non -attainment area for the generation of PM10, a component of fugitive dust. Fugitive dust will be generated by grading activities on the project site. The City implements regional plans for the suppression and reduction of fugitive dust, including the mandatory preparation of PM 10 Management Plans for construction projects. Given the previous development of the site, grading is likely to be less extensive than for a vacant desert parcel, however it can be expected that the site will require grading to conform to the new land use plan. Under mass grading conditions, the site has the potential to generate 249.2 pounds of fugitive dust per day. This level of fugitive dust exceeds the thresholds of significance established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Mitigation is therefore required, as follows: Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of three feet prior to the onset of grading activities. 2. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed on an on- going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the site. Portions of the site that are actively being graded shall be watered regularly to ensure that a crust is formed on the ground surface, and shall be watered at the end of each work day. 3. Any area which remains undeveloped for a period of more than 30 days shall be stabilized using either chemical stabilizers or a desert wildflower mix hydroseed on the affected portion of the site. 4. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for wind erosion. Landscape parkways on Miles Avenue, shall be installed immediately following precise grading. 6. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean-up of construction - related dirt on approach routes to the site. 7. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour The implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce impacts associated with grading activities to less than significant levels. erations The proposed project will result in the construction of 80 new residential units, which will generate approximately 538 trips per day'. These vehicle trips will generate the following emissions. Table 2 Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout (pounds per day) Ave. Trip Total Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Length (miles) miles/day 538 x 15 = 8,070 PMio PMio PMio Pollutant ROC CO NOX Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wear Pounds at 50 mph 1.60 41.69 8.55 - 0.18 0.18 SCAQMD Threshold (lbs./day) 75 550 100 150 Assumes 538 trips, ITE categories 220. Based on California Air Resources Board's EMFAC7G Emissions Model. Assumes Year 2005 summertime running conditions at 75°F, light duty autos, catalytic. The Table demonstrates that the buildout of the 80 unit project will not exceed thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD. The existing 90 mobile homes generate only slightly fewer trips (449 daily trips) than the proposed project. Therefore, the emissions associated with the redevelopment project will only increase emissions by about 20% over current conditions. Impacts associated with vehicle emissions are therefore expected to be less than significant. III. d) & e) The construction of residential units is not expected to generate objectionable odors, or expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations. 1 "Trip Generation, 7t' Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, for category 220, Apartments. -9- 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, pages 74-87) 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, pages 74-87) 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, pages 74- 87) 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, pages 74-87) e) Conflict with any local policies or X ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance (General Plan MEA, pages 74-87) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, X Natural Community Conservation Plan, or -10- :` ,' other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? General Plan MEA, pages 74-87) IV. a)-O The project site is fully developed, and does not contain any significant natural community. Some existing landscaping occurs, and the redevelopment of the site will increase the landscaped area. These existing and future landscaped areas may provide habitat for native species. Furthermore, the site is not located in an area identified as having potential habitat for any species of concern. The proposed project site is located within the mitigation fee area for the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard. No impacts to biological resources are expected to occur as a result of implementation of the proposed project. -11- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact 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? (General Plan MEA p. 123 ff.) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in X the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to'15064.5? (General Plan MEA p. 123 ff.) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique X paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (General Plan MEA Exhibit 5.9) d) Disturb any human remains, including X those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (General Plan MEA p. 123 ff.) V. a)- d) The project site is fully developed. No cultural resources are expected to occur on the site. No historic structures occur on the site. The site is located outside the historic boundary of ancient Lake Cahuilla, and is therefore not expected to contain paleontological resources. The site has been developed and covered in impermeable surfaces for many years, and is not known to contain any buried remains. No impacts associated with cultural resources are expected as a result of implementation of the proposed project. -12- 1 ) t 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? (General Plan pages 97-106) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X (General Plan pages 97-106) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, X including liquefaction? (General Plan pages 97-106) iv) Landslides? (General Plan pages 97-106) X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or X the loss of topsoil? (General Plan pages 97- 106) d) 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 (General Plan pages 97-106) e) Have soils incapable of adequately X supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (General Plan pages 97-106) VI. a)-e) The project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake fault zone. The site is located in a Zone IV groundshaking zone, as defined by the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The building plans submitted for the proposed project will be reviewed by the City to assure their compliance with UBC standards for this zone. The site is flat, and is not located adjacent to slopes which might pose a rockfall hazard. The site is not located in an area of the City subject to liquefaction. The site is not located on expansive soils, and will be required to connect to sanitary sewer service, which occurs adjacent to the site, so that no septic systems will be installed. Overall impacts associated with geology and soils are expected to be less than significant. 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 MEA, 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? (General Plan MEA, p. 95 ff.) 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? General Plan MEA, p. 95 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 result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) f) For a project within the vicinity of a 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 X physically interfere with an adopted -15- emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff) h) Expose people or structures to a X 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) VII. a)-h) The development of 80 residential units is not expected to have any impact on hazardous materials. The homes will utilize small amounts of cleaning products and similar materials, but will not transport, use or store any significant amount of such materials. The City's solid waste franchisee is responsible for the proper disposal of these products, and implements programs for household hazardous waste as part of its contract with the City. Impacts are expected to be insignificant. The site is not identified on any database as having had hazardous materials incidents. The site is not located in the vicinity of an airport or private airstrip. The site is not located adjacent to hillsides, and is not subject to wildland fire hazards. Overall impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials are expected to be less than significant. -16- . 1 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER UALITY -- Would theproject: a) Violate any water quality standards or X waste discharge requirements? (General Plan EIR p. III-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. III-187 ff. c) Substantially alter the existing X drainage 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 X drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) e) Create or contribute runoff water X which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (General Plan EIR p. II1-187 ff.) f) Place housing within a I00-year flood X -17- i y hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (General Plan EIR p. III- 187 ff.) g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard X area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 6.6) VIII. a) & b) The proposed project will be required to comply with all local and regional requirements relating to water pollution prevention. The proposed project will connect to sanitary sewers, and will have no impact relating to waste discharge requirements. Domestic water is supplied to the project site by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The redevelopment of the site will result in the need for domestic water service and for landscaping irrigation, at levels which are expected to be equivalent or less than those currently experienced at the site. The CVWD has prepared a Water Management Plan which indicates that it has sufficient water sources to accommodate growth in its service area. The CVWD has implemented or is implementing water conservation, purchase and replenishment measures which will result in a surplus of water in the long term. The project proponent will be required to implement the City's water efficient landscaping and construction provisions, including requirements for water efficient fixtures, which will likely reduce the per capita consumption of water on the site compared to current conditions. The applicant will also be required to comply with the City's NPDES standards, which protect surface waters from contamination. These City standards will assure that impacts to water quality and quantity will be less than significant. VIII. c) & d) The proposed project is currently fully developed. At the time that the mobile home park was developed, standards associated with on -site retention were much less stringent than they are now. The site therefore does not currently include a comprehensive drainage program. The redevelopment of the site will assure that the storm flows generated on the site are collected into a retention basin, and not released off -site at volumes of velocities exceeding the current condition. The proposed retention basin for the project will be connected to the adjacent basin to the west, creating a sub -regional facility which will improve conditions for the area. The City Engineer will review all plans for the proposed project to assure that the retention basin is sized to accommodate the 100 year storm, as required by City standards. Impacts associated with storm waters are expected, therefore, to improve those currently occurring on the existing mobile home park. VIII. e)-g) The site is not located in a flood zone as designated by FEMA. -18- 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) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat X conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 74 ff.) IX. a)-c) The project site is fully developed as a mobile home park. The previously prepared Initial Study (EA 2003-489), required the preparation and implementation of a Relocation Plan and Replacement Housing Plan for all the qualifying mobile home residents. As a result, the residents of the mobile home park will be relocated, as required by law. The mobile home park is isolated from the surrounding neighborhoods by walls on all sides, and its replacement with rental housing units will not divide the surrounding neighborhoods. The requested General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone will increase the density allowed on the property from 0-4 per acre to 0-8 per acre. The property has been developed at a density of 10 units per acre (90 mobile homes on a 9 acre site) for a number of years, and has therefore been a legal non -conforming use under the General Plan. The proposed redevelopment of the site will result in a density of 8 units per acre. Therefore, the proposed amendment has been requested. Although the change in General Plan and Zoning designations will technically represent an increase in the ultimate number of units occurring in the City, the EIR for the General Plan included existing development in its assumptions, so the existing impacts associated with the mobile home park were analyzed in that document, and the redevelopment of the site will not increase impacts associated with General Plan buildout. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone will allow the redevelopment of the site for a more intense residential land use on an arterial roadway, providing a buffer for the less intense, and more sensitive low density residential units to _ -19- the north. The Amendments will also provide for a variety of housing options, and increase the number of housing units available to very low income households in the City, in conformance to the policies and programs of the General Plan Housing Element. Impacts associated with land use and planning are expected to be less than significant. -20- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant 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 ff.) 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 project site is within the MRZ-1 Zone, and is therefore not considered to have potential for mineral resources. -21- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XI. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation X 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. 111 ff.) b) Exposure of persons to or generation X of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (General Plan MEA p. l l I ff.) c) A substantial permanent increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project(General Plan MEA p. 111 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. 111 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)-f) Redevelopment of the site from the current mobile home park to an 80 unit apartment project will have no impact on the surrounding noise environment. As a fully developed site, the noise generated by activities in the mobile home park are expected to be equivalent to those of the proposed project. -22- The construction of the 80 units will result in housing units approximately 247 feet from the centerline of Miles Avenue. These units will be further buffered from roadway noise by the wall to be constructed at the front of the project, and, for units on the east side of the site, by the recreation or clubhouse building in that area. Noise levels at buildout of the General Plan on a primary arterial can be expected to reach 35,000 trips per day, resulting in noise levels in excess of City standards within 100 feet of the centerline. The General Plan EIR, however, demonstrated that on primary arterials with similar trip generation, the 65 dBA CNEL contour was achieved at a distance of approximately 170 feet from centerline, without mitigation. Therefore, the proposed project units at a distance of 260 feet with the mitigation of a 6 foot wall, will experience exterior noise levels well within acceptable ranges. The demolition of the site, and subsequent construction of the units will result in temporary and periodic noise impacts, particularly for the single family residential units located to the north and west. The project wall will help to alleviate these impacts, and the City's limitation on construction hours, which require that construction occur during the noisier, less sensitive daytime hours, will assure that these impacts are reduced. The impacts will occur for short periods during the demolition and grading of the site. Once construction of the units begins, noise levels will be reduced, although short term noise increases can be expected during that period as well. Overall, however, the construction activities are not expected to exceed the City's 65 dBA CNEL noise levels for exterior noise levels on surrounding properties. The site is not located within the area of influence of an airport or air strip. Overall impacts associated with noise are expected to be less than significant. -� t : ' j a w -23- 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 redevelopment of the project site will provide affordable housing to 80 families, and the relocation of up to 93 families in the existing mobile home park. These populations are generated by normal growth in the City. The proposed redevelopment of the site will support this normal growth rate by providing an additional housing opportunity for existing and new residents. Impacts are expected to be insignificant. The Redevelopment Agency was required by law, and by mitigation measures included in EA 2003-489, to prepare both a replacement housing plan and a relocation plan for the residents of the existing mobile home park. The plan has been implemented, and housing has been identified and secured for mobile home park residents. The relocation of these residents did not require the construction of units specifically for this project, but was accomplished through the use of existing housing vacancies. Overall, impacts associated with population and housing are expected to be less than significant. -24- 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) Redevelopment of the site will have no impact on public services. The site is currently served by fire and police services, and the change from a mobile home park to a rental housing project is likely to reduce the number of responses for the fire department, since construction of permanent housing units will result in less flammable structures on the site. The gating and screening of residents will also reduce the potential numbers of police calls at the project site, insofar as some level of management and control over the type of resident will be exercised. The proposed project will be required to pay school and park fees in place at the time of issuance of building permits. These payments will offset the potential impacts to schools and parks associated with the proposed project. Overall impacts to public services are expected to be less than significant. -25- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact 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) 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 proposed redevelopment project includes on -site recreation for residents, which will minimize the impacts to other recreational facilities in the City. In addition, the project will be required to pay park fees in place at the time that building permits are issued. Impacts associated with recreation are expected to be insignificant. -26- 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. III-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. III-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)? (Proposed site plan) e) Result in inadequate emergency X access? (Proposed site plan) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X (Proposed site plan) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, X or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project description) XV. a)-g) The redevelopment of the site will generate approximately 538 daily trips. The current mobile home park is estimated to generate approximately 449 daily trips. Therefore, the proposed project will increase trips on City and regional roadways by 89 trips per day. On a primary arterial such as Miles Avenue, with an expected buildout daily trip generation -27- t of over 35,000 trips, this represents an increase of 2/100% (.02) in the overall trip generation for the roadway, and will not exceed level of service standards for Miles Avenue at buildout of the General Plan The project does not include inadequate parking or unsafe designs, and has been designed to meet City requirements for multi -family residential projects. The proposed project drive and access have been reviewed by the fire department, and will allow sufficient access for emergency personnel. Transit service is located at Washington and Miles, less than one half miles westerly of the project site, and will be accessible to project residents. Overall impacts associated with transportation are expected to be less than significant. -28- 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 which 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.) -29- XVI. a)-g) The redevelopment of the project site will have no impact on utilities. All utilities are currently servicing the existing mobile home park, and will continue to do so with implementation of the rental housing project. The redevelopment of the site is likely to result in lower energy usage overall, insofar as older mobile homes have less insulation and energy efficient appliances than will be constructed with the proposed project. Water usage and wastewater treatment is likely to be reduced, insofar as the redeveloped units will utilize more water efficient appliances and fixtures, and are likely to use less water. Solid waste generation is expected to be equivalent to that currently generated at the site. The same recycling programs currently in place will be implemented for the redevelopment project. The landfills used by the City's waste franchisee have sufficient capacity to accommodate the existing project, and will continue to do so with implementation of the redevelopment project. No impacts are expected to result with implementation of the proposed project. -30- 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 project site is fully developed and redevelopment of the site will have no impact on biological or cultural resources. XVII. b) The proposed project will help the City reach its affordable housing goals, as outlined in the General Plan Housing Element. These are long term goals. XVII. c) As discussed in this document, no significant cumulative impacts have been identified in analysis of this project. The redevelopment project is likely to reduce potential buildout impacts associated with water resources, energy and other similar impacts, insofar as the new construction will be more energy efficient than the current mobile homes on the site. XVII. d) The impacts associated with air quality are expected to be less than significant with implementation of the mitigation measures included in this document. 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. Environmental Assessment 2003-489 was used in this Study. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. Not applicable. -32- t i _ I 0 M oQ N O � O O 00 O 4 0 0 b� O � U WO° � d con A pU o W a va U � v � � d o 0 oy o �Q v cd o a Cd M ice, 00 k oN oN c U F O z z au �a dd A U W d i H Q A U pq �WAW aX aV U U on H42 to bb to to M x oz UD �o A z a� Q o La Q Q Q 3 to to M Cd N ~ c O too � � c NCd b cd 0-4 cts 3 C.8� a o PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR) ON APPROXIMATELY 9.44 ACRES LOCATED WEST OF ADAMS STREET, NORTH OF MILES AVENUE CASE NO.: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2005-104 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 141h day of June, 2005, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing and to consider the request of the City of La Quinta Redevelopment Agency for a General Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential designation, located at the west of Adams Street and on the north side of Miles Avenue, as shown on Exhibit A., and more particularly described as: A.P.N. 604-032-022: and; WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings to justify a recommendation for approval of said General Plan Amendment: 1. The new land use designation is suitable and appropriate for the property involved because it is an existing Medium Density use and is a narrow rectangular shaped lot more suitable for the higher intensity use. 2. The new land use designation is compatible with the similar designations within the City because the property is accessible from Arterial streets. 3. The proposed Amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare in that the resulting land use does not exceed standards in the General Plan. 4. That the General Plan Amendment is within an area that will be provided with adequate utilities and public services to ensure public health and safety. 5. The Project is consistent with Goals of the General Plan Land Use Element for residential uses and assists in achieving the Quantified Objectives of the General Plan Housing Element 4; 3 P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\VDMHP\PC RESO GPA 2005-104.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2005- General Plan Amendment 2005-104 City of La Quinta Redevelopment Agency. Adopted: June 14, 2005 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby recommend approval of the above -described General Plan Amendment request for the reasons set forth in this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 14th day of June, 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: TOM KIRK, Chairman City of LaQuinta, California ATTEST: DOUGLAS R. EVANS, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California a P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\VDMHP\PC RESO GPA 2005-104.doc � ; r e�E8 11®B gEy�EliL@ �® will c � �Q6�Glt ®mu men va Z tr i � 9`eGQQCi4 Q3 f���y, ��E ¢6�aeeeE e€ E Q F _ w um B.R E� _ �eeB.•s..�m�/� uvice56 �e pAEee� 0 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ON APPROXIMATELY 9.44 ACRES LOCATED WEST OF ADAMS STREET, NORTH OF MILES AVENUE CASE NO.: ZONE CHANGE 2005-124 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 14th day June, 2005, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing and to consider the request of the City of La Quinta Redevelopment Agency, for a Change of Zone from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential designation as shown on Exhibit A., and more particularly described as: A.P.N.: 604-032-022 and; WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings to justify a Zone Change recommendation for approval as follows: 1. This Zone Change is consistent the General Plan, in that the zone change category proposed is consistent with those goals, objectives, and policies in the General Plan Land Use Element and the assists in achieving the Quantified Objectives of the General Plan Housing Element. 2. The Zoning Change is suitable and appropriate for the property involved because it is an existing Medium Density use on a narrow shaped lot which is more suitable for the medium intensity development. 3. The new land use designation is compatible with the similar designations within the City because the property is accessible from arterial streets. This Zone Change will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare in that the resulting land uses will require Planning Commission review and approval of development plans, which will ensure adequate conditions of approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\VDMHP\PC RESO ZC 2005-124.doc d Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Zone Change 2005-124 La Quinta Redevelopment Agency June 14, 2005 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby recommend approval of the above -described Zone Change for the reasons set forth in this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 14th day of June, 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: DOUGLAS R. EVANS Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\VDMHP\PC RESO ZC 2005-124.doc q t ! ,EC E OEM rL CGIEM e may, PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR AN 80-UNIT MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-826 APPLICANT: LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 14th day of June, 2005, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing and to consider the request of the City of La Quinta Redevelopment Agency for a Site Development Permit located west of Adams Street and on the north side of Miles Avenue, and more particularly described as: A.P.N. 604-032-022 : and; WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee did on the 1" day of June, 2005 review the architecture and landscape plans for the proposed project and recommended to the Planning Commission approval of the Project, subject to conditions; 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 Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings to justify approval of said Site Development Permit: 1. The proposed project is consistent with the Goals, Policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan in that the proposals meet General Plan Policy 2-1 2. The design and development of the multi -family residential project will be consistent with the City's Zoning Code provided conditions contained herein are met to ensure consistency with the General Plan and mitigation of environmental consequences pursuant to Environmental Assessment 2005-544. 3. The site design of the proposed project is compatible with the development quality in the area and accommodates site generated traffic. 4. The landscape design of the proposed project complements the building and surrounding development in that it enhances the aesthetic and visual quality of the area, provides adequate visual buffering with trees and mounding, and uses a high quality of plant materials. PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\VDMHP\PC RESO SDP 2005-826.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Site Development Permit 2005-826 La Quinta Redevelopment Agency Adopted: June 14, 2005 5. The architectural design of the project is compatible with the surrounding development in that it is a similar scale, massing and building height of other development in the area; the building materials will be high quality, durable and low maintenance, provided conditions are met. 6. The architectural design of the project is consistent with the Zoning Code in that land use and circulation considerations, scale, massing and building height of the facility are met. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does recommend to the City Council approval of Site Development Permit 2005-826 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission, held on this the 14th day of June, 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 PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\VDMHP\PC RESO SDP 2005-826.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-826 ADOPTED: JUNE 14, 2005 GENERAL 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 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. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain the necessary clearances and/or permits from the following agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) • SunLine Transit Agency • SCAQMD Coachella Valley 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. 3. 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"). 1t , 4 PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\VDMHP\PC COA SDP 2005-826.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2005-_ Conditions of Approval — Recommended Site Development Permit 2005-826 Adopted: June 14, 2005 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. 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. 4. 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). 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. ro P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\VDMHP\PC COA SDP 2005-826.doc 2 Planning Commission Resolution 2005-_ Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2005-826 Adopted: June 14, 2005 6. The applicant shall offer for dedication 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: A. PUBLIC STREETS 1) Miles Street (Primary Arterial - Option A, 1 10' ROW) - The standard 55 feet from the centerline of Miles for a total 1 10-foot ultimate developed right of way except for an additional right of way dedication at the Primary Entry of 63 feet from the centerline and 100 feet long plus a variable dedication of an additional 50 feet to accommodate improvements conditioned under STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 8. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction plans. 9. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public right- of-ways as follows: A. Miles Street (Primary Arterial, Option A) - 20-foot from the R/W-P/L. The setback requirements shall apply to all frontages including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the applicant shall offer for dedication blanket easements for those purposes on the Final Map. 10. 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 improvement plans. 11. Direct vehicular access to Miles Street from lots with frontage along Miles Street is restricted, except for those access points identified on the Site Development Permit site plan, or as otherwise conditioned in these conditions of approval. PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\VDMHP\PC COA SDP 2005-826.doc 3 Planning Commission Resolution 2005-_ Conditions of Approval — Recommended Site Development Permit 2005-826 Adopted: June 14, 2005 12. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as appropriate, from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments will occur. 13. 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 Site Development Permit, unless such easement is approved by the City Engineer. 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. 14. 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. 15. Prior to submission of any improvement plans, the applicant shall submit to the Public Works Department a hydrology report and drainage plan for approval. At a minimum, said hydrology information shall be provided that addresses stormwater retention in existing City owned facilities to the north and west of the property. 16. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the City. 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 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/Demolition Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal B. PM 10 Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal C. SWPPP 1 " = 40' Horizontal NOTE: A through C to be submitted concurrently. D. On -Site Precise Grading Plan 1 " = 30' Horizontal P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\VDMHP\PC COA SDP 2005-826.doc 4 Planning Commission Resolution 2005-_ Conditions of Approval — Recommended Site Development Permit 2005-826 Adopted: June 14, 2005 E. Off -Site Street Improvement/ Storm Drain Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical F. 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 berming design in the combined parkway and landscape setback area. G. On -Site Street Improvements/Signing & Striping/ Storm Drain Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical NOTE: D through G to be submitted concurrently. 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. 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. "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. The applicant shall prepare an accessibility assessment on a marked up print of the building floor plan identifying every building egress and notes the 2001 California Building Code accessibility requirements associated with each door. The assessment must comply with submittal requirements of the Building & Safety Department. A copy of the reviewed assessment shall be submitted to the Engineering Department in conjunction with the Site Development Plan when it is submitted for plan checking. In addition to the normal set of improvement plans, a "On -Site Precise Grading" plan is required to be submitted for approval by the Building Official and the City Engineer. "On -Site Precise Grading" plans shall normally include all on -site surface improvements including but not necessarily limited to finish grades for curbs & PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\VDMHP\PC COA SDP 2005-826.doc 5 Planning Commission Resolution 2005-_ Conditions of Approval — Recommended Site Development Permit 2005-826 Adopted: June 14, 2005 gutters, building floor elevations, parking lot improvements and ADA requirements. 17. The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes for elements of construction. For a fee, established by City Resolution, the applicant may purchase such standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes from the City. 18. 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 19. 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. GRADING 20. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements), LQMC. 21. 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. 22. 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, P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\VDMHP\PC COA SDP 2005-826.doc 6 Planning Commission Resolution 2005-_ Conditions of Approval — Recommended Site Development Permit 2005-826 Adopted: June 14, 2005 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. 23. 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. 24. 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 (6) of the curb, otherwise the maximum slope within the right of way shall not exceed 3:1. All unpaved parkway areas adjacent to the curb shall be depressed one and one-half inches (1.5") in the first eighteen inches (18") behind the curb. 25. 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. P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\VDMHP\PC COA SDP 2005-826.doc 7 Planning Commission Resolution 2005-_ Conditions of Approval — Recommended Site Development Permit 2005-826 Adopted: June 14, 2005 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. DRAINAGE 26. As conditioned above, the applicant shall submit to the Public Works Department a hydrology report and drainage plan for approval. At a minimum, said hydrology information shall be provided that addresses stormwater retention in existing City owned facilities to the north and west of the property. 27. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.120 (Drainage), LQMC, Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03. More specifically, stormwater falling on site during the 100 year storm shall be retained within the development, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 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. 28. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. 29. 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. 30. 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. 31. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. In residential developments, nuisance water shall be disposed of in a trickling sand filter and leach field or equivalent i, .Q) P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\VDMHP\PC COA SDP 2005-826.doc 8 Planning Commission Resolution 2005-_ Conditions of Approval — Recommended Site Development Permit 2005-826 Adopted: June 14, 2005 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. 32. 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. 33. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. 34. 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. For retention basins on individual lots, retention depth shall not exceed two feet. 35. 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. 36. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. 37. 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 38. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.1 10 (Utilities), LQMC. P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\VDMHP\PC COA SDP 2005-826.doc 9 Planning Commission Resolution 2005-_ Conditions of Approval — Recommended Site Development Permit 2005-826 Adopted: June 14, 2005 39. 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. 40. 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. 41. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for approval by the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 42. 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. 43. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan. A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1) Miles Street (Primary Arterial — Option A; 1 10' R/W): Widen the north side of the street along all frontage adjacent to the Site Development Permit boundary to its ultimate width on the north 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 design standard including vertical profile design standards. The north curb face shall be located forty three feet (43') P 4 P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\VDMHP\PC COA SDP 2005-826.doc 10 Planning Commission Resolution 2005-_ Conditions of Approval — Recommended Site Development Permit 2005-826 Adopted: June 14, 2005 north of the centerline, except at locations where additional street width is needed to accommodate: a. Relocation the existing bus turnout and construct City of La Quinta bus shelter. b. A deceleration/right turn only lane at Miles Street Primary Entry. The north curb face shall be located fifty five feet (55') north of the centerline and length to be determined by a traffic study prepared for the applicant by a licensed traffic engineer per Engineering Bulletin # 03-08. As a minimum, the required right of way shall be for a length of 100 feet plus a variable dedication of an additional 50 feet. Other required improvements in the Miles Street right or way and/or adjacent landscape setback area include: C. All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to: curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs, plus a single overhead street light at the primary entry to Miles Street. d. 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk. The meandering sidewalk shall have an arrhythmic horizontal layout that utilizes concave and convex curves with respect to the curb line that either touches the back of curb or approaches within five feet of the curb at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. The sidewalk curvature radii should vary between 50 and 300 feet and at each point of reverse curvature, the radius should change to assist in creating the arrhythmic layout. The sidewalk shall meander into the landscape setback lot and approach within 5 feet of the perimeter wall at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. e. A County of Riverside benchmark in the Miles Street right of way established by a licensed surveyor. B. PRIVATE STREETS 1) Private street widths and layout shall conform to the shape shown on the approved Site Development Permit site plan. Parking shall be allowed on both sides of the street in marked parking stalls only. Where no parking stalls are provided, the minimum street PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\VDMHP\PC COA SDP 2005-826.doc 11 Planning Commission Resolution 2005-_ Conditions of Approval — Recommended Site Development Permit 2005-826 Adopted: June 14, 2005 width shall be 26 feet except at the entry accessway. 2) All right -turn only street intersections shall have a splitter median island located in the side street that adequately channelizes the right -turn vehicles turning onto the arterial street to eliminate illegal * left turns. The splitter island shall be designed in conformance with design concepts approved by the City Engineer. C. COURTYARD DRIVEWAYS 1) The courtyard driveway area throat width and layout shall conform to the shape shown on the approved Site Development Permit site plan. Parking shall be prohibited in all common courtyard driveway and cul de sac areas. The applicant shall make provisions for ongoing enforcement of the parking restriction. 44. All gated entries shall provide for a three -car minimum stacking capacity for inbound traffic; and shall provide for a full turn -around outlet for non -accepted vehicles. Where a gated entry is proposed, the applicant shall submit a detailed exhibit at a scale of 1 " = 10', demonstrating that those passenger vehicles that do not gain entry into the development can safely make a full turn -around out onto the main street from the gated entry. Two lanes of traffic shall be provided on the entry side of each gated entry, one lane shall be dedicated for residents and one lane for visitors. Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, standard knuckles, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes and other features shown on the approved construction plans, may require additional street widths as may be determined by the City Engineer. 45. 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/Courtyard Driveways 3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b. Primary Arterial 4.5" a.c./6.0" c.a.b. or the approved equivalents of alternate materials. P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\VDMHP\PC COA SDP 2005-826.doc 12 Planning Commission Resolution 2005-_ Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2005-826 Adopted: June 14, 2005 46. 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. 47. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Primary Entry (Miles Street): Right turn in and out and left turn in movements are permitted. Left turn out movements are prohibited. 48. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs and sidewalks. 49. 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. CONSTRUCTION 50. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly - maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets in residential developments are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the development or when directed by the City, whichever comes first. LANDSCAPING 51. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC. PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\VDMHP\PC COA SDP 2005-826.doc 13 Planning Commission Resolution 2005-_ Conditions of Approval — Recommended Site Development Permit 2005-826 Adopted: June 14, 2005 52. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, common lots and park areas. 53. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. 54. The applicant shall submit the landscape plans for approval by the Community Development Department (CDD), prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking has been completed by CDD, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner, prior to submittal for signature by the City Engineer. NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. 55. 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. PUBLIC SERVICES 56. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by SunLine Transit Agency and approved by the City Engineer. QUALITY ASSURANCE 57. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 58. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such other appropriate professionals as are required to provide the expertise with which to prepare and sign accurate record drawings, and to provide adequate construction supervision. 59. 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. 60. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City with reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\VDMHP\PC COA SDP 2005-826.doc 14 Planning Commission Resolution 2005-_ Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2005-826 Adopted: June 14, 2005 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 61. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance), LQMC. 62. 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 63. 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. 64. 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). FIRE DEPARTMENT 65. Approved super fire hydrants (6"Wx2-2 % "), shall be spaced every 330 feet and shall be located not less than 25 feet nor more than 165 feet from any portion of the buildings as measured along outside travel ways. 66. Blue dot reflectors shall be placed in the street 8 inches from centerline to the side that the fire hydrant is on, to identify fire hydrant locations 67. The water mains shall be capable of providing a potential fire flow of 2500 gpm and the actual fire flow from any two adjacent hydrants shall be 1500 gpm for a 2-hour duration at 20-psi residual operating pressure. 68. City of La Quinta ordinance requires all commercial buildings 5,000 sq. ft. or larger to be fully sprinkled. NFPA 13 Standard. Sprinkler plans will need to be submitted to the Fire Department. P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\VDMHP\PC COA SDP 2005-826.doc 15 Planning Commission Resolution 2005-_ Conditions of Approval — Recommended Site Development Permit 2005-826 Adopted: June 14, 2005 69. Fire Department connections (FDC) shall be not less than 25 feet nor more than 50 feet from a fire hydrant and shall be located on the front street side of the buildings. 70. Any gate providing access from a public roadway to a private entry roadway shall be located at least 35 feet setback from the roadway curb and shall open to allow a vehicle to stop without obstructing traffic on the road. Minimum access road width is 20 feet clear, except where there is a median (length 66 feet max., width 6 feet max). There are a total of three medians where a reduced road access width occurs over a distance of no more than 66 feet. An unobstructed vertical clearance of 13 %2 feet must be maintained on all access roads for a width of 20 feet and the entire width of the reduced access road where medians occur. 71. Gates shall be automatic, minimum 20 feet in width and shall be equipped with a rapid entry system (KNOX). Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation. Automatic gate pins shall be rated with a shear pin force, not to exceed 30 pounds. Gates activated by the rapid entry system shall remain open until closed by the rapid entry system. 72. Building plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for plan review to run concurrent with the City plan check. Water plans for the fire protection system (fire hydrants, fdc, etc.) shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 73. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot. 74. Fire Department street access shall come to within 150 feet of all portions of the 1 st. floor of all buildings, by path of exterior travel. Turning radiuses shall be no less than 38 feet outside. 75. 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. PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\VDMHP\PC COA SDP 2005-826.doc 16 Planning Commission Resolution 2005-_ Conditions of Approval — Recommended Site Development Permit 2005-826 Adopted: June 14, 2005 76. Install a KNOX key box on each common building. (Contact the fire department for an application). 77. Install portable fire extinguishers as required by the California Fire Code. 78. Any submissions to the fire department are the responsibility of the applicant. SHERIFF DEPARTMENT 79. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. Prior to issuance of a building permit, applicant shall review building plans with the Sheriff's Department regarding Vehicle Code requirements, defensible space, and other law enforcement and public safety concerns. All questions regarding the Sheriff's Department should be directed to the Deputy at (760) 863-895 . ARCHITECTURE LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE 80. Final location and design of the trash enclosures shall be approved by the Community Development Director. 81. The landscape plan shall reduce the dependence on Crape Myrtle trees; and substitute all Date Palm trees that pose a safety risk with another Palm tree to be approved by the Community Development Director. 82. The retention basin design shall incorporate a transition from the existing turf basin to a more drought tolerant basin. 83. Eliminate the Evergreen Elms from the plant palette and substitute another tree such as a non -flowering Olive tree. 84. At the driveway entrance, provide decorative textured paving, such as a paving stones or stamped concrete. 85. Increase the size of the support beam of the shade structures and provide a "heavier" appearance. P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\VDMHP\PC COA SDP 2005-826.doc 17 ATTACHMENT #1 PROJECT LOCATION cn E �m Miles Avenue I _1- .11. N PROJECT LOCATION MAP ATTACHMENT #3 MINUTES ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING A Regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA June 1, 2005 10:00 a.m. I. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee was called to order at 10:10 a.m. by Principal Planner Fred Baker. B. Committee Members present: Frank Christopher, Bill Bobbitt, and David Thoms. C. Staff present: Principal Planner Fred Baker and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: Norte. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT CALF tPDAR: A. Staff eked if there were any changes to the Minutes of May 4, 2005. Theri being no changes, it was moved and seconded by Committee M nbers Christopher/Thoms to approve the Minutes as submitted. lianimously approved. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Site Development Permit 2005-826; a request of the City of La Quinta Redevelopment Agency for consideration of architectural and a , conceptual landscaping plans for an 80-unit multi -family residential project for the property located at 78-990 Miles Avenue. 1. Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff corrected the setbacks for the project. Staff introduced Frank Spevacek, and Jon McMillen from RSG and Robin Vettraino and Luke Taylor of NGA, the architect and landscape architect, who gave a presentation on the project. GAWPD0CS\ALRC\6-1-05 ALRC.doc Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee May 4, 2005 1. Committee Member Bobbitt Noted his residence was outside the 500-foot radius of the project and he did not believe he had a conflict of interest. 2. Committee Member Christopher asked how the developer to the west dealt with the units that were sitting on the property line. Mr. McMillen explained the wall was built long after the units were installed and each resident has added additional landscaping. 3. Committee Member Thorns asked for a definition of an organic DG. Mr. McMillen explained it would be a transition between the decomposed granite (DG) to the grass retention basin to the west. Committee Member Thorns asked if the retention basin to the west was grass. Mr. McMillen stated it currently was. Staff discussed changing this retention basin to DG as well and after discussion with the neighboring residents, who use the retention basin, it was determined to leave it as grass. 4. Committee Member Christopher asked if the units were for sale and the cost of construction. Mr. McMillen stated they would be rentals and the cost of the project is approximately $95.00/sq. ft. 5. Committee Member Trams asked about the heat exchanger. Mr. McMillen explained this feature is an energy and conservation savings. He went on to explain how it functioned. Committee Member Christopher asked the material of the lattice work. Mr. McMillen stated they were metal. 6. Committee Member Christopher asked the maximum height of the buildings. The applicant stated they were 12 feet and the towers 17 feet, setback in the middle of the building. The common building is 12 feet and the maximum height is 20'6". 7. Committee Member Thorns asked the color of the patio and the parking trellis. The achitect stated the dark accent color. The carports are metal corrugated roofs in the silver color. The support posts will be metal and the darker color. The low block wall will be a mixture of the two colors. Solar panels are on the individual units. G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\6-1-05 ALRC.doc 2 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee May 4, 2005 8. Committee Member Christopher stated the setback of the buildings on the west side seems greater than the setback on the east side. Mr. McMillen stated they are 22 feet on residential and 15 on the Church. Committee Member Christopher asked the width of the street. Mr. McMillen stated on narrowest part it is 26 feet. The islands are six feet wide. The drive lanes around the island narrow to 18 feet. 9. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the 16 guest parking was for the entire development. Mr. McMillen stated yes with an additional two per rental space for a total of 42. He went on to show their location on the display. Staff stated they meet the Zoning Code requirements, 10. Committee Member Christopher asked if overnight parking was being prohibited. Mr. McMillen explained a management company will be obligated to do criminal background checks and yearly registration on all vehicles. Vehicles will be registered at the office and each tenant will be required to have car insurance. 11. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about the galvanized steel gate shown on Plan 1. Mr. McMillen stated it is a trash enclosure or enclosure on the commons building. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if they would be painted. The architect stated the material has not yet been determined. Committee Member Bobbitt asked what concerns were expressed by the neighbors. Mr. McMillen stated they were informed it would be an affordable housing project. After giving them the criteria based on State requirements and what the Agency was proposing, most everyone was comfortable with the project. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he was comfortable with the project, but noted it is very dense. He asked the reason for this density? Staff stated they are lowering the density from what is existing. They are going from 92 to 80 units. The City's Redevelopment Agency Plan needs to produce more affordable units in the 3-4 bedroom unit category and this is the right location. Mr. Frank Spevacek stated the location was chosen because of what was existing at this location. The Agency was able to secure the Park at an affordable price and determined to have as many affordable units as possible to help meet the State requirements for affordable housing. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if it is mandated to a city that they must have G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\6-1-05 ALRC.doc 3 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee May 4, 2005 affordable housing or is it if they want the funds from the State. Mr. Spevacek stated the way the Redevelopment Agency is set up is that we can access State Federal funds, but the primary source of La Quinta's funding is the allocation of tax increment funds and bonds. 12. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if this was a very low-income project. Mr. Spevacek stated it is a very low-income project and the goal is to have a management company that will maintain and keep it that way. Committee Member Bobbitt expressed the concern of the neighborhood is their property values. This appears to be a good project with what is allowed. If the management company operates it properly, it could be a decent project. His hope with the transition of the Park to eliminate the criminal that currently exists. 13. Committee Member Christopher noted with the requirements to live here it will help to eliminate a lot of the problem residents. He noted that the trailer park housed those individuals who lived here as a last resort. This fed a lot of the activity that occurred at the Park. 14. Committee Member Bobbitt noted the current residents use the Adams Street Park; does this new site have access to the park? Mr. McMillen noted that when the fire station was constructed a 3.5 foot opening was left for access to the park. It will be accessible by virtue of the entry gate key. Committee Member Bobbitt asked the reason for the recreation area at the front of the Park instead of the middle. Mr. McMillen staetd the concern was to give the larger buffer to Miles Avenue, but given the constraints of the land design it would not work at any other location. It was not an efficient use of the land. 15. Committee Member Thorns asked about the major tree palette. Mr. Taylor stated they were date palms and crepe myrtles. 16. Committee Member Bobbitt stated the crepe myrtle is a high maintenance tree and deciduous that will be messy. 17. Committee Member Thorns stated it would be best to limit the number. Mr. Taylor noted the larger trees were Evergreen Elm. G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\6-1-05 ALRC.doc 4 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee May 4, 2005 18. Committee Member Bobbitt stated this was another messy tree. Mr. Taylor stated the other proposed trees were the Palo Verde and Acacia. It will be the same on both sides of the street. Committee Member Bobbitt stated the elm needs to be replaced and possible the crepe myrtle. 19. Committee Member Thorns asked what was proposed for the property line trees. Mr. Taylor stated two varieties of acacia. 20. Committee Member Bobbitt suggested that instead of the elm a fruitless olive be used as a long term solution. 21. Committee Member Thorns stated the lattice structure over the parking area is weak; it appears to be spindly. The elevations are on the block side and the structure looks cheap. Mr. McMillen asked if a metal material would that be better. 22. Committee Member Bobbitt stated wood would never last. If wood is used it has to be pressure treated. The uprights would then need to be steel. 23. Committee Member Christopher noted you could use two smaller elements and create mass by using more elements. 24. Committee Member Thorns stated the main drive entrance up to the gate should have an enhanced paving such as a stamped detail. He likes the idea that the buildings are simple. The landscape should be kept simple as well. Just beef up the overhead structure. 25. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Christop her/Thoms to adopt Minute Motion 2005-022 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2005-816, as recommended and as follows: a. Eliminate the Evergreen Elm trees; b. Enhance the paving at the entrance in a decorative texture such as a paving stone; C. Eliminate the spindly effect of the support beams on the shade structure; d. Transition the existing retention basin with existing turf retention basin G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\6-1-05 ALRC.doc 5 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee May 4, 2005 e. The trash enclosures shall be approved by the Community Development Director; and f. Substitute the Date Palm tree with another palm tree where it is a safety risk Unanimously approved. VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: None Vill. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Thoms to adjourn this regular meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee to a Special Meeting to be held on June 16, 2005. This meeting was adjourned at 1 1:04 p.m. on June 1, 2005. Respectfully submitted, BETTY J. SAWYER Executive Secretary GAWPD0CS\ALRC\6-1-05 ALRC.doc 6 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 14, 2005 CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-536, ZONE CHANGE 2005-123 AND TENTATIVE TRACT 31434 APPLICANT: MONROE DATES, LLC ENGINEER: CAL VADA SURVEYING, INC. LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF MONROE STREET, AT AVENUE 61 REQUEST: CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, ZONE CHANGE FROM LOW DENSITY /AGRICULTURAL -EQUESTRIAN RESIDENTIAL TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, AND SUBDIVISION OF 28.7 f ACRES INTO 118 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-536 WAS PREPARED FOR THIS TENTATIVE TRACT MAP IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED. THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THEREFORE, RECOMMENDS THAT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BE RECOMMENDED FOR CERTIFICATION. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: LDR (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, UP TO 4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE-AGRICULTURE/EQUESTRIAN OVERLAY) ZONING: RL (LOW DENSITY/AGRICULTURE-EQUESTRIAN RESIDENTIAL) SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USES: NORTH: RMH / TRIOLOGY COUNTRY CLUB SOUTH: RMH / TRIOLOGY COUNTRY CLUB EAST: RM AND RL / VACANT -PART APPROVED FOR TT31733 WEST: RMH / TRIOLOGY COUNTRY CLUB PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\Monroe Dates\tt 31434 zc 05-123 pc rpt.doc BACKGROUND: The site consists of two lots with 1,322 feet of depth and 997 feet of street frontage on the west side of Monroe Street. The project site is surrounded on the north, south and west by Trilogy Country Club which is under construction (Attachment 1). The site once was improved with a single-family residence and large pool. These improvements have been demolished. Approximately three -fourths of the site with the exception of the northeast quadrant of the site is planted in date palm trees which were previously farmed. A block wall exists along the north property line which was constructed by Trilogy Country Club. PROJECT REQUEST: Zone Change In order to allow this project the Low Density/Agricultural-Equestrian Residential District needs to be changed to Low Density Residential, which allows minimum 7,200 sq. ft. single family lots and up to 4 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The Low Density/Agricultural-Equestrian Residential District requires a minimum 10,000 sq. ft. lot and allows approximately 3 du/ac. Additionally, it permits limited equestrian and agricultural uses. The applicant is proposing 118 single family lots which is 4 du/ac. No equestrian or agricultural uses are proposed. Therefore, the applicant has requested the Zone Change. Tentative Tract Map The applicant is proposing to subdivide the site into 118 single-family lots (Attachment 2). Several miscellaneous lots would be created, primarily for storm water retention, landscaping, private streets and two play and recreation areas. The proposed Low Density Residential (RL) zoning requires a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet. All lots exceed this requirement with the smallest lot being 7,206 square feet, the largest 10,205 square feet with the average lot 7,710 square feet. One retention basin lot, two play and recreation lots, one well site and several common area lots are proposed. No indication is provided as to what the play and recreation lots will consist of. Access to the card gated tract is provided across from Avenue 61 which dead ends into the project site. An eight -foot wide landscape median is shown in the private street entry. An emergency access is shown to Monroe Street near the north end. The project will have 36-foot wide curvilinear streets and wedge -type curbs. On four of the east -west running streets, the curb "bows" out at approximately the mid point of its depth to provide one traffic calming devise on each street. On -site storm water retention is provided in a basin along Monroe Street. PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\Monroe Dates\tt 31434 zc 05-123 pc rpt.doc Public Notice This map application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on June 3, 2005. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required by the La Quinta Municipal Code. As of this writing, seven letters from owners in Trilogy objecting to the layout of the proposed tract. One letter of support has been received (Attachment 3). Public Agency Review All written comments received are on file with the Community Development Department. All applicabie agency comments received have been made part of the Conditions of Approval for this case. ISSUES: The objections raised in the letters received pertain to how the location and grading of the proposed lots and subsequent construction of homes will impact their views. For the most part the new lots finish grade will be even or slightly lower than those lots in Trilogy. Some of the proposed lots are offset from the Trilogy lots, providing a view corridor between the new residences. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: Findings necessary to recommend approval of this request can be made, as conditioned, and contained in the attached Resolutions for the Environmental Assessment, Zone Change and Tentative Tract Map. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005- , recommending to the City Council certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental Assessment 2005-536; and, 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005- , recommending to the City Council approval of Zone Change 2005-123, subject to attached Findings; and 3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005- , recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 31434, subject to attached Findings and Conditions of Approval. Attachments: PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\Monroe Dates\tt 31434 zc 05-123 pc rpt.doc 1. Location Map 2. TT 31434 map exhibit 3. Letters received Prepared by: Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\Monroe Dates\tt 31434 zc 05-123 pc rpt.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-536 PREPARED FOR ZONE CHANGE 2005-123 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31434 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-536 APPLICANT: MONROE DATES, LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 141" day of June, 2005, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Monroe Dates, LLC for Environmental Assessment 2005-536 prepared for Zone Change 2005-123 and Tentative Tract 31434, located on the west side of Monroe Street at Avenue 61, more particularly described as: APN's: 764-280-014 AND 764-270-015 WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63). The Community Development Director has determined that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and therefore, is recommending that this Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact be certified. A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been posted with the Riverside County Recorder's office as required by Section 15072 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) statutes; and WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify recommending to the City Council certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1. The proposed applications will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2005-536. 2. The proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to pAstan\ttms\tt 31434 ea 05-536 peres.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Environmental Assessment 2005-536 Monroe Dates, LLC Adopted: June 14, 2005 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. 3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends. 4. The proposed project do not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the Environmental Assessment. 5. The proposed project will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the proposed project. 6. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public services. 7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. 8. The Planning Commission has considered Environmental Assessment 2005-536 and said assessment reflects the independent judgment of the City. 9. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d). 10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California. Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Environmental Assessment 2005-536 Monroe Dates, LLC Adopted: June 14, 2005 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment. 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of Environmental Assessment 2005-536 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Mitigation Monitoring Program, attached and on file in the Community Development Department. 3. That Environmental Assessment 2005-536 reflects the independent judgment of the City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 141h day of June, 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 Environmental Checklist Form (EA 2005-536) 1. Project title: Zone Change 2005-123 and Tentative Tract Map 31434 2. Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact person and phone number: Stan Sawa, Principal Planner 760-777-7125 4. Project location: Northwest corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 61, also known as 60-995 Monroe Street. APN 764-270-015 and 764-280-014. 5. Project sponsor's name and address: Monroe Dates, LLC 1387 Ambassador Way Salt Lake City, UT 84108 6. General plan designation: Low Density Residential (up to 4 du/acre) with an Agricultural/ Equestrian Overlay 7. Zoning: Low Density Residential (up to 4 du/acre) with an Agricultural/ 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 118 single family lots which will be built upon 30.27 acres on which a date farm is now located. The application includes a zoning change to RL (removing the Agricultural/Equestrian Overlay), and approval of Tentative Tract Map 31434. The project is on Monroe Street in the southern area of the City, in an area which has been transforming rapidly from agriculture to residential communities including golf courses. The majority of the lots will be just over 7,200 square feet. Some lots will be as large as 10,430 square feet. All interior roadways will be private streets. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: North: Existing single family homes, Medium High Density South: Existing single family homes, Medium High Density West: Existing single family homes, Medium High Density East: Monroe Street, abandoned agricultural field and a date grove/Medium High Density. TT 31733 approved on northeast corner. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Coachella Valley Water District PAstan\ttm\tt31434 ea 05-536checklist.doc 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 Agriculture Resources Cultural Resources Hydrology / Water Quality Noise Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance Air Quality Geology /Soils Land Use / Planning Population / Housing Transportation/Traffic Systems DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, X 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. r �' 4, D's Signature Date -2- EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the 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 or 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 mitigation 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 to 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 Mitigation Measures 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 proj ect. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead -3- 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 -4- 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? (General Plan Exhibit 3.6) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, X including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Aerial photograph) 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)-d) Monroe Street is not designated an Image Corridor in the General Plan. Views of the Coral Mountains are available to the west and south of the property. There will be a visual transition when the existing date farm is replaced by a residential development, but this is the pattern which has been set for much of Monroe Street and other nearby roads. Light and glare will emanate from the dwellings in the Monroe Dates residential development, once construction is complete and the homes have been occupied. Likewise light and glare from vehicular traffic, as well as from future street lights on Monroe Street will be evident. The proposed project will be required to conform to City lighting standards, which require that on -site lighting be contained within the property boundary. Impacts associated with light and glare is expected to be less than significant. Building practices should be consistent with those used in developments which minimize the use of glass and other reflective surfaces. Future development is anticipated to have a less than significant impact on daytime views, but may have a more substantial impact on night skies and adjoining lands due to new sources of light and glare. Impacts associated with scenic resources are generally expected to be less than significant. For the most part the new lots finish grade will be even or slightly lower than those lots in Trilogy. Some of the proposed lots are offset from the Trilogy lots, providing a view corridor between the new residences. An option is to require low profile one story residences adjacent to Trilogy. -5- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique X Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide 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) II. a)-c) Maps from the California Department of Conservation's Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program indicate that the Monroe Dates site is not prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance. 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. Although this property has an agricultural/equestrian overlay (which allows but does not require agricultural and equestrian uses to be provided or continued), the underlying and primary use of the property according to the General Plan is residential. The site is surrounded by existing and approved urban development, and as such is isolated from areas of commercial farming located to the east and south. Impacts to agricultural resources from the loss of the proposed project site are therefore expected to be less than significant. -6- 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 PM10 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 118 single family homes, which have the potential to generate up to 1,132 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. "Trip Generation, 6a' Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, category 210, Single Family Detached. -7- Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout (pounds per day) Ave. Trip Total Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Length (miles) miles/day 1.132 x 15 = 16,980 PM10 PM10 PM10 Pollutant ROC CO NOX Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wear Grams at 50 mph 1,526 39,686 8,141 - 169.6 169.6 Pounds at 50 3.39 87.57 17.95 0.36 0.36 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. 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 and Coachella Valley are a severe non -attainment area for PM 10 (Particulates of 10 microns or less). The Valley's 2002 PM 10 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 dust during construction. Under mass grading conditions, the project site can be expect to generate up to 799 pounds of dust per day. The contractor will be required to submit a PM 10 Management Plan prior to initiation of any earth moving activity. In addition, the potential impacts associated with PM 10 can be mitigated by the measures below. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize exhaust emissions. 2. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary power poles to avoid on -site power generation. -8- 3. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit opportunities. 4. Imported fill shall be adequately watered prior to transport, covered during transport, and watered prior to unloading on the project site. 5. Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of three feet prior to the onset of grading activities. 6. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed on an on- going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the site. Portions of the site that are actively being graded shall be watered regularly to ensure that a crust is formed on the ground surface, and shall be watered at the end of each work day. 7. Any area which remains undeveloped for a period of more than 30 days shall be stabilized using either chemical stabilizers or a desert wildflower mix hydroseed on the affected portion of the site. 8. Landscaping on Monroe Street shall be installed immediately following project precise grading, as will the project's perimeter wall. 9. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean-up of construction - related dirt on approach routes to the site. 10. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour Implementation of these mitigation measures will ensure that impacts associated with PM10 are mitigated to a less than significant level. II1. d) & e) Air quality related values such as visibility of panoramas inside the Coachella Valley, and clear, long distance vistas outside to the nearby mountain ranges and beyond, are considered to be primary attractions of visitors to the area. Some views have diminished significantly because of a gradual deterioration of air quality in recent decades primarily due to polluting sources in the Los Angeles Basin. sources No major sensitive receptors are near the proposed Monroe Dates housing development (except for other residential developments), and there are no schools or hospitals within a mile of the proposed development.. The development will result in increased auto and truck emissions, and the potential for wood burning stove emissions. 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 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 upon mitigation. -9- 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 ff.) 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 X adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.) -10- IV. a)-f) The City's Comprehensive General Plan indicates that the proposed Monroe Dates development site is not habitat for endangered species such as the: Giant Sand Treader Cricket; Desert Tortoise; Fringe -Toed Lizard; Flat -Tailed Horned Lizard; Palm Springs Ground Squirrel; Pam Springs Pocket Mouse; or Peninsular Bighorn Sheep. The site is entirely disturbed, having been a date grove for a considerable period of time. No native plant communities were identified on the site. According to a June 2003 Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis of the proposed Monroe Dates project by Ecological Consultants2, no proposed or officially listed plant or animal species were detected and no sensitive habitats were found on the site. This project will not have significant negative impacts upon biological resources within the region. Overall, impacts to biological resources from this proposed development are expected to be insignificant. 2 "Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis for the Proposed Monroe Dates Project," prepared by Ecological Consultants, June 2003. -11- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact 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? ("Archaeological Testing & Evaluation Report.." CRM Tech, Sept. 2003) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in X the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to'15064.5? ("Archaeological Testing & Evaluation Report." CRM Tech, Sept. 2003) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique X paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (Paleontologic Resources Assessment ... CRM Tech, July 2003) d) Disturb any human remains, including X those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (General Plan MEA p. 123 ff.) V.a)-d) Several hundred years ago the project site was beneath an inland body of water known to geologists as Lake Cahuilla. The ancient shoreline of Lake Cahuilla contains one of the densest concentrations of archaeological sites anywhere in California including hundreds of prehistoric and historic -period sites as well as historic buildings dating to the 19th and early to mid-20th centuries. The Fish Traps Archaeological Site is located just five blocks south of the proposed Monroe Dates residential development, and one block north of the Torres Martinez Indian Reservation. The site is in a region of high sensitivity for both prehistoric and historical archaeological resources. Both Phase I and Phase II cultural resource investigations were completed for the project site 3. The Phase II investigation was completed to determine the significance of previously recorded site CA-RIV-7138/H. The site had been previously identified as a scatter of ceramic shards and historic -era glass and ceramic materials. The materials were found not to meet the requirements of CEQA for significance. Therefore, according to CRM Tech, the site does not possess the potential to yield any important archaeological information regarding prehistoric or historic -era lifeways in the area. However, since the area has yielded a number of significant archaeological resources, and the potential exists that these resources occur below -ground on the project site, mitigation is recommended to assure that there are no impacts associated with development of the site. "Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment of a 28.73 acre Property at Monroe Street and Avenue 61," prepared by Archaeological Advisory Group, July 2003; and "Archaeological Testing and Evaluation Report Site CA-RIV-7138/H," prepared by CRM Tech, September 2003. -12- A paleontological resource analysis was completed for the project site 4. The analysis found that the site is within the historic boundary of ancient Lake Cahuilla. Shell fragments were identified on the site, although it has been significantly disturbed. The study found that the potential for resources occurring beneath the surface is high, and that mitigation is required to assure that potential impacts associated with development of the project site are reduced to less than significant levels. The following mitigation measures are required: 1. The site shall be monitored during on- and off -site trenching and rough grading by qualified archaeological monitors. Proof of retention of monitors shall be given to the City prior to issuance of the first earth -moving or clearing permit. Monitoring crew shall include a Native American representative. 2. The final report on the monitoring shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the project. 3. Collected archaeological resources shall be properly packaged for long term curation, in polyethylene self -seal bags, vials, or film cans as appropriate, all within acid -free, standard size, comprehensively labeled archive boxes and delivered to the City prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the property. 4. On- and off -site monitoring of earth -moving and trenching in areas identified as likely to contain paleontological resources shall be conducted by a qualified paleontological monitor. 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 City prior to issuance of first earth -moving permit, or before any clearing of the site is begun. 5. Recovered specimens shall be prepared to the point of identification and permanent preservation, including washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates. 6. A report of findings with an appended itemized inventory of specimens shall be submitted to the City prior to the first occupancy of a residence being granted by the City. The report shall include pertinent discussions of the significance of all recovered resources where appropriate. The report and inventory, when submitted will signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontological resources. 7. Collected resources and related reports, etc. shall be given to the City for curation. Packaging of resources, reports, etc. shall comply with standards commonly used in the paleontological industry. 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 4 "Paleontological Resources Assessment Report 60995 Monroe Avenue," prepared by CRM Tech, July 2003. -13- project notify the authorities. The project contractor will be required to conform to these regulations, and will report any remains, should they be identified. -14- 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) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, X including liquefaction? (MEA Exhibit 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) d) 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) e) Have soils incapable of adequately X supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (General Plan Exhibit 8.1) VI. a)-e) The geotechnical report for this site, written by Sladden Engineering', states that the site is not located in any Earthquake Fault zones as designated by the State, but is mapped in Riverside County's Liquefaction Zone and Ground Shaking Hazard Zone IV. The property, as with the rest of the City, will be subject to significant ground movement in the event of a major earthquake. Structures on the site will be required to meet the City's and the State's standards for construction, which include Uniform Building Code 5 Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Residential Development Monroe Street and Avenue 61, prepared by Sladden Engineering. May 2003. -15- requirements for seismic zones. The City Engineer will require the preparation of site - specific geotechnical analysis in conjunction with the submittal of grading plans. This requirement will ensure that impacts from ground shaking are reduced to a less than significant level. The soils underlying the site consist primarily of silty sands, sandy silts and clayey silts. As is typical for the area, these soils are inconsistently interbedded and vary in thickness. Silty sands were the most prominent soils. The site soils were dry near the surface in most of Sladden Engineering's borings, but several sandy silt and clayey silt layers were found to have high moisture content. The expansion potential for the silty sands located just below the surface is classified as very low. Although the Monroe Dates site has several of the factors required for liquefaction to occur, Sladden Engineering has indicated that the silty sand layers encountered within their borings are generally considered too dense to be susceptible to liquefaction, and that the proposed development site is feasible from a soil mechanic's standpoint. Remedial grading has been recommended for building areas to result in a uniform compacted soil mat beneath the footings of all buildings which will be constructed. The proposed project is not located in an area subject to rockfall or landslides, as the site is flat, and is surrounded by land which is also level and located on the floor of the Coachella Valley — far from potential rockfall. The site does not have expansive soils. The proposed project will be required to connect to the CVVWD sanitary sewer system, and septic tanks will not be installed. The site is located in an area of moderate blow sand potential. The mitigation measures included in the Air Quality section of this report are designed to mitigate the potential impacts associated with blow sand at the project site to a less than significant level. -16- 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 MEA, 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? ("Report of Phase I Environmental Site Assessment," Earth Systems Southwest, March 2003) 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? ("Report of Phase I Environmental Site Assessment," Earth Systems Southwest, March 2003.) 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) 0 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 X physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency -17- evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff h) Expose people or structures to a X 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) VH. a)-h) The construction of 118 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. Because of the use of the site for agricultural purposes, and the previously occurring structures on the project site, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, and additional testing and disposal was conducted on the project site. In February, 2003, an asbestos inspection and bulk sampling was conducted at the proposed development site' Asbestos was detected in 6 out of 26 samples — primarily in two existing building structures on the site. According to the report, however, remediation has occurred, and all asbestos has been removed from the site with the remaining concrete encapsulated (painted). Underground storage tanks have been located on the Monroe Dates property. This has been investigated by the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health, and their letter of May 27, 2003 indicates that the two underground storage tanks have been appropriately emptied, cleaned and closed, and are not leaking. 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 or the environment. Based on a search of the Department of Toxic Substances' (DTSC) Hazardous Waste and Substance Site List (Cortese List), the subject property is not known to previously have been a hazardous materials site, and therefore, the proposed project is not expected to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. 6 Report of Asbestos Removal 60-995 Monroe Street, Scott Morrison & Associates, February 2003. -18- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER UALITY -- Would theproject: a) Violate any water quality standards or X waste discharge requirements? (General Plan EIR p. III-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. III-187 ff. c) Substantially alter the existing X drainage 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 X drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) e) Create or contribute runoff water X which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) f) Place housing within a 100-year flood X hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance -19- Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (General Plan EIR p. III- 187 ff.) g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard X area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 6.6) VIII. a) & b) Domestic water is supplied to the project site by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The development of the site will result in the need for domestic water service use for residential use and for landscaping irrigation. The CVWD has implemented or is implementing water conservation, purchase and replenishment measures which will result in a surplus of water in the long term. The Coachella Valley Water District has reviewed the project, and has indicated that future development facilitated by the proposed project is not expected to violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The project proponent will be required to implement the City's water efficient landscaping and construction provisions, including requirements for water efficient fixtures and appliances, which will ensure that the least amount of water is utilized within the homes. The applicant will also be required to comply with the City's NPDES standards, requiring that potential pollutants not be allowed to enter surface waters. These City standards will assure that impacts to water quality and quantity will be less than significant. VIII. c) & d) The City requires that all projects retain the 100 year storm on site. The proposed project includes retention basins immediately west of Monroe Street to accommodate project flows. To determine percolation rates for stormwater retention purposes, seven test holes were excavated by Sladden Engineering. The soils generally had high permeability, and on average would be able to accept over eleven inches of rain or stormwater per hour. According to Sladden Engineering, on -site storm water retention will be required. It is proposed to collect the storm water runoff within several shallow retention basins. A preliminary hydrology study was prepared for the proposed project$. 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. Impacts associated with storm water drainage are therefore not expected to be significant. Stormwater and project -generated urban runoff will be managed through the use of catch basins, stormwater retention facilities, and other mitigation measures in accordance with the California Storm Water Pollution Plan. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be required of the project prior to grading. VIII. e)-g) The La Quinta General Plan, and related FEMA maps, show that the proposed Monroe Dates development site is well outside the 100 year flood zone. 7 SOURCE? 8 SOURCE? -20- 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) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat X conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 74 ff.) IX. a)-c) Construction of the Monroe Dates residential development will not divide an established community. The development does not conflict with habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans. Historically the property was a date farm. There were two houses on the property until 2003, when they were demolished. The date grove comprises approximately 22 acres of the site, and the remainder of the property is an abandoned agricultural field A 118 single-family lot subdivision is proposed. It is bound on the west by vacant lots proposed for single-family construction, and on the east by Monroe Street. At the north are developed lots and to the south are vacant undeveloped lots. This will result in an alteration of the present land use of the area, but this change conforms with the intended future land use pattern laid out in the City's General Plan. In addition, the proposed residential development builds upon the residential developments which are already being built on Monroe Street between State Highway 111 and the Monroe Dates site, including Split Rock and the Shea Homes residential development. A Zoning change is needed from Low Density Residential with Equestrian Overlay to Low Density Residential, if this development is to take place. This proposed change seems reasonable based upon the fact that the site is surrounded by urban development, and that it is becoming isolated from areas of commercial farming located to the east and south. Due to housing needs in La Quinta, this site will be of greater overall value to the community if it is in residential usage rather than in agricultural usage. -21- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant 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 ff.) 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 coarse and silty sands. The City's Master Environmental Assessment, shows this area as being just outside the Resource Study Area for Minerals. It is adjacent to the MRZ-3 Resource Area which refers to areas containing mineral deposits whose significance cannot be evaluated from available data. A bit less than half of the City is in this MRZ-3 zone, while almost all of the remainder is in the MRZ-1 Zone, which refers to areas where no significant mineral deposits are present. The subject property is not known to contain significant or locally valuable mineral resources, and has been not been designated as containing such resources in the local land use plan. Thus, the proposed project is not expected to inhibit the extraction of mineral resources. -22- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XI. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation X 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. 111 ff.) b) Exposure of persons to or generation X of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (General Plan MEA p. 111 ff.) c) A substantial permanent increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan MEA p. 111 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. 111 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)-f) The project site is located in an area which is currently very quiet, and which will continue to experience limited noise levels in the future. The project will be surrounded by a block wall, which will reduce noise levels on the site. A new wall will be provided adjacent to Monroe Street. Noise will be generated during project construction. The construction on the site will be limited to hours prescribed in the Municipal Code. -23- The Monroe Dates site is just over three miles from the Desert Resorts Regional Airport, so noise impacts will be minimal. The proposed development site is not within an airport land use plan area. In general, increases in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity are expected to fall into two categories, short-term and long-term. Short-term increases in noise levels are anticipated during grading and construction of the project site. Short-term, temporary noise impacts associated with the operation of heavy machinery are expected to occur during the grading and construction process. To minimize impacts during the grading and construction process, all construction equipment shall be fitted with well -maintained mufflers and construction activities shall take place only during hours permitted by the City's noise ordinance. Long-term noise levels will include the increase of traffic and other activities associated with project development and operation. Long-term impacts shall be mitigated to acceptable levels through the implementation of City noise standards, including compliance with building insulation standards established by Title 25 of the Uniform Building Code, other building techniques that minimize airborne sounds, and the strategic arrangement and shielding of residential units and outdoor mechanical equipment. The project site lacks an underlying substrate, such as bedrock, that would transfer ground borne vibrations. Although on -site grading and construction activities may result in limited or occasional vibrations or noise levels, no blasting of bedrock is expected to be required, and the noise/ vibrational impacts of this project are expected to be less than significant. Long-term impacts may include noise from vehicular traffic accessing the site, lawn maintenance equipment, and HVAC equipment. These impacts shall be minimized to acceptable levels through appropriate screening and buffering, the use of specialized building techniques and materials, and other measures as described above. To determine traffic noise impacts on the project, a noise study shall be prepared and submitted to the Community Development Department prior to approval of the perimeter grading plans and wall plans. Overall, the noise impacts from the Monroe Dates development are expected to be less than significant with mitigation. -24- 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) X1I. a)-c) The construction of 118 homes will bring additional population to the City of La Quinta which has already been growing rapidly. In 1982, La Quinta's population was 5,200; by 1990 it was 11,215; by 2000 it was 23,694; and the City currently estimates the population to be 30,450. La Quinta is one of the fastest growing cities in the United States. Despite this, La Quinta's build -out population is considerably greater than its current population, so no theoretical population or housing limits will be reached due to the construction of this project. The Monroe Dates site is essentially undeveloped. This development will not create a demand for additional housing as a commercial business, industry or institutional use would. No existing individuals will be displaced to create this development. Therefore, no replacement housing will need to be built elsewhere. -25- 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) ublic facilities? (General Plan MEA, E X XIII. a)Buildout and occupation of the proposed project will generate sales and property tax which 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 in place at the time of issuance of building permits to reduce the impacts to those services. Furthermore, park in -lieu fees will be required to be paid prior to recordation of the Final Tract map. The City works in cooperation with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. The site has been designed to provide for adequate emergency access, outdoor lighting, and other security measures that will reduce the need for police protection. Fire protection and prevention services are handled by the Riverside County Fire Department. The developer will participate in a fire mitigation fee program which the City of La Quinta has adopted. This will provide funding for capital improvements such as land, equipment purchases and station construction. According to the County Fire Department, this project will have a minor impact. 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 students may need to be transferred to a school within the district which can accommodate them, and has requested that one bus turnout of 150 feet in length be provided for a bus stop along Monroe Street. -26- Parks and recreation areas are provided by both the City and the County, and should not pose a problem for the development. (Parks are further discussed in the recreation section below.) -27- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact 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) 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 has numerous parks, and has set a standard of at least 3.0 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. The project proponent will be subject to paying park in -lieu fees for the provision of recreation facilities throughout the City. Impact of the proposed development on recreation will be less than significant. -28- 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. III-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. III-29 f) 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 31434) e) Result in inadequate emergency X access? (TTM 31434) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X (TTM 31434) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, X or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project description) XV. a)-g) The proposed internal street network and land use plan have been designed to provide adequate emergency access to all portions of the site. The development of 118 homes will generate about 1,132 daily trips. The City's Comprehensive General Plan shows this section of Monroe Street as a Secondary Arterial, meaning it will eventually have four lanes, which will be divided, and that the eventual build -out width of this street will be 88 feet. Improvements to roadways -29- including internal streets will be constructed according to City standards and specifications. Future on -site development is not expected to have any impact on air, rail, or waterborne traffic patterns or safety of travel, however. The proposed development site has frontage on Monroe Street, and all vehicular traffic coming into or out of the Monroe Dates subdivision shall be via one access road going into (and out oo the residential development from Monroe Street. This access road will then branch out into four parallel roads inside the development, and these, in turn, will merge back together in a pattern resembling a square, as the grid or loop formed by these interior roads is completed. The project design and internal roadway configuration are not expected to result in hazardous conditions, and will be required to meet City standards and conditions for internal streets. Emergency access will be adequate, and will be further increased as Monroe Street is brought up to the standards associated with its status as a Secondary Arterial. Adequate parking shall be provided to Monroe Dates residents and visitors. Project - generated traffic will primarily consist of private vehicles with some commercial vehicles serving the site, which is consistent with existing traffic in the vicinity. The City's Comprehensive General Plan shows this section of Monroe Street as including a Multi -purpose trail, which will be a required condition of approval. Impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project are expected to be less than significant. -30- 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 which 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 f.) XVI. a)-g) -31- According to the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), this area is protected from regional stormwater flows by a system of channels and dikes, and may be considered safe from regional stormwater flows except in rare instances. This area is designated Zone D on FEMA's Flood Insurance Rate Maps, meaning it is an area of undetermined but possible risk of flood hazard. CVWD will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to the Monroe Dates area, and the developer will pay the District the fees to accomplish this. The District will need additional facilities to provide for the orderly expansion of its water and sanitation systems. These facilities may include wells, reservoirs, booster pumping stations and sewerage facilities. The developer will be required to provide land on which some of these facilities will be located, and Monroe Dates will be annexed into Improvement District #55 and #82 of the District for sanitation service. All utilities in the development will front on Monroe Street, and the developer will pay fees to develop infrastructure which is needed for water lines and other utilities. Build -out of the project will increase the demand for domestic water supplies and, therefore, have the potential to contribute to a cumulative regional reduction in groundwater resources. Impacts to water supply will be mitigated 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 public landscape and open space areas. Development of the proposed project is not expected to have a significant impact on wastewater treatment requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Project engineers will consult with the Coachella Valley Water District in order to address any necessary system routing and design of services to the project site. On -site recycling and solid waste source reduction programs will be implemented at project build -out in accordance with local and state requirements. The construction of the proposed project is expected to have less than significant impacts on utility providers. -32- 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 have been mitigated above to a less than significant level. XVII. b) The proposed project will add to the housing types 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. Construction of the project will have no significant cumulative impacts. XVII. d) The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect human beings, due to air quality impacts. Since the Coachella Valley is in a non -attainment area for PM 10, and the site will generate PM10, Section III., above, includes a number of mitigation measures to reduce the potential impacts on air quality to less than significant levels. -33- 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 effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. Not applicable. -34- vaa a va a�� �vaa�a�a MONITORING PROGRAM FOR CEQA COMPLIANCE (EA 2005-536) DATE: June 3, 2005 ASSESSORS PARCEL NO.: 764-280-014 CASE NO.: Zone Change 2005-123, Tentative Tract Map 31434 PROJECT LOCATION: Southwest and northwest corners of Monroe Street and Avenue 61 (60995 Monroe Street) EA/EIR NO: 2005-536 APPROVAL DATE: In Process APPLICANT: Monroe Dates LLC THE FOLLOWING REPRESENTS THE CITY'S MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE ABOVE CASE NUMBER SUMMARY MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE CHECKED BY DATE III. AIR QUALITY Maintain construction equipment Project contractor During construction Inspection Use existing power sources. Public Works Dept. During construction Inspection Adequately water fill. Building Dept. During grading Inspection Pre -water to 3 feet. Building Dept. During grading Inspection Water site on an on -going basis. Building Dept. During construction Inspection Stabilize areas undeveloped for 30 Building Dept. During construction Inspection days. Landscape Monroe Street early. Building Dept. Immediately following Inspection grading Implement SCAQMD Rule 403. Building Dept. During construction Inspection Suspend grading during 1" & 2`d stage Building Dept. During grading Inspection ozone alerts, or winds of over 25 mph. SUMMARY MITIGATION RESPONSIBLE FOR TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE DATE MEASURES MONITORING CHECKED BY V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Archaeological monitor on site during Building Department During grading Inspection all grading. Paleontological monitor to be on site Building Dept. During grading Inspection during all grading. XI. NOISE a noise study shall be prepared and Community Development Prior to approval of the Review submitted to the Community Department perimeter grading plans Development Department and wall plans. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE 2005-123 TO THE CITY COUNCIL CASE NO.: ZONE CHANGE 2005-123 APPLICANT: MONROE DATES, LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on did on the 141h day of June, 2005, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of MONROE DATES, LLC for a Zone Change from Low Density /Agricultural -Equestrian Residential to Low Density Residential, for property located on the west side of Monroe Street at Avenue 61, more particularly described as: APN's: 764-280-014 AND 764-270-015 WHEREAS, said Zone Change request has complied with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (as amended), in that Environmental Assessment 2004-536 was prepared for this Tentative Tract Map. The Community Development Director has determined that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and therefore, recommends that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact be recommended for certification; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the recommendation for approval of said Zone Change. 1. This Zone Change is internally consistent with those goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan and compatible (lower) with Trilogy's Medium High Density Residential designation. 2. This Zone Change will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare in that the resulting land uses will require Planning Commission review and approval of future development plans, which will ensure that the development meets standards that will not be materially detrimental. 3. The zone designation is compatible with the designations on adjacent properties because the Planning Commission review and approval will ensure compatibility and in some areas, the adjacent use is similar due to its resort nature. 4. The zone designation is suitable and appropriate for the properties involved because it is similar to surrounding projects under construction and approved. pAstan\ttm\tt 31434 zc 05-123peres.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Zone Change 2005-123 Monroe Dates, LLC Adopted: June 14, 2005 5. The situation and general conditions have substantially changed since the existing zone designations were imposed in that agricultural and equestrian uses have not developed in the immediate area and residential uses similar to the proposed have. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby recommend certification of the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact. 3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of Zone Change 2005-123 as shown on the attached exhibit; PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 14th day of June, 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Tom Kirk, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: DOUGLAS R. EVANS, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California p:\stan\ttm\tt 31434 zc 05-123peres.doc CASE No. L-%JVV LJLIVJI 1 1 //'%VI 11VVL.I v, �r��-. �-��� ••- -- - ORTH ZONE CHANGE 2005-123 ,SCALE: NTS PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION OF ± 28.7 ACRES INTO 118 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS LOTS CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT 31434 APPLICANT: MONROE DATES, LLC WHEREAS, The Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 14`h day of June, 2005, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Monroe Dates, LLC., for the subdivision of ± 28.7 acres into 118 single-family residential lots and other miscellaneous lots, located on the west side of Monroe Street at Avenue 61, more particularly described as: APN's: 764-280-014 AND 764-270-015 WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63) in that the La Quinta Community Development Department has prepared Environmental Assessment 2005-536 for this Tentative Tract Map in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended. The Community Development Director has determined that, as conditioned, the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and therefore, is recommending that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact be certified. A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted with the Riverside County Recorder's office as required by Section 15072 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) statutes; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department published the public hearing notice in the Desert Sun newspaper on June 3, 2005, as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site; and WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings to justify a recommendation for approval of Tentative Tract Map 31434: PAreports-pc\9-28-04\stonefield dev\tt 31874 pc res.doc Plannirg Commission Resolution 2005- Tentative Tract Map 31434 Monroe Dates, LLC Adopted: June 14, 2005 1. The Tentative Tract Map and its improvement and design, are consistent with the General Plan in that its street design and lots are in conformance with applicable goals, policies, and will provide adequate infrastructure and public utilities. 2. The design of the subdivision and its proposed improvements are not likely to create environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure wildlife or their habitat because the site does not contain significant biological resources. 3. The design of the subdivision and subsequent improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems because the construction of 118 residential units will not have considerable cumulative impacts. The project is consistent with the General Plan, and the potential impacts associated with General Plan buildout. 4. The design of the subdivision and the proposed types of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of the property within the subdivision in that none presently exist and access is provided within the project and to adjacent public streets. 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 the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Tentative Tract Map 31434 to the City Council for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 14`h day of June, 2005, by the following vote, to wit: P:\stan\ttm\tt 31344 peres.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Tentative Tract Map 31434 Monroe Dates, LLC Adopted: June 14, 2005 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: DOUGLAS R. EVANS, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California P:\stan\ttm\tt 31344 peres.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Tentative Tract Map 31434 Conditions of Approval - Recommended Monroe Dates, LLC Adopted: June 14, 2005 GENERAL 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 • SCAQMD 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. A project -specific NPDES construction permit must be obtained by the applicant; and who then shall submit a copy of the Regional Water Quality Control Board's P:\stan\ttm\tt 31434 pccoa.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Tentative Tract 31434 Monroe Dates, LLC Conditions of Approval - Recommended Date: 6/10/05 Adopted: June 14, 2005 ("RWQCB") acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent ("NOI"), 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. 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. P:\stan\ttm\tt 31434 pccoa.doc Printed June 10, 2005 Page 2 of 19 Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Tentative Tract 31434 Monroe Dates, LLC Conditions of Approval - Recommended Date: 6/10/05 Adopted: June 14, 2005 F. The approved SWPPP and BMPs shall remain in effect for the entire duration of project construction until all improvements are completed and accepted by the City. 5. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). PROPERTY RIGHTS 6. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction and reconstruction of essential improvements. 7. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Final Map all public street right-of-ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer. 8. The public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this development include: A. PUBLIC STREETS 1) Monroe Street (Secondary Arterial with Class II Bike Lane, 96' ROW) - A 48-foot right of way from the centerline of Monroe Street for a total 96-foot ultimate developed right of way except for an additional right of way dedication at the Primary Entry of fifty eight feet from the centerline and a length to be determined by a traffic study prepared for the applicant by a licensed traffic engineer per Engineering Bulletin # 03-08 to be a minimum length of 100 feet plus a variable dedication of an additional 50 feet. to accommodate improvements conditioned under STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS. 9. 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. 10. The private street right-of-ways to be retained for private use required for this development include: P:\stan\ttm\tt 31434 pccoa.doc Printed June 10, 2005 Page 3 of 19 Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Tentative Tract 31434 Monroe Dates, LLC Conditions of Approval - Recommended Adopted: June 14, 2005 A. PRIVATE STREETS Date: 6/10/05 Private Residential Streets measured at gutter flow line to gutter flow line shall have a 36-foot travel width as shown on the tentative parcel map except for the entrance drive area and traffic calming. B. Knuckle The knuckle shall conform to the shape shown on the tentative tract map except for minor revision as may be required by the City Engineer. 1 1 . Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction plans. Pursuant to this requirement, the Applicant shall include in the submittal packet containing the draft final map submitted for map checking, an offsite street geometric layout, drawn at 1 " equals 40 feet, detailing the following design aspects: median curb line, outside curb line, lane line alignment including lane widths, left turn lanes, deceleration lane(s) and bus stop turnout(s). The geometric layout shall be accompanied with sufficient professional engineering studies to confirm the appropriate length of all proposed turn pockets and auxiliary lanes that may impact the right of way dedication required of the project and the associated landscape setback requirement. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public right-of- ways as follows: A. Monroe Street (Secondary Arterial) - 10-foot from the R/W-P/L. The setback requirements shall apply to all frontages including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. P:\stan\ttm\tt 31434 pccoa.doc Printed June 10, 2005 Page 4 of 19 Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Tentative Tract 31434 Monroe Dates, LLC Conditions of Approval - Recommended Date: 6/10/05 Adopted: June 14, 2005 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. 15. 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. 16. Direct vehicular access to Monroe Street from lots with frontage along Monroe 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. 17. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as appropriate, from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments will occur. 18. 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. FINAL MAPS 19. 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. 20. 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. P:\stan\ttm\tt 31434 pccoa.doc Printed June 10, 2005 Page 5 of 19 Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Tentative Tract 31434 Monroe Dates, LLC Conditions of Approval - Recommended Date: 6/10/05 Adopted: June 14, 2005 21. 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 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. PM 10 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 berming 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. (Separate Storm Drain Plans if applicable) 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 P:\stan\ttm\tt 31434 pccoa.doc Printed June 10, 2005 Page 6 of 1 S Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Tentative Tract 31434 Monroe Dates, LLC Conditions of Approval - Recommended Date: 5/10l05 Adopted: June 14, 2005 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. 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. 22. 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. 23. 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 24. 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. P:\stan\ttm\tt 31434 pccoa.doc Printed June 10, 2005 Page 7 of 19 Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Tentative Tract 31434 Monroe Dates, LLC Conditions of Approval - Recommended Date: 6/10/05 Adopted: June 14, 2005 25. 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 comply with the provisions of Chapter 13.28 (Improvement Security), LQMC. 26. 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. When improvements are phased through a "Phasing Plan," all off -site improvements and common on -site improvements (e.g., backbone utilities, retention basins, perimeter walls, landscaping and gates) shall be constructed, or secured through a SIA, prior to the issuance of any permits in the first phase of the development, or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Improvements and obligations required of each subsequent phase shall either be completed, or secured through a SIA, prior to the completion of homes or the occupancy of permanent buildings within such latter phase, or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. In the event the applicant fails to construct the improvements for the development, or fails to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, pursuant to the approved phasing plan, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of all permits, and/or final inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. 27. Depending on the timing of the development of this Tentative Tract Map, and the status of the off -site improvements at the time, the applicant may be required to: A. Construct certain off -site improvements. B. Construct additional off -site improvements, subject to the reimbursement of its costs by others. C. Reimburse others for those improvements previously constructed that are considered to be an obligation of this tentative tract map. D. Secure the costs for future improvements that are to be made by others. E. To agree to any combination of these means, as the City may require. Off -Site Improvements should be completed on a first priority basis. The applicant shall complete Off -Site Improvements in the first phase of construction or by the P:\stan\ttm\tt 31434 pccoa.doc Printed June 10, 2005 Page 8 of 19 Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Tentative Tract 31434 Monroe Dates, LLC Conditions of Approval - Recommended Date: 6/10/05 Adopted: June 14, 2005 issuance of the 20 % Building Permit (add number when applicable). In the event that any of the improvements required for this development are constructed by the City, the applicant shall, prior to the approval of the Final Map, or the issuance of any permit related thereto, reimburse the City for the costs of such improvements. 28. 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. 29. 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. GRADING 30. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements), LQMC. 31. 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. 32. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval P:\stan\ttm\tt 31434 pccoa.doc Printed June 10, 2005 Page 9 of 19 Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Tentative Tract 31434 Monroe Dates, LLC Conditions of Approval - Recommended Date: 6/10/05 Adopted: June 14, 2005 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. 33. 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. 34. Grading within the perimeter setback and parkway areas shall have undulating terrain and shall conform with the requirements of LQMC Section 9.60.240(F) except as otherwise modified by this condition requirement. The maximum slope shall not exceed 3:1 anywhere in the landscape setback area, except for the backslope (i.e. the slope at the back of the landscape lot) which shall not exceed 2:1 if fully planted with ground cover. The maximum slope in the first six (6) feet adjacent to the curb shall not exceed 4:1 when the nearest edge of sidewalk is within six feet (6') of the curb, otherwise the maximum slope within the right of way shall not exceed 3:1. All unpaved parkway areas adjacent to the curb shall be depressed one and one-half inches (1.5") in the first eighteen inches (18") behind the curb. 35. 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 P:\stan\ttm\tt 31434 pccoa.doc Printed June 10, 2005 Page 10 of 19 Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Tentative Tract 31434 Monroe Dates, LLC Conditions of Approval - Recommended Adopted: June 14, 2005 Approval. Date: 6/10/05 36. The applicant shall minimize the differences in elevation between the adjoining properties and the lots within this development. Where compliance within the above stated limits is impractical, the City may consider alternatives that are shown to minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties and neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential. 37. 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. 38. 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. nRAINAGF "Stormwater handling shall conform with the Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report dated April 26, 2005 for Tentative Tract 31434 and as conditioned below. 39. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.120 (Drainage), LQMC, Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03. More specifically, stormwater falling on site during the 100 year storm shall be retained within the development, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 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. 40. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. 41. 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 P:\stan\ttm\tt 31434 pccoa.doc Printed June 10, 2005 Page 11 of 19 Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Tentative Tract 31434 Monroe Dates, LLC Conditions of Approval - Recommended Date: 6/10/05 Adopted: June 14, 2005 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. 42. 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 disposed of in a trickling sand filter and leach field or equivalent system approved by the City Engineer. The sand filter and leach field shall be designed to contain 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. 43. 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. 44. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. 45. 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. For retention basins on individual lots, retention depth shall not exceed two feet. 46. 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. P:\stan\ttm\tt 31434 pccoa.doc Printed June 10, 2005 Page 12 of 19 Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Tentative Tract 31434 Monroe Dates, LLC Conditions of Approval - Recommended Date: 6/10/05 Adopted: June 14, 2005 47. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. 48. 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 49, The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.110 (Utilities), LQMC. 50. 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. 51. 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. 52. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for approval by the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 53. 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. 54. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan (street type noted in parentheses.) A. OFF -SITE STREETS ':\stan\ttm\tt 31434 pccoa.doc Printed June 10, 2005 Page 13 of 19 Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Tentative Tract 31434 Monroe Dates, LLC Conditions of Approval - Recommended Adopted: June 14, 2005 Date: 6/10/05 1) Monroe Street (Secondary Arterial with Class II Bike Lane; 96' ROW): 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 conJ410M. WARM OUT reconstruct existing roadway pavement as necessary to augment and convert it from a rural county -road design standard to La Quinta's urban arterial design standard. The west curb face shall be located thirty six feet (36') west of the centerline, except at locations where additional street width is needed to accommodate: a) A deceleration/right turn only lane at Monroe Street Primary Entry. The west curb face shall be located forty six feet (46') west of the centerline and length to be determined by a traffic study prepared for the applicant by a licensed traffic engineer per Engineering Bulletin # 03-08. As a minimum, the required right of way shall be for a length of 100 feet plus a variable dedication of an additional 50 feet. Other required improvements in the Monroe Street right or way and/or adjacent landscape setback area include: b) All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to : curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs. c) 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk. The meandering sidewalk shall have an arrhythmic horizontal layout that utilizes concave and convex curves with respect to the curb line that touches the back of curb at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. The sidewalk curvature radii should vary between 50 and 300 feet, and at each point of reverse curvature, the radius should change to assist in creating the arrhythmic layout. The sidewalk shall meander into the landscape setback lot and approach within 5 feet of the perimeter wall at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. d) Lighting at the project entry. The applicant shall design and install a single street light or equivalent landscape lighting at the shared entry. Additionally, the applicant or Home Owners Association shall pay for the perpetual maintenance of the street Dight or landscape lighting. The applicant shall extend improvements beyond the subdivision boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements (e.g., grading; traffic control devices P:\Stan\ttm\tt 31434 pccoa.doc Printed June 10, 2005 Page 14 of 19 Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Tentative Tract 31434 Monroe Dates, LLC Conditions of Approval - Recommended Date: 6/10/05 Adopted: June 14, 2005 and transitions in alignment, elevation or dimensions of streets and sidewalks►. 2) The applicant shall install the Traffic signal at the projects main entry on Monroe Street when warrants are met. Applicant is responsible for 50 % of the cost to design and install the traffic signal. Applicant shall enter into a SIA to post security for 50 % of the cost to design and install the traffic signal prior to issuance of an on -site grading permit; the security shall remain in full force and effect until the signal is actually installed by the applicant or the developer on the other side of the street. B. PRIVATE STREETS 1) 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. D. KNUCKLE 1) Construct the knuckle to conform to the lay -out shown in the tentative tract map, except for minor revisions as may be required by the City Engineer. 55. All gated entries shall provide for a three -car minimum stacking capacity for inbound traffic to be a minimum length of 62 feet from call box to the street; and shall provide for a full turn -around outlet for non -accepted vehicles. Where a gated entry is proposed, the applicant shall submit a detailed exhibit at a scale of 1 " = 10', demonstrating that those passenger vehicles that do not gain entry into the development can safely make a full turn -around (minimum radius to be 24 feet) out onto the main street from the gated entry. Two lanes of traffic shall be provided on the entry side of each gated entry, one lane shall be dedicated for residents, and one lane for visitors. The two travel lanes shall be a minimum of 20 feet of total paved roadway surface or as approved by the Fire Department. Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, standard knuckles, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes and other features shown on the approved 3:\stan\ttm\tt 31434 pccoa.doc Printed June 10, 2005 Page 15 of 19 Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Tentative Tract 31434 Monroe Dates, LLC Conditions of Approval - Recommended Date: 6/10/05 Adopted: June 14, 2005 construction plans, may require additional street widths as may be determined by the City Engineer. 56. 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 3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b. Secondary Arterial 4.0" a.c./6.0" c.a.b. or the approved equivalents of alternate materials. 57. 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. 58. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: Primary Entry (Monroe Street): Full turn movements are permitted. 59. 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. 60. 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. CONSTRUCTION 61. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly -maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets in residential developments are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the P:\stan\ttm\tt 31434 pccoa.doc Printed June 10, 2005 Page 16 of 19 Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Tentative Tract 31434 Monroe Dates, LLC Conditions of Approval - Recommended Date: 6/10/05 Adopted: June 14, 2005 development or when directed by the City, whichever comes first. LANDSCAPING 62. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC. 63. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, common lots and park areas. 64. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. 65. The applicant shall submit the landscape plans for approval by the Community Development Department (CDD), prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking has been completed by CDD, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner, prior to submittal for signature by the City Engineer. NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. 66. 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. QUALITY ASSURANCE 67. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 68. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such other appropriate professionals as are required to provide the expertise with which to prepare and sign accurate record drawings, and to provide adequate construction supervision. 69. 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. 70. 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- ''\Stan\ttm\tt 31434 pccoa.doc Printed June 10, 2005 Page 17 of 19 Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Tentative Tract 31434 Monroe Dates, LLC Conditions of Approval - Recommended Date: 6/10/05 Adopted: June 14, 2005 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 71. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance), LQMC. 72. 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 73. 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. 74. 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). 75. Quimby in -lieu park fees shall be paid prior recordation of Final Map. The fees may be paid per Phase or at once for the entire tract. 76. Within 24 hours after final approval by the Planning Commission, applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department a check for $1,314. (made out to the County of Riverside). This check is to accompany the required Notice of Determination filed by the City of La Quinta. 66. The Tract Map shall be submitted to the fire Marshal for review and approval prior to submission to the City any plan for plan check. 77. All perimeter wall designs installed by this project shall be reviewed and approved as part of the Common area approval. 78. Proposed street names with a minimum of two alternative names per street shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval. Names to be approved prior to recordation of final map. ):\stan\ttm\tt 31434 pccoa.doc Printed June 10, 2005 Page 18 of 19 Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Tentative Tract 31434 Monroe Dates, LLC Conditions of Approval - Recommended Date: 6I10105 Adopted: June 14, 2005 79. All mitigation measures contained in Environmental Assessment 2004-51 1 shall be met. 80. Prior to final map approval, the developer shall submit to the Community Development Department for review, a copy of the proposed Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC and R's) for the project. 81. This tentative tract map shall expire two years after City Council approval, unless recorded or granted a time extension pursuant to the requirements of Division 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. 82. Production homes require approval of a Site Development permit application by the Planning Commission. 83. Recreational amenities shall be provided within the project on the "play and recreation area" and approved as part of the common area landscaping. P:\stan\ttm\tt 31434 pccoa.doc Printed June 10, 2005 Page 19 of 19 TRACT s002& TRACT 90029 IN THE CITY OF EA QUI NTA, CAEI FORN 1 A PREPARED: APRK, 2005 I la lar. r.I'IF I I.ou I1111 xr va macr( l am w._3 ry mA a+m ar�'�'�err mYYa�Y mvY��r�san-ao wo � - Flu r wn mwoII — main mewl mwr rmm-m oa—v— mnYcO ommIn."PN ®r usr— of arm Iwr f+are-tm� oou� nuO6tN0® aaw man t OS f1U�ry S Ox N10.W IP r� � ilf lYx IIIGII MYII{QOQ `Js eez♦ravIIrlYOm YIIIgII SYOt mrYtm n�arssor era vlme . oYm rII amc P�IIxPx Sl16 VPDR Jr wags w wa wvlx I l+n unnxn ' SEYYIIr., m wra �vci mrfi[oreiuY�Ye °m:n®r�'ii mllw°s x emIIm awls s x suwrt orar® s °f �_ °V—alYml'Ov x omi-Yr�v e amaxrmwrvxlomrxr wwm I O u�iltYi a�iYvvw �aWm ATTACHMENT #3 LETTERS RECEIVED 06/07/2805 15.12 7603991968 CALSUNGOLD FACE 01/01 Planning Commission City of the Quints 78-495 Calls Tampico La Quints, Co. 92253 Ref; Monroe Dates, LLC Tentative Tract Map 31434 Dear Commissionar, 1 reside at 80-800 Avenue 60 City of La Quints and have my office and operations at 82- 291 Avenue 61 and ttlerefore am a propeq owner on both sides of the project. My work takes me out of tnwn during your public hearing of the above referenced Map but I would No to go on record for this project. I have carefully reviewed the plans and am in tevor of their approval as submitted. Resp ctfully Urun Cas te 111 1540 • IU019. CA 91202 92•291 11910t B1 - T868Nil. Gt WU ?I • 769-590.5645 fA$ - 950-899-1908 taa9ald®caltnngold.tcm .all ' Z0 39dd TTLTE85T08 bT:9T 500Z/L0/90 i Mr. Doug Evans Community Development Director for The City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 r` APR 2 2 20� ri Subject: Concerns about proposed tract # 31434 which is adjacent to my property Dear Mr. Evans: We have learned from Mr. Tom Sullivan that you met on 3/24/05 with the developer of the above tract to review their tentative and preliminary grading plan which was submitted to the city in late February. Please allow us to respectfully voice our concerns about this proposed plan which shows home lots directly on the other side of our wall and will impact the views from our side of the property line. While we understand that height restrictions and grading differentials might lessen the impact of the subsequent rooflines, we believe the developer and the city ought to also consider a modification to the plan for a perimeter design whereby a landscaping strip and then a street would comprise the northern and western boundaries of the tract. This would yield more distance between our wall and the rooflines and (combined with height restrictions and grading adjustments) would minimize the impact upon our views. Mr. Sullivan says you pointed out that some might not want a perimeter street close to their backyard wall because of the potential for street noise. But, this tract is small enough (118 homes) that we believe we would rather have the least impact on our views. We recognize that the owner of the subject property has every right to develop and market the land and our intention is not to unreasonably impair those rights. But, we appreciate the opportunity to voice our concerns about the proposed plan and trust that the city will keep us updated on its progress. Sincerely, X print �f✓ �i,��,��.�y� Date: Z S 0 x�c�✓� print Address in Trilogy: ����� G��% <<i�� , La Quinta, CA 92253 Telephone: (;�) • • rti l..�t__ A PR ,2 6 Mr. Doug Evans Community Development Director for The City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Subject: Concerns about proposed tract # 31434 which is adjacent to my property Dear Mr. Evans: t We have learned from Mr. Tom Sullivan that you met on 3/24/05 with the developer of the above tract to review their tentative and preliminary grading plan which was submitted to the city in late February. Please allow us to respectfully voice our concerns about this proposed plan which shows home lots directly on the other side of our wall and will impact the views from our side of the property line. While we understand that height restrictions and grading differentials might lessen the impact of the subsequent rooflines, we believe the developer and the city ought to also consider a modification to the plan for a perimeter design whereby a landscaping strip and then a street would comprise the northern and western boundaries of the tract. This would yield more distance between our wall and the rooflines and (combined with height restrictions and grading adjustments) would minimize the impact upon our views. Mr. Sullivan says you pointed out that some might not want a perimeter street close to their backyard wall because of the potential for street noise. But, this tract is small enough (118 homes) that we believe we would rather have the least impact on our views. We recognize that the owner of the subject property has every right to develop and market the land and our intention is not to unreasonably impair those rights. But, we appreciate the opportunity to voice our concerns about the proposed plan and trust that the city will keep us updated on its progress. Sincerel , print /t'ifi-t'c-SCe— print ,C"�/S Date: 0 "/ / / 5- /65-_ Address in Trilogy: J�' 7 y 2 Sv,,u 04,c b' S -N , La Quinta, CA 92253 Telephone: 771 - q 96 --L -S I _- SZ 'S15 -FE[' 1'TI VE 'TR.AC'I' 31434 PR.ELAINAR.Y GRADING PLAN I N -FH E T!Y' OF LA QU I NTA, C ALI FOR N C A PRWARED: FEMPAY. 2005 m. x.. � � RYs �ra �..!�.w.; +.yn. jw..Y,r.{ e.�w..�.•?w,. ..a`; .cr�!....Du.�.. m • _ n. � ... I � a a _ ate_ _ r r _ i � I .�vr.. -+aa,, .a, ; va.rn..ar, w s ..ru,,w-wa wa. . •,�+..a s +� w..w ww .� s•r.. •r •� s w= a ear i, a tr n � r r s e .1 are o o e. . t . w y�yn� ' � i a , ! w m , .s � w n � • >r .. sr n n .y � om.ne w.ne ._.s � wuae ser . m re..ns a.m! w.,we wsoit w.ma w-.aa w-w w..a er ._._ • a rra it rr , "' r -' � M r r, , f+a+ w °° s y w t u v � sa w..w w-a 1_ .r.mr -ra. wi wus w' - 4.4. • �e = i� a r n w n p••. � . f r • M 1 V Y ,� twr.var ure wu/A tw-.ru w�rea +wv. wrae o w¢ _ 7- . mr maiwx,{wo- as Lo Ls I U "Col �rrw.•� rwasw Y ML I. A ��- `wMIMM�.Int I C [--,I Mr. Doug Evans Community Development Director for The City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Subject: Concerns about proposed tract # 31434 which is adjacent to my property Dear Mr. Evans: We have learned from Mr. Tom Sullivan that you met on 3/24/05 with the developer of the above tract to review their tentative and preliminary grading plan which was submitted to the city in late February. Please allow us to respectfully voice our concerns about this proposed plan which shows home lots directly on the other side of our wall and will impact the views from our side of the property line. While we understand that height restrictions and grading differentials might lessen the impact of the subsequent rooflines, we believe the developer and the city ought to also consider a modification to the plan for a perimeter design whereby a landscaping strip and then a street would comprise the northern and western boundaries of the tract. This would yield more distance between our wall and the rooflines and (combined with height restrictions and grading adjustments) would minimize the impact upon our views. Mr. Sullivan says you pointed out that some might not want a perimeter street close to their backyard wall because of the potential for street noise. But, this tract is small enough (118 homes) that we believe we would rather have the least impact on our views. We recognize that the owner of the subject property has every right to develop and market the land and our intention is not to unreasonably impair those rights. But, we appreciate the opportunity to voice our concerns about the proposed plan and trust that the city will keep us updated on its progress. Sincerely, X4 L�� d — x print e �//� print AA A r i C-7 -F. 8 A Date: Address in Trilogy:% % `7 ��t.�-M t !.1 C-7 4 S , La Quinta, CA 92253 k" e. Telephone: 0 - -7 - 2- Y' Mr. Doug Evans (;, . APR 2 20, Community Development Director for The City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tampico LAQu�NT� La Quinta, CA 92253 Subject: Concerns about proposed tract # 31434 which is adjacent to my property Dear Mr. Evans: We have learned from Mr. Tom Sullivan that you met on 3/24/05 with the developer of the above tract to review their tentative and preliminary grading plan which was submitted to the city in late February. Please allow us to respectfully voice our concerns about this proposed plan which shows home lots directly on the other side of our wall and will impact the views from our side of the property line. While we understand that height restrictions and grading differentials might lessen the impact of the subsequent rooflines, we believe the developer and the city ought to also consider a modification to the plan for a perimeter design whereby a landscaping strip and then a street would comprise the northern and western boundaries of the tract. This would yield more distance between our wall and the rooflines and (combined with height restrictions and grading adjustments) would minimize the impact upon our views. Mr. Sullivan says you pointed out that some might not want a perimeter street close to their backyard wall because of the potential for street noise. But, this tract is small enough (118 homes) that we believe we would rather have the least impact on our views. We recognize that the owner of the subject property has every right to develop and market the land and our intention is not to unreasonably impair those rights. But, we appreciate the opportunity to voice our concerns about the proposed plan and trust that the city will keep us updated on its progress. Sincerely, x print �b S 6.- hd S print. Date: Address in Trilogy: 9/ 2 57 SgA J d"S , La Quinta, CA 92253 Telephone: (` 60) - 7 77- Sk :3 2 . • �a LALPR Mr. Doug Evans Community Development Director for The City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Subject: Concerns about proposed tract # 31434 which is adjacent to my property Dear Mr. Evans: We have learned from Mr. Tom Sullivan that -you met on 3/24/05 with the developer of the above tract to review their tentative and preliminary grading plan which was submitted to the city in late February. Please allow us to respectfully voice our concerns about this proposed plan which shows home lots directly on the other side of our wall and will impact the views from our side of the property line. While we understand that height restrictions and grading differentials might lessen the impact of the subsequent rooflines, we believe the developer and the city ought to also consider a modification to the plan for a perimeter design whereby a landscaping strip and then a street would comprise the northern and western boundaries of the tract. This would yield more distance between our wall and the rooflines and (combined with height restrictions and grading adjustments) would minimize the impact upon our views. Mr. Sullivan says you pointed out that some might not want a perimeter street close to their backyard wall because of the potential for street noise. But, this tract is small enough (118 homes) that we believe we would rather have the least impact on our views. We recognize that the owner of the subject property has every right to develop and market the land and our intention is not to unreasonably impair those rights. But, we appreciate the opportunity to voice our concerns about the proposed plan and trust that the city will keep us updated on its progress. M IU Date: 14 / ! � / 01- Address in Trilogy: Ofw ri,-Q G nit, , La Quinta, CA 92253 Telephone: (lo -q � �- Or" Mr. Doug Evans APR Community Development Director for The City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Subject: Concerns about proposed tract # 31434 which is adjacent to my property Dear Mr. Evans: We have learned from Mr. Tom Sullivan that you met on 3/24/05 with the developer of the above tract to review their tentative and preliminary grading plan which was submitted to the city in late February. Please allow us to respectfully voice our concerns about this proposed plan which shows home lots directly on the other side of our wall and will impact the views from our side of the property line. While we understand that height restrictions and grading differentials might lessen the impact of the subsequent rooflines, we believe the developer and the city ought to also consider a modification to the plan for a perimeter design whereby a landscaping strip and then a street would comprise the northern and western boundaries of the tract. This would yield more distance between our wall and the rooflines and (combined with height restrictions and grading adjustments) would minimize the impact upon our views. Mr. Sullivan says you pointed out that some might not want a perimeter street close to their backyard wall because of the potential for street noise. But, this tract is small enough (118 homes) that we believe we would rather have the least impact on our views. We recognize that the owner of the subject property has every right to develop and market the land and our intention is not to unreasonably impair those rights. But, we appreciate the opportunity to voice our concerns about the proposed plan and trust that the city will keep us updated on its progress. Sincerely, _ x� x print —Joseph A. Sweeney print Date: 4 / 12 / 05 Joseph A. Sweeney 3 T OscarsWest Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Address in Trilogy: 81-737 Sun Cactus , La Quinta, CA 92253 Mr. Doug Evans ED� C E— O W E Community Development Director for The City of La Quinta APR 12 2005 78495 Calle Tampico INTA La Quinta, CA 92253 CITY 0� LAQCO;�C'[I!NMT :' DFk'FLOP?FLGPPK:NT Subject: Concerns about proposed tract # 31434 which is adjacent to my property Dear Mr. Evans: J We have learned from Mr. Tom Sullivan that you met on 3/24/05 with the developer of the above tract to review their tentative and preliminary grading plan which was submitted to the city in late February. Please allow us to respectfully voice our concerns about this proposed plan which shows home lots directly on the other side of our wall and will impact the views from our side of the property line. While we understand that height restrictions and grading differentials might lessen the impact of the subsequent rooflines, we believe the developer and the city ought to also consider a modification to the plan for a perimeter design whereby a landscaping strip and then a street would comprise the northern and western boundaries of the tract. This would yield more distance between our wall and the rooflines and (combined with height restrictions and grading adjustments) would minimize the impact upon our views. Mr. Sullivan says you pointed out that some might not want a perimeter street close to their backyard wall because of the potential for street noise. But, this tract is small enough (118 homes) that we believe we would rather have the least impact on our views. We recognize that the owner of the subject property has every right to develop and market the land and our intention is not to unreasonably impair those rights. But, we appreciate the opportunity to voice our concerns about the proposed plan and trust that the city will keep us updated on its progress. Since ly, X print_ Date: `% / / Z X ,�4� vl�4 print R o S (-1 I I (!- W R I C k Address in Trilogy: S � % 73 S x,� y� �. ��� Quinta, CA 92253 � (A�c , La Telephone: (� � 6 ) - � 71 - 3 L 7 3 JUN 20 � Wqr. `�o►n^ag w►rK� C14atv.w%" �utH�a.1 L°.fj °l�,53 `t317 �3 5 KKK �are�KS �.a h c ��✓�AR_ � �� '2-ooCj y ,,�,- t o,r, �. r��c,� a �. c•�r 11 t ®o�a� i+ Iwo a'* SITS j 014F N Lome �•� %i��KS� IItZOOaj-. '�Inty b2�rc+t �,�� �ro�te� t� c, �5 c oldaY C�ow�rv►wai�i" iwi�,aer�cctt-�e.-Yl�e."�e«�1Q.t¢�o�e.r►.�o..11 ba bL»tldtr+e)o'rot•e �I,�tr., St�Cae�`•.s j�.v►�+e�.• No�et�e.�r� *� � c.�e.-e„ corn�l�e.'�'a.�Y w1 tl�o�`�-c.� irI k c.c�oi.r�s++�c.11 ,,.,t,� Cz �hu�c.s ow►8�+4►ety bae.�tarl, r ".% - -elr own .avtc� S i+t�O-64t-i-ke. �ol to�tv�c� �Y�eer,ns &ot"�"1'� 44 onroe 3>%&.eg ho�tsl�-rr'd,• t50 -1-1,g t el � 1 v►e. e i � a�Y b�� nwr�.. • 1ant �a A .e-s La it nou7 b¢ L-4V-O—.Y �trotlQ,,��e, rg . G wt•Pl {..��1 y a,..t-� e.,re.r� eh J �� >7 +v► t ri't -� r e � 1�•e �-� l o `1Y all Y►ag o.vtd}�" �t"'°1 CL°. t 5 wr►11 14,4g. /41", Ho �eti�a-K'� }�..�t �� t:A►'i �A R°�ac G to si'tvo-A ti`G A S3oG t dVt o K C.C.. U-`fit S - ® t3=-- oAto }taV•e- a✓ A eovlcE v.7 O� �� t-iG'o,rGY' no-lr ice.., /l iv% 1%1'51 oa..7Lt -�.�. !Po C ,cr4�FM.A4- dogf.ti`� b.e�.ow►�dlseblo " F'"1A'' ha.t v► a ..`e k{ t e e.� . .,(, 14 "t1�t� Moinv�t S�at'S c�t��lo�tr 1-��-�✓� �-- 1ati�e�'A,t•eGL av ¢.. lr+�-r.aa.. -fi-ke..r d,c��lo�v+�e..n�, �-v+� e.ovc�'.,�•�.�e.�-o ��e..��..� ��,a►.e,e, �' "r_ 1ct 4, ____ ft- Y--. -VAC-se-- PH #C STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 14, 2005 CASE NOS.: SPECIFIC PLAN 97-029, AMENDMENT NO. 4 REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A NEW DRIVEWAY ACCESS ON ADAMS STREET AND A DESIGN CHANGE TO THE INTERNAL CIRCULATION PATTERN, ACCESS, A RETENTION BASIN, HIGH DENSITY HOUSING WITH AN AFFORDABLE COMPONENT LOCATION: EAST OF ADAMS STREET, SOUTH OF AUTO CENTRE DRIVE APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: STAMKO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY REPRESENTATIVE: THE KEITH COMPANIES ZONING: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS REVIEWED THIS PROJECT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA), AND HAS DETERMINED THAT NEITHER THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE PROJECT, NOR ANY NEW INFORMATION WILL RESULT IN THE IDENTIFICATION OF NEW SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, OR THE SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN THE SEVERITY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN CERTIFIED EIR SCH#97011055, AND AN ADDENDUM TO THE EIR HAS BEEN PREPARED. SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USE: NORTH: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC) SOUTH: HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RH)/ AVENTINE APARTMENTS EAST: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC) WEST: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL)/ LAKE LA QUINTA PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\Stamko - SP Amd\cond PC staff prt SP97-029, Amd. 4.doc BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: The City Council approved, under Resolution No. 97-64, the Centre at La Quinta Specific Plan 97-029. The Centre at La Quinta Specific Plan as amended includes property between Adams Street and Dune Palms Road south of Highway 111 and approximately 1,000 feet north of Avenue 48. The Specific Plan allows auto dealerships such as the existing three dealers and the approved Mazda dealership, and Mixed Regional Commercial uses including Super Walmart and Sam's Club. The General Plan allows High Density Residential uses with an affordable component if it is 600 feet south of Highway 1 1 1. Applications Under Consideration The Specific Plan Amendment No. 4 requests a new right -in and right -out access driveway into the commercial Center on Adams Street, realigning the internal circulation in Planning Area 2 (the southwest portion of the Center), reconfiguring a proposed retention basin, and a new internal access to the property at the southwest corner of Highway 111 and Dunes Palms Road. The proposed new internal street alignment accesses from Adams Street and aligns with the Super Walmart and Sam's Club front driveway. This has the potential to reduce traffic on Auto Centre Drive; a representative of the Auto Dealer's has expressed reservations about losing pass -by traffic on Auto Centre Drive. The applicant is also designating a portion of Planning Area 2 as potential High Density Residential use with an affordable component. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission continue this item to June 28, 2005 as requested by the applicant (Attachment 1). ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from the applicant requesting a continuance Prepared by: Fred Baker, AICP Principal Planner P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\Stamko - SP Amd\cond PC staff prt SP97-029, Amd. 4.doc ATTACHMENT #1 STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO. 78-060 Calle Estado Suite 5 La Quints, CA 92253 760-777-7686 June 10, 2005 Mr. Doug Evans Director of Community Development City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Re: Postponement of June 14, 2005 Planning Commission Hearing On Specific Plan 97-029, Amendment #4 Dear Mr. Evans: Please consider this letter Stamko Development's formal request to postpone the scheduled hearing on the above referenced Specific Plan. This hearing is presently scheduled before the Planning Commission on June 14. Stamko wishes to postpone the hearing to the Commission's next regularly scheduled meeting on June 28. If you have any questions, please contact Christine Clarke at 310-874-4800. Re?pectf illy, i Russ Beckner, Advisor Stamko Development Co. CC: Ms Christine F. Clarke PH #D STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 14, 2005 CASE NOS.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-835 REQUEST: APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A MULTI - TENANT RETAIL STORE OF 23,000 SQUARE FEET LOCATION: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND DUNE PALMS ROAD WITHIN THE CENTRE AT LA QUINTA COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: STAMKO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY REPRESENTATIVE: PERKOWITZ AND RUTH, ARCHITECTS ZONING: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFIED A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR THE CENTRE AT LA QUINTA COMMERCIAL CENTER, SPECIFIC PLAN 97-029, AMENDMENT NO. 3. NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS AND NO NEW INFORMATION IS PROPOSED WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21166 SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USE: NORTH: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC) SOUTH: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC) EAST: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC) WEST: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC) P:\REPORTS - PC\2005\6-14-05\STAMKO SDP\PC STAFF PRT SDP 2005-835.DOC BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: Property Description The currently vacant project site, located at the southwest corner of Highway 1 1 1 and Dune Palms Road, consists of 2.01 acres (Attachment 1). The project site is within the Centre at La Quinta Specific Plan 87-029, Amendment No. 3 adopted by City Council on December 21, 2004. Applications Under Consideration The request is for approval of a Site Development Permit to construct a multi -tenant retail building of 23,000 square feet (Parcels 1 of Parcel Map 33588) within the commercial Center. Site Plan The "L" shaped building takes access from Dunes Palms Road with vehicle access as a right -in only on the east side of the property to a driveway leading to the parking lot (Attachment 2). The parking lot has a driveway connection with the buildings and parking lot to the west. The buildings are proposed to have storefront entrances sited generally towards Dune Palms Road. The parking lot, with a total of 128 spaces, is located to the north and east of the building. Parking lot lighting is proposed to match the pole heights (24 feet) and fixtures with the adjacent parking for the existing multi - tenant buildings. The exhibits illustrate different locations for the trash and recycling enclosure, as a result, staff has added a Condition of Approval that the location, access and orientation of the trash enclosures, as well as the gate/wall design, are to approved by the Community Development Director. The City bear the cost of widen Highway 1 1 1 from the centerline to the curb face; the applicant is responsible for payment of a pro rated share to the developer of Parcels 2 and 3 of Parcel Map No. 33588, for street improvements along the Parcel 1 easterly boundary. If development of this Site Development Permit precedes the City's Highway 111 Improvement project and/or the Dune Palms Road improvements by the developer of Parcels 2 and 3, the applicant shall modify the existing traffic signal at the Highway 1 1 1 and Dune Palms Road intersection for a dual left turn lane for northbound Dune Palms Road traffic to westbound Highway 1 1 1 and any street improvements required by Caltrans. The traffic signal modification shall be performed concurrently with street improvements and may be multi -staged depending on the timing of said improvements. PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\Stamko SDP\PC staff prt SDP 2005-835.doc Sign Program The proposed Sign Program is the same as the existing Sign Program for the existing adjacent multi -tenant buildings in the commercial Center. Staff has added a Condition of Approval that requires the applicant to submit detailed information and drawings regarding sign sizes, types and locations consistent with the existing adjacent muiti- tenant buildings for the approval by the Community Development Director. In addition, the applicant submitted on June 9tr', a proposed monument sign to be located on Highway 1 1 1. Staff has not had adequate time to review the proposed monument sign. The monument sign proposal needs to be submitted separately for Planning Commission review and approval as a Sign Program Amendment. Architectural Design The proposed architectural design is the same architectural style as the multi -tenant retail shops to the west of this property. The proposed building is a flat roof with slight variations in the parapet roof heights from 24 to 27 feet. The proposed building utilizes anodized aluminum store fronts with a stone veneer, blue metal accents beams, and "Sky Blue" fabric awnings that rise to 34 feet. The plaster colors include light tans and off-whites. Landscape Plan The proposed landscaping plan identifies a palette of plant material consisting of shrubs, groundcover, and trees for the on -site parking planters and the building planters along Highway 1 1 1. The proposed landscaping plan is consistent with the landscape concept in the Specific Plan and the Highway 111 Design Guidelines. Water efficient landscaping materials, including native plants are provided. ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE (ALRC) REVIEW: The ALRC reviewed this request at its meeting of May 4, 2005 (Attachment 3). The Committee agreed with the staff report that architectural variety within the Center, without substantially changing the project floor plans and building structure, should be achieved. The Committee adopted Minute Motion 2005-014 recommending approval of the project subject to the following conditions which have been incorporated into this review: • Eliminate the blue metal accent beams. • Provide architectural detailing including deeper window recesses and more substantial canopies/ trellises, and a trim detail along the edge of the parapet. • Add a wainscot of stacked stone to add interest to the elevations. P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\Stamko SDP\PC staff prt SDP 2005-835.doc On June 9", staff received modified elevations from the applicant responding to the ALRC comments and conditions. The modified elevations are in addition to the elevations reviewed by the ALRC. The applicant is proposing to change colors to be consistent with the Goodyear color palette providing deeper richer colors and has added blue metal horizontal cross beams matching the color and accent treatment at the Goodyear store. Three blue metal vertical poles, 34 feet in height, remain on the building. Canopy colors match the proposed color of the metal beams providing deeper window recess. More substantial canopies have not been addressed. Staff has added a Condition of Approval requiring a redesign of the front elevations to create a pedestrian arcade by bringing all the store front columns out by at least three feet and extending the canopies over the sidewalk by at least seven feet to create a pedestrian walkway arcade. Stacked stone is proposed for the columns at three locations on the building (the largest tenant spaces which also have the higher parapets) which addresses, in part, the ALRC wainscoting condition. Staff has added a Condition of Approval to require stacked stone wainscoting on all columns on the building. COMMENTS FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES: The applicant's request was sent to City departments and affected public agencies on April 29, 2005, requesting comments be returned by May 13, 2003. All applicable comments are incorporated in the Conditions of Approval. PUBLIC NOTICE: This case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper and posted on May 14, 2005. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: The findings necessary to approve the Site Development Permit can be made provided the recommended Conditions of Approval are imposed per Section 9.210.010 and Chapter 9.160 of the Zoning Code as noted in the attached Resolutions. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-_ , approving Site Development Permit 2005- 835 for development plans of a 23,000 square foot multi- tenant retail building, subject to conditions. PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\Stamko SDP\PC staff prt SDP 2005-835.doc ATTACHMENTS 1. Project Location Exhibit 2. Site Plan and Elevations (with proposed modified elevations) 3. Minutes of the ALRC meeting of May 4, 2005 Prepared by: 4.-.�' --- Fred Baker, AICP Principal Planner PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\Stamko SDP\PC staff prt SDP 2005-835.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A MULTI -TENANT RETAIL STORE OF 23,000 SQUARE FEET CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-835 APPLICANT: STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the, 24th day of May, 2005 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing and continued said hearing to June 14, 2005, to review building elevations, site and landscape plans for a multi-tanant retail store of 23,000 square feet on 2.01 acres; generally located at the southwest corner of Highway 1 1 1, and Dune Palms Road, more particularly described as: PARCEL 1 OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 33588 WHEREAS, the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee of the City of La Quinta, California did on the 4th day of May, 2005 hold a public meeting to review building elevations, site and landscape plans for a multi -tenant retail store 23,000 square feet in size on 2.01 acres. WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63). The City Council certified a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for the Centre at La Quinta Commercial Center, Specific Plan 97-029, Amendment No. 3) on December 21, 2004. No changed circumstances or conditions and no new information is proposed which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent Environmental Assessment pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166. WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings to justify approval of said Site Development Permit 2005-835. 1. The proposed commercial building is consistent with the City's General Plan in that the property is designated Regional Commercial (RC). The project is consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan Land Use Element (Chapter 2) provided conditions are met. 2. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Centre at La Quinta Specific Plan, Specific Plan 97-029, Amendment No. 3 in that the tE P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\Stamko SDP\PC RESO SDP 2005-835.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Site Development Permit 2005-835 Stamko Development Co. Adopted: June 14, 2005 project is a permitted use and complies with the development standards and design guidelines. 3. The proposed building is consistent with the City's Zoning Code in that development standards and criteria contained in the Centre at La Quinta Specific Plan 97-029, Amendment No. 3. supplements, replaces, or are consistent with those in the City's Zoning Code. 4. The site design of the proposed project is compatible with the commercial development in the area, and accommodates site generated traffic at area intersections. 5 The landscape design of the proposed project, as conditioned by the ALRC, complements the building and the surrounding commercial area in that it enhances the aesthetic and visual quality of the area and uses a high quality of materials. 6. The architectural design of the project, as conditioned by the ALRC, is compatible with surrounding commercial buildings and development in the general vicinity in that it is similar in scale; the building materials provided are a durable, aesthetically pleasing, low maintenance, with a blend of surfaces and textures. 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 Commission in this case; 2. That it does approve Site Development Permit 2005-835 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission, held on this the 14th day of June, 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\Stamko SDP\PC RESO SDP 2005-835.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Site Development Permit 2005-835 Stamko Development Co. Adopted: June 14, 2005 ABSENT: ABSTAIN: TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: DOUGLAS R. EVANS, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California I PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\Stamko SDP\PC RESO SDP 2005-835.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-535 STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO. ADOPTED: JUNE 14, 2005 GENERAL 1. The developer agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Site Development Permit, or any Final Map recorded hereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the developer of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the developer shall obtain any necessary clearances and/or permits from the following agencies: Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) • SunLine Transit Agency • SCAQMD Coachella Valley • Caltrans The developer 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 developer shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those improvements plans for City approval. A project -specific NPDES construction permit must be obtained by the developer; and who then shall submit a copy of the Regional Water Quality Control Board's ("RWQCB") acknowledgment of the developer's Notice of Intent ("NOI"), prior to the issuance of a grading or site construction permit by the City. 3. The developer shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\Stamko SDP\PC COA SDP2005-835.DOC ' ` PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-835 STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO. ADOPTED: JUNE 14, 2005 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 developer or design professional can obtain the California Stormwater Quality Association SWPPP template at www.cabmphandbooks.com for use in their SWPPP preparation. B. The developer'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 developer 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 developer'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. 6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control. E. All erosion and sediment control BMPs proposed by the developer 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. 4. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\Stamko SDP\PC COA SDP2005-835.DOC `, ` it PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-835 STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO. ADOPTED: JUNE 14, 2005 Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). PROPERTY RIGHTS 5. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the developer 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 developer 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. No public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this development. 8. The developer shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public right-of- ways as follows: A. Highway 1 1 1 (Major Arterial — State Highway) - 50-foot from the R/W-P/L. B. Dune Palms Road (Primary Arterial) - 20-foot from the R/W-P/L. The setback requirements shall apply to all frontages including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the developer shall offer for dedication blanket easements for those purposes on the Final Map. 9. Direct vehicular access to Dune Palms Road along the Site Development Permit boundary is restricted, except for those access points identified on the approved Site Development Permit site plan, or as otherwise conditioned in these conditions of approval. The vehicular access restriction shall be shown on the recorded final parcel map. 10. Direct vehicular access to Highway 1 1 1 is prohibited. Ancillary vehicular access to Highway 1 1 1 from this Site Development Permit site shall be through the signalized intersection at La Quinta Drive and existing access driveways for Parcel Map No. PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\Stamko SDP\PC COA SDP2005-835.DOC PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-835 STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO. ADOPTED: JUNE 14, 2005 30420. 11. The developer shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as appropriate, from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments will occur. 12. The developer shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any portion of the subject property between the date of approval of the Site Development Permit and the date of recording of any Final Map, unless such easement is approved by the City Engineer. IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect," refers to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 13. 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. 14. 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 desired. Note, the developer 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. PM 10 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 PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\Stamko SDP\PC COA SDP2005-835.DOC PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-835 STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO. ADOPTED: JUNE 14, 2005 The Off -Site street improvement plans shall have separate plan sheet(s) (drawn at 20 scale) that show the meandering sidewalk, mounding, and berming design in the combined parkway and landscape setback area. F. Traffic Signal Modification Plan 1 " = 20' Horizontal G. Off -Site Median Landscaping Plans 1 " = 40' Horizontal NOTE: D through F to be submitted concurrently. Caltrans approval required for all work within Highway 1 1 1 right of way. H. Precise Grading Non -Residential 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. 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. The developer shall prepare an accessibility assessment on a marked up print of the building floor plan identifying every building egress and notes the 2001 California Building Code accessibility requirements associated with each door. The assessment must comply with submittal requirements of the Building & Safety Department. A copy of the reviewed assessment shall be submitted to the Engineering Department in conjunction with the Site Development Plan when it is submitted for plan checking. "Precise Grading Non -Residential" plans shall normally include all on -site surface improvements including but not necessarily limited to finish grades for curbs & gutters, building floor elevations, parking lot improvements and ADA requirements. 15. The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes fori P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\Stamko SDP\PC COA SDP2005-835.DOC PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-835 STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO. ADOPTED: JUNE 14, 2005 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. 16. The developer 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 developer 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 17. Depending on the timing of the development of the Site Development Permit, and the status of the off -site improvements at the time, the developer may be required to: A. Construct certain off -site improvements. B. Construct additional off -site improvements, subject to the reimbursement of its costs by others. C. Reimburse others for those improvements previously constructed that are considered to be an obligation of this site development permit. D. Secure the costs for future improvements that are to be made by others. E. To agree to any combination of these means, as the City may require. Off -Site Improvements should be completed on a first priority basis. The developer shall complete Off -Site Improvements in the first phase of construction. In the event that any of the improvements on Dune Palms Road required for this development are constructed by the City or other developer of Tentative Parcel Map No. 33588, the developer shall, prior to the approval of the issuance of any permit related thereto, reimburse the City or other developer of Tentative Parcel Map No. 33588, for the costs of such improvements. 18. Should the developer 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 P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\Stamko SDP\PC COA SDP2005-835.DOC t PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-835 STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO. ADOPTED: JUNE 14, 2005 the right to halt issuance of building permits, and/or final building inspections, and/or withhold other approvals related to the development of the project. GRADING 19. The developer shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements), LQMC- 20. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes, the developer shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer. 21. To obtain an approved grading permit, the developer 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. The developer 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. 22. The developer 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. 23. 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 PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\Stamko SDP\PC COA SDP2005-835.DOC PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-835 STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO. ADOPTED: JUNE 14, 2005 curb, otherwise the maximum slope within the right of way shall not exceed 3:1. All unpaved parkway areas adjacent to the curb shall be depressed one and one-half inches (1.5") in the first eighteen inches (18") behind the curb. 24. The developer shall abandon any existing wells within the Site Development Permit boundaries as approved by CVWD and the City Engineer. 25. Building pad elevations on the rough grading plan submitted for City Engineer's approval shall conform with pad elevations shown on the site development permit, unless the pad elevations have other requirements imposed elsewhere in these Conditions of Approval. 26. 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 Site Development Permit, the developer shall submit the proposed grading changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance finding review. 27. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building lot, the developer 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. DRAINAGE 28. Stormwater falling on site during the 100 year storm shall be retained within the development or transported to an off -site facility as approved by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets. The design storm shall be either the 3 hour, 6 hour or 24 hour event producing the greatest total run off. The developer shall design to contain all stormwater in reinforced concrete underground retention storage within the parking area as approved by the City Engineer. Additionally, the developer's design professional shall design the underground retention storage with special consideration to the proposed Gas Station's underground gasoline storage tanks (Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 33588) per Riverside Flood Control and Water Conservation District guidelines and incorporate necessary BMPs in each design to ensure that gasoline leakage and spillages do not become entrapped in the underground retention storage. e PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\Stamko SDP\PC COA SDP2005-835.DOC PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-835 STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO. ADOPTED: JUNE 14, 2005 29. If above ground retention is directed by the City for the site development, the developer shall design for the retention basins to comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.120 (Drainage), LQMC, Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03. More specifically, stormwater falling on site during the 100 year storm shall be retained within the development, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 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. In design of retention basins, the maximum percolation rate shall be two inches per hour. The percolation rate will be considered to be zero unless the developer provides site specific data indicating otherwise. Nuisance water shall be retained on site and shall be disposed of in a trickling sand filter and leach field or equivalent system approved by the City Engineer. The sand filter and leach field shall be designed to contain 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. 30. 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. 31. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. 32. 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. 33. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\Stamko SDP\PC COA SDP2005-835.DOC ^� PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-835 STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO. ADOPTED: JUNE 14, 2005 retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. UTILITIES 34. The developer shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.110 (Utilities), LQMC. 35. The developer 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. 36. 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. 37. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing improved streets, the developer shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer. The developer shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for approval by the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 38. The developer 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. 39. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan (street type noted in parentheses.) A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1) Highway 1 1 1 (Major Arterial - State Highway; 140' R/W): Per proposed Street Improvement Plans for Highway 111, the City of La Quinta will widen the south side of the street along all frontage adjacent P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\Stamko SDP\PC COA SDP2005-835.DOC PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-835 STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO. ADOPTED: JUNE 14, 2005 to the Site Development Permit boundary to its ultimate width on the south side as specified in the General Plan and as approved by CALTRANS. The south curb face shall be located fifty eight feet (58') south of the centerline, except at locations where additional street width is needed to accommodate: a) A deceleration/right turn only lane on Highway 1 1 1 at the Dune Palms Road intersection per CALTRANS requirements. Required improvements of this site development permit in the Highway 1 1 1 right or way and/or adjacent landscape setback area include: b) Eight -foot wide meandering sidewalk. The meandering sidewalk shall have an arrhythmic horizontal layout that utilizes concave and convex curves with respect to the curb line that either touches the back of curb or approaches within five feet of the curb at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. The sidewalk curvature radii should vary between 50 and 300 feet, and at each point of reverse curvature, the radius should change to assist in creating the arrhythmic layout. The sidewalk shall meander into the landscape setback lot and approach within 5 feet of the perimeter wall at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. c► If development of this Site Development Permit precedes the City's Highway 1 1 1 Improvement project and/or the Dune Palms Road improvements by the developer of Parcels 2 and 3, the applicant shall modify the existing traffic signal at the Highway 1 1 1 and Dune Palms Road intersection for a dual left turn for northbound Dune Palms Road traffic to westbound Highway 111 and any street improvements required by Caltrans. The traffic signal modification shall be performed concurrently with street improvements and may be multi -staged depending on the timing of said improvements. 2) Dune Palms Road (Primary Arterial; 1 10' R/W option): The applicant shall pay its pro rated share to the developer of Parcels 2 and 3 of Parcel Map No. 33588 for street improvements along the Parcel 1 easterly boundary to include widening the west side of the street along all frontage adjacent to the Site Development Permit boundary to its ultimate width on the west side as specified in the 11 P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\Stamko SDP\PC COA SDP2005-835.DOC PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-835 STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO. ADOPTED: JUNE 14, 2005 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 design standard. The west curb face shall be located forty three feet (43') west of the centerline, except at locations where additional street width is needed to accommodate: a) A 250-foot long dual left turn lane for northbound Dune Palms Road at the Highway 1 1 1 intersection. The west curb face shall be located forty four feet (44') west of the centerline with a variable transition of 200 feet. b) A deceleration/right turn only lane on Dune Palms Road at the Parcel 1 driveway (Driveway #5). The west curb face shall be located of fifty one (51') west of the centerline and length to be determined by a traffic study prepared for the developer by a licensed traffic engineer per Engineering Bulletin # 03-08 however at a minimum 100 feet long plus a variable dedication of an additional 50 feet. c) An 18 - foot wide raised landscaped median along the entire boundary of the Site Development Permit plus variable width as needed to accommodate a dual left turn for the north bound Dune Palms Road traffic turning left to westbound Highway 111. The length shall be 250 feet with a 100-foot (50 to 1) taper. Required improvements of this site development permit in the Dune Palms Road right or way and/or adjacent landscape setback area include: d) 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk. The meandering sidewalk shall have an arrhythmic horizontal layout that utilizes concave and convex curves with respect to the curb line that either touches the back of curb or approaches within five feet of the curb at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. The sidewalk curvature radii should vary between 50 and 300 feet and at each point of reverse curvature, the radius should change to assist in creating the arrhythmic layout. The sidewalk shall meander into the landscape setback lot and approach within 5 feet of the perimeter wall at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. t , jl PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\Stamko SDP\PC COA SDP2005-835.DOC PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-835 STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO. ADOPTED: JUNE 14, 2005 The developer shall extend improvements beyond the gar —gel 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). Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes and other features shown on the approved construction plans, may require additional street widths as may be determined by the City Engineer. The developer shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design procedure for 20-year life pavement, and the site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows: Parking Lot (Low Traffic Areas) 3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b. Parking Lot (High Traffic Areas) 4.5" a.c /5.5" c.a.b. Primary Arterial 4.5" a.c./6.0" c.a.b. or the approved equivalents of alternate materials. 40. The developer 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 developer shall not schedule construction operations until mix designs are approved. 41. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. The driveway to this Site Development Permit to Dune Palms Road (approximately 310' south of Highway 1 1 1): Right turn in and right turn out movements are permitted. Left turn in and left turn movements prohibited. 42. 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. P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\Stamko SDP\PC COA SDP2005-835.DOC PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-835 STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO. ADOPTED: JUNE 14, 2005 43. 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. PARKING LOTS and ACCESS POINTS 44. The design of parking facilities shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150 and in particular the following: A. The parking stall and aisle widths and the double hairpin stripe parking stall design. B. ADA accessibility routes shall be a minimum of 4 feet and shall be at 90 and 180 degree angles to adjacent buildings in Parcel Map No. 30420 and public streets. C. Cross slopes should be a maximum of 2% where ADA accessibility is required including accessibility routes between buildings. D. Building access points shall be shown on the Precise Grading Plans to better evaluate ADA accessibility issues. Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes, ADA accessibility route to public streets and other features shown on the approved construction plans, may require additional street widths and other improvements as may be determined by the City Engineer. CONSTRUCTION 45. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only when the buildings have access to publicly -maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and signage. LANDSCAPING 46. The developer shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC. 47. The developer shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, common lots and parking areas. 48. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\Stamko SDP\PC COA SDP2005-835.DOC . PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-835 STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO. ADOPTED: JUNE 14, 2005 basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. 49. The developer shall submit the landscape plans for approval by the Community Development Department (CDD), prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking has been completed by CDD, the developer shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner, prior to submittal for signature by the City Engineer. NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. 50. 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. QUALITY ASSURANCE 51. The developer shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 52. The developer shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such other appropriate professionals as are required to provide the expertise with which to prepare and sign accurate record drawings, and to provide adequate construction supervision. 53. The developer shall arrange for, and bear the cost of, all measurements, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program, but which may be required by the City, as evidence that the construction materials and methods employed comply with the plans, specifications and other applicable regulations. 54. Upon completion of construction, the developer 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 developer shall have all AutoCAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City, revised to reflect the as -built conditions. MAINTENANCE 55. The developer shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance), PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\Stamko SDP\PC COA SDP2005-835.DOC " ' PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-835 STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO. ADOPTED: JUNE 14, 2005 LQMC. 56. The developer shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual maintenance of all private on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. FEES AND DEPOSITS 57. The developer 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 developer makes application for plan check and permits. 58. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE 59. Building plans shall eliminate the horizontal (blue / blue green) metal accent beams. 60. Provide architectural detailing that includes deeper window recesses and more substantial canopies/ trellises, and a trim detail along the edge of the parapet. 61. Add a wainscot of stacked stone to add interest to the front elevations. FIRE MARSHALL 62. Approved super fire hydrants, shall be spaced every 330 feet and shall be located not less than 25 feet nor more than 165 feet from any portion of the buildings as measured along outside travel ways. 63. Blue dot reflectors shall be placed in the street 8 inches from centerline to the side that the fire hydrant is on, to identify fire hydrant locations. 64. The water mains shall be capable of providing a potential fire flow of 2500 gpm and the actual fire flow from any two adjacent hydrants shall be 1500 gpm for a 2-hour duration at 20-psi residual operating pressure. 65. City of La Quinta ordinance requires all commercial buildings 5,000 sq. ft. or larger to be fully sprinkled. NFPA 13 Standard. Sprinkler plans will need to be submitted to the Fire Department. PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\Stamko SDP\PC COA SDP2005-835.DOC PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-835 STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO. ADOPTED: JUNE 14, 2005 66. Fire Department connections (FDC) shall be not less than 25 feet nor more than 50 feet from a fire hydrant and shall be located on the front side of the buildings. FDC's and PIV's may not be located at the rear of buildings. Note, also that FDC's must be at least 25 feet from the building and may not be blocked by landscaping, parking stalls or anything that may restrict immediate access. 67. Building plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for plan review to run concurrent with the City plan check. 68. Water plans for the fire protection system (fire hydrants, fdc, etc.) shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 69. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot. 70. Fire Department street access shall come to within 150 feet of all portions of the 1 st. floor of all buildings, by path of exterior travel. Turning radiuses shall be no less than 38 feet outside. 71. Any commercial operations that produce grease -laden vapors will require a Hood/duct system for fire protection (restaurants, drive-thru's, etc.). 72. 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. 73. Install a KNOX key box on each commercial building and/or suite. (Contact the Fire Department for an application.) 74. Install portable fire extinguishers as required by the California Fire Code. 75. Any submissions to the fire department are the responsibility of the applicant. SHERIFF DEPARTMENT 76. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. Prior to issuance of a building permit, applicant shall review building plans with the Sheriff's Department regarding Vehicle Code requirements, defensible space, and other law enforcement and public safety concerns. All questions regarding the Sheriff's PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\Stamko SDP\PC COA SDP2005-835.DOC `' ' PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-835 STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO. ADOPTED: JUNE 14, 2005 Department should be directed to the Deputy at (760) 863-895. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 77. The Community Development Director shall approve the location and access orientation to trash enclosures as well as the gate/wall design. 78. The applicant shall submit detailed information and drawings regarding sign sizes, types and locations consistent with the existing adjacent multi -tenant buildings for the approval by the Community Development Director 79. The applicant shall submit for Community Development Director approval, revised elevations showing stacked stone wainscoting on all columns of the building. In addition the applicant shall redesign the front of the elevations to create a pedestrian walkway adding columns and canopies, increase awning depth, or a combination of architectural elements to create architectural relief 3- 7 feet in depth. P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\Stamko SDP\PC COA SDP2005-835.DOC d c x PROJECT LOCATION MAP ATTACHMENT #I ATTACHMENT #3 MINUTES ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA May 4, 2005 10:00 a.m. I. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee was called to order at 10:10 a.m, by Principal Planner Fred Baker. J B. Committee Members present: Frank Christopher, Bill Bobbitt, and David Thoms. C. Staff present: Principal Planners Stan Sawa and Fred Baker, Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: 1 one. Ill. CONFIRMATION'OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. S'taff asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of April 6, 2005. 'here being no changes, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Christopher/Bobbitt to approve the Minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. f' V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Site Development Permit 2005-835; a request of Stamko Development Co. for consideration of architectural and conceptual ti landscaping plans for a multi -tenant retail store consisting of 23,000 square feet for the property located at the southwest corner of Highway 111 and Dune Palms Road within the Centre at La Quinta commercial development. 1. Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff introduced Chris Clarke, Russ Beckner, and Dave Street, the architect, who gave a presentation on the project. G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\5-4-05 ALRC.doc Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee May 4, 2005 2. Committee Member Thorns stated he was concerned about this type of building at this corner. The building at this corner should have a lot of attention. The "spoilers" that stick up need to be removed. Ms. Clarke stated it was an element that was carried throughout the Center; however, it could be removed. 3. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he does not like the boxy look of the entire Center as well as the steel element. He does agree however, they cannot change the theme in midstream. 4. Committee Member Christopher stated that as far as streetscape, it is a poor design. The question is whether or not to carry on a bad design or change it. He suggested stack stone or something be added to give it character. The design criteria have been established with a design this Committee does not like, but staff's suggestions for this building are good. He is not opposed to the colors on the accent steel element, but the streetscape of the building needs to be enhanced. He agrees with staff's recommendations. 5. Committee Member Thorns agreed the horizontal blue spoilers should be eliminated. 6. Committee Member Bobbitt agreed with the addition of wainscot or stack stone. Staff stated it was not their intention to change the footprint, just to add some detail. 7. Ms. Clarke gave a description of the proposed landscaping to enhance the east, west, and south elevations. 8. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about Figure #13 on the landscape plans. There appear to be three tree wells; why was the fourth left out? Ms. Clarke stated she didn't know, but would ask the landscape architect. 9. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved and seconded by Committee Member Christopher//Thoms to adopt Minute Motion 2005-014 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2005-835, as recommended by staff and amended: a. Deeper window recesses, bringing out the awnings; P � 9 G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\5-4-05 ALRC.doc 2 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee May 4, 2005 b. The blue horizontal spoilers (metal beams), shall be removed; C. Provide additional stack stone/natural wainscoting on parts of the front elevation of the building. Unanimously approved. B. \Site Development Permit 2004-827; a request of Colbourn -Currier -Noll Architecture for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for a 136,000 square foot retail store and a gas station located on the southwest corner of Highway 1 1 1 and Dune Palms Road. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff introduced the applicants Steve Kellogg, landscape architect, and Bill Currier. 2. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he had no problem with the landscaping design. He did ask about the 18" header board with ;decomposed granite (DG); his experience has been that it looks terrible and is not well maintained. He recommends taking `the lawn to the curb and moving the spray heads 18 inches hack from the curb. Mr. Kellogg stated CVWD requires them to �se a header board to keep the water from running into the street'. Committee Member Bobbitt recommended the pits be eliminated. Also, the Buxus Microphilla Japonica will not do well. The date palms should not be used in any pedestrian traffic area. The Jacaranda and Ulmus parriflora will be deciduous and he would not recommend them. 3. Committee Member Thorns asked that the Jacaranda be eliminated. Also, the front yard 18-inch strip should be redesigned to be meandering and widened if they are required to keep it with DG and some groundcover in the widened areas. 4. Committee Member Christopher commended the redesign of the units. He has no prob m with the two-story street front on the one-story, because th&, garage takes up too much of the elevation. He would suggest radiusing the top of the garage door sill on every third one=story unit. 5. Committee Member Thorns noted the one plan is very weak from the street. The applicant gave a description of the unit t/ I G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\5-4-05 ALRC.doc 3 PH #E PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: JUNE 14, 2005 CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33597 APPLICANT: R. T. HUGHES CO. LLC REQUEST: A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO ALLOW THE SUBDIVISION OF A 22.97 ACRE PARCEL INTO 57 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, AS WELL AS LOTS FOR STREETS AND RETENTION BASINS LOCATION: THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF AVENUE 60 AND MADISON STREET PROPERTY OWNER: R. T. HUGHES CO. LLC GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING DESIGNATIONS: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS REVIEWED THIS PROJECT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA), AND HAS PREPARED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005- 541 FOR THIS TENTATIVE TRACT MAP IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED. THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HAS DETERMINED THAT, AS CONDITIONED, THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THEREFORE, IS RECOMMENDING THAT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BE CERTIFIED. SURROUNDING LAND USES: NORTH: AVENUE 60, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND VACANT LAND SOUTH: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION LEVEE EAST: GOLF COURSE AND SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WEST: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION LEVEE, SINGLE- FAMILY HOMES BACKGROUND: The project site is on the edge of the original Coral Mountain Specific Plan, but was not part of that planning process. The site is irregular in shape, and constrained by surrounding streets, future streets and the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) Levee to the south and west. PROJECT REQUEST: The applicant is requesting the subdivision of a 22.97 acre parcel into 57 single family lots of 10,000 square feet or more, as well as lettered lots for streets and retention basins. The site is proposed to be gated, and streets are proposed to be private. No Site Development Permit (SDP) for home designs has been filed in conjunction with this application. Home design would be addressed separately through the SDP process. The proposed project will result in improvements to the south side of Avenue 60 to include a 20 foot paved width, a 10 foot parkway with a 6 foot meandering sidewalk, and an additional 10 foot landscaped setback. Avenue 60 is not a General Plan road at this location. It's design as a local road is therefore appropriate. The proposed subdivision will take access from Avenue 60 at two locations. The main access point will be located at the mid -point of the property, approximately 550 feet west of Madison Street. This access point will be 50 feet in width, and will include one lane of travel in each direction, and a center median. A vehicle turn- around has been provided in the median to allow those not permitted entry to exit the site. The second access point is located at the western boundary of the property on Avenue 60, and will also be gated. There is no stacking room provided at this gate, however, so a condition of approval has been included which requires that this gate be exit -only, and emergency entry only. No access will be taken from Madison Street. The design and construction of Madison Street was conditioned as part of the Travertine Specific Plan project. The applicant has provided for a slope easement to accommodate Madison's extension over the BOR levee at its ultimate half width. The applicant has also been conditioned to require half -width improvements, and bonding for same, should Madison not be constructed by Travertine within 2 years of this approval. The slope area is to be installed by the developer, and maintained by the Homeowners Association. A sound wall will be provided at road level on Madison, and another property boundary wall will be constructed at the edge of the lots below. The road - level wall will assure that both noise and lighting impacts associated with Madison Street traffic do not significantly affect the residents within the proposed project. The project includes a landscaped open space immediately west of the main entry, and an open space and retention basin area east of the entry, to Madison Street. A preliminary hydrology study has been prepared, and final hydrology will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits on the site. Because of the site's irregular shape, lots have been placed at an angle through the site. All lots are proposed to be at least 10,000 square feet, which exceeds the minimum requirement in the Low Density Residential zone. Two parallel roadways and a series of short cul-de-sacs are proposed to access the lots. The cul-de-sacs provide sufficient radius to meet Fire Department requirements. The lots all meet the standards of the development code. Lot design and layout appears functional, although lot 57 is designed with a very narrow (15 foot) throat to the roadway. Although traffic will not be significant on this cul-de-sac, a vehicle exiting the lot in reverse could conflict with vehicles on the adjacent lot. This lot is large enough, however, to accommodate a circular interior driveway, to assure that vehicles exit the lot front-end first, rather than backing onto the street. Such a requirement has been included in the conditions of approval. A Bureau of Reclamation lateral irrigation line occurs through the property. The Initial Study includes a mitigation measure to require the relocation of this lateral, to the satisfaction of the BOR and the Coachella Valley Water District. The design of the Map, as conditioned, meets the requirement of the Subdivision Map Act and the Municipal Code. The project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation placed on the property. Public Notice This request was published in the Desert Sun newspaper on June 4, 2005, and mailed to all affected property owners and occupants within 500 feet of the project site as required by Section 9.200.1 10 of the Zoning Code. To date, no letters have been received. Public Agency Review A copy of this request has been sent to all applicable public agencies and City Departments. All written comments received are on file with the Community Development Department. Applicable comments received have been included in the recommended Conditions of Approval. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: Findings to approve this request can be made and are contained in the attached Resolutions. 003 RECOMMENDATION: The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The findings for approval, included in the attached resolutions, can be made. 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005- , recommending to the City Council the approval of Environmental Assessment 2005-541; and 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005- , recommending to the City Council the approval of Tentative Tract Map 33597. Attachments: 1. Initial Study 2. Mitigation Monitoring Program 3. Tentative Tract Map 33597 4. Conditions of Approval 5. Resolutions Prepared by: Nidole`'S uviat CristeCoptulting Planner 004 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 PREPARED FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33597 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-541 R. T. HUGHES CO. LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 14th day of June, 2005 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request of R. T. Hughes Co. LLC for Environmental Assessment 2005-541 prepared for Tentative Tract 33597, located at the southwest corner of Avenue 60 and Madison Street, more particularly described as: APN 766-110-016-2 WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify recommending to the City Council certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1. The proposed applications will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2005-541 . 2. The proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Potential impacts associated with biological and cultural resources can be mitigated to a less than significant level. The site does not contain significant paleontological resources. 3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends. Pre -construction surveys for burrowing owl and desert tortoise will assure that impacts to these species will not occur. 4. The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as the proposed project supports the long term goals of the General Plan by 005 Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Environmental Assessment 2005-541 R.T. Hughes Co. LLC Adopted: providing a variety of housing opportunities for City residents. No significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the Environmental Assessment. 5. The proposed project will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the proposed project. The construction of 57 residential units will not have considerable cumulative impacts. The project is consistent with the General Plan, and the potential impacts associated with General Plan buildout. 6. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly. The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect human beings, due to air quality and noise impacts. The Coachella Valley is in a non -attainment area for PM 10, and the site will generate PM 10; however, there are a number of mitigation measures to reduce the potential impacts on air quality. Noise impacts have been addressed through mitigation of construction impacts, which will lower the potential for significant impacts to less than significant levels. 7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. 8. The Planning Commission has considered Environmental Assessment 2005-541 and said Environmental Assessment reflects the independent judgment of the City. 9. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.51d1. 10. The location and custodian of the City's 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 correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment. P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\RT Hughes\EAReso.docy �,_� Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Environmental Assessment 2005-541 R.T. Hughes Co. LLC Adopted: 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of Environmental Assessment 2005-541 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Mitigation Monitoring Program, attached and on file in the Community Development Department. 3. That Environmental Assessment 2005-541 reflects the independent judgment of the City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 14th day of June, 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: Douglas Evans Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\RT Hughes\EAReso.doc 1 4 3. Environmental Checklist Form Project title: Tentative Tract Map 33597 Lead agency name and address: Contact person and phone number: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Nicole Sauviat Criste 760-777-7125 4. Project location: Southwest corner of Madison Street and Avenue 60. 5. Project sponsor's name and address: 6. General Plan designation: Low Density Residential R. T. Hughes Co., LLC 78900 Avenue 47, Suite 201 La Quinta, CA 92253 7. Zoning: Low Density Residential 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 applicant proposes the subdivision of a 22.97 acre parcel into 57 single family lots of 10,000 square feet or more. The site will be gated, and will be accessed from Avenue 60. No access is proposed on Madison Street. Construction of Madison Street will eventually result in a sloped roadway, rising above the southern half of the project site, to clear the Bureau of Reclamation levee located to the south of the site. On site retention is proposed at two locations adjacent to Avenue 60. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: North: Low Density Residential/Avenue 60, vacant and single family homes South: Open Space/BOR levee West: Open Space/BOR levee, single family home East: Medium Density Residential, Golf Course Open Space/Golf course and single family homes 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Coachella Valley Water District Bureau of Reclamation 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 Air Quality Resources Cultural Resources Geology /Soils Hydrology / Water Land Use / Planning Quality Noise Population / Housing Recreation Trans portation/Traf fic Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: 1 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. Signa re Date -2- EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the 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 or 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 mitigation 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 to 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 Mitigation Measures 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. t, I °J -3- 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) 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. 8) 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. -4- 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 X on a scenic vista? (General Plan Exhibit 3.6) b) Substantially damage scenic X resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Aerial photograph) c) Substantially degrade the X existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Application materials) d) Create a new source of X substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application materials) I. a)-d) The proposed project site is currently vacant. Views from the site are somewhat compromised by the occurrence of the Bureau of Reclamation levee which borders the site on the west and south. Country club development occurs or will occur to the north and east of the site. The proposed tract will result in the construction of single family homes which will be restricted by the Development Code to no more than two stories. The site will have no adjacent neighbors, other than the single family home which occurs to the west. This home's views are to the west and southwest, and the development of the project site will not have an effect on their scenic vistas. There are not scenic resources on the project site, which is currently vacant desert lands. The development of the site will be consistent with the development occurring surrounding the site, and will not impact the visual character of the area. When homes are built on the site, there will be two primary sources of light emanating from the site: landscape lighting and vehicle headlights. Given the isolation of the site, and the proposed location of a block wall, 6 feet in height, around the site, neither of these sources of light are expected to impact surrounding lands. In addition, the City regulates lighting levels and -5- does not allow lighting to spill over onto adjacent property. Impacts are expected to be less than significant. The ultimate construction of Madison Street from Avenue 60 southerly past the project site will result in a sloping roadway which rises above the southern portion of the project. The plans for Madison Street include a screen wall, located adjacent to the roadway and 6 feet in height, which will screen the project site from the vehicles and associated lights on this roadway. Impacts are expected to be less than significant. d; 3 -6- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique X Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide 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 environment which, due to X their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? (General Plan Land Use Map) H. a)-c) The site us located in a rapidly urbanizing portion of the City. The General Plan and Zoning designations for the property are Low Density Residential. Lands surrounding the site are currently developing, or are vacant desert. There are no agricultural lands adjacent or near the proposed project site. There are no Williamson Act contracts on the site. No impacts to agricultural resources are expected as a result of implementation of the proposed project. -7- 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, Project Study) b) Violate any air quality standard X or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) c) Result in a cumulatively X considerable 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 PM10 Plan for the Coachella Valley) d) Expose sensitive receptors to X substantial pollutant concentrations? (Project Description) e) Create objectionable odors X affecting a substantial number of people? (Project Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection) III. a), b) & c) The development of the site will generate emissions during the construction of the homes, and during the long term operation of the site as a residential subdivision. Each of these sources of emissions is discussed below. Construction The City, and the Coachella Valley as a whole, are in a severe non -attainment area for the generation of PM 10, a component of fugitive dust. In order to improve impacts associated with fugitive dust, the City participates in, and implements regional plans for its prevention and suppression, including the mandatory preparation of PM 10 Management Plans for construction projects. 15 -8- Construction on the 22.97 acre site is likely to begin with mass grading. Based on SCAQMD factors for the generation of fugitive dust, mass grading would result in the generation of 606.59 pounds per day. This exceeds the thresholds of significance established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, but also likely over -states the potential impacts, insofar as only a portion of the 23 acres is likely to be actively graded during any one day. Nonetheless, mitigation is therefore required, as follows: 1. Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of three feet prior to the onset of grading activities. 2. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed on an on -going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the site. Portions of the site that are actively being graded shall be watered regularly to ensure that a crust is formed on the ground surface, and shall be watered at the end of each work day. 3. Any area which remains undeveloped for a period of more than 30 days shall be stabilized using either chemical stabilizers or a desert wildflower mix hydroseed on the affected portion of the site. 4. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for wind erosion. Landscape parkways on Avenue 60, the slope easement area on Madison Street and the project's perimeter wall, shall be installed immediately following precise grading. 6. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean-up of construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site. 7. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour The implementation of these mitigation measures is expected to reduce impacts associated with grading activities to less than significant levels. -9- Operations The ultimate construction of 57 single family homes on the project site will result in approximately 546 trips per day'. These trips will generate the following emissions. Table 1 Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout (pounds per day) Ave. Trip Total Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Length (miles) miles/day 546 x 15 = 8,190 PM10 PM10 PM10 Pollutant ROC CO NOX Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wear Pounds at 50 mph 1.63 42.31 8.68 - 0.18 0.18 SCAQMD Threshold (lbs./day) 75 550 100 150 Assumes 220 trips, ITE categories 210. Based on California Air Resources Board's EMFAC7G Emissions Model Assumes Year 2005 summertime running conditions at 75 ° F, light duty autos, catalytic. The table demonstrates that the proposed project will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance at buildout. Impacts associated with vehicle emissions are therefore expected to be less than significant. 111. d) & e) The construction of single family homes on the site is not expected to generate objectionable odors, or expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations. 1 "Trip Generation, 7t1 Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, for category 210, Single family detached. —10- �' s 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, X either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("TT33597 Biological Resources Assessment," AMEC April 2005) b) Have a substantial adverse effect X on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? ("TT33597 Biological Resources Assessment," AMEC April 2005) c) Have a substantial adverse effect X on 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? ("TT33597 Biological Resources Assessment," AMEC April 2005) 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? ("TT33597 Biological Resources Assessment," AMEC April 2005) e) Conflict with any local policies or X ordinances protecting biological -11- resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance (General Plan MEA, pages 74-87) f) Conflict with the provisions of an X adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (General Plan MEA, pages 74-87) IV. a)-f) A biological resource survey was conducted for the proposed project2. The study included both a literature search and an on -site investigation. The on - site investigation found that the site has been significantly disturbed, and that the primary plant community occurring on the site is Desert scrub, the most common plant community in the region. The survey determined that the site can be considered potential habitat for both Desert tortoise and burrowing owl, although neither species was sighted, nor was sign identified, on the site. To assure that these species are not impacted, mitigation is required, as follows. 1. Within 30 days prior to the initiation of earth moving activities on the site, a qualified biologist shall complete protocol -level surveys for Desert tortoise and burrowing owl. The survey results shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to the initiation of any earth moving activity. There is no riparian or wetland habitat on the subject property. The proposed project site is located outside the mitigation fee area for the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard. 2 "Tentative Tract 33597 Biological Resources Assessment," prepared by AMEC Earth and Environmental, April 2005. -12- Potentially Significant Less Than Significant w/ Less Than Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would theproject: a1 Cause a substantial adverse X change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ' 15064.5? ("Archeological Testing and Evaluation Report" CRM Tech April 2005) b) Cause a substantial adverse X change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ' 15064.5? ("Archeological Testing and Evaluation Report" CRM Tech April 2005) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a X unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (General Plan MEA, Exhibit 5.9) d) Disturb any human remains, X including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ("Phase I Archaeological Survey," ECORP, January 2005) V. a)-b) & d) Cultural resource surveys have been prepared for the project site'. The site was surveyed several years ago as part of the Coral Mountain Specific Plan project, at which time a potential prehistoric site was recorded on the subject property. A testing of that recorded site was performed, and determined that the historic component is not significant, being composed of modern target shooting detritus. The archaeological component of the site were excavated, and a number of items identified, consisting primarily of pottery sherds. The study concluded that the artifacts do not constitute a significant resource as defined by CEQA, and that impacts associated with construction of the project would be less than significant. Bone fragments identified at the site are to be repatriated to the appropriate Native American group. The site does, however, have the potential to yield further resources when earth moving activities are conducted for the construction of homes. The study recommends, therefore, that the following mitigation measure be implemented: 3 "Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report Coral Mountain Expansion," prepared by CRM Tech, November, 2003; and "Archaeological Testing and Evaluation Report Site CA-RIV-7205/H (33- 12956)" prepared by CRM Tech, April, 2005. -13- 1. A qualified archaeological monitor shall be present during all earth moving activities on the project site. The monitor shall be empowered to stop or redirect earth moving activities to adequately investigate potential resources. The monitor shall be required to submit to the Community Development Department, for review and approval, a written report on all activities on the site prior to occupancy of the first building on the site. Any resources found on the site shall be properly curated. Implementation of this mitigation measure will assure that potential impacts associated with cultural resources are reduced to less than significant levels. V. c) The project site occurs outside the boundary of the prehistoric Lake Cahuilla. No impacts associated with paleontological resources are expected to result from implementation of the proposed project. -14- 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 X fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (General Plan pages 97-106) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X (General Plan pages 97-106) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, X including liquefaction? (General Plan pages 97-106) iv) Landslides? (General Plan pages 97- X 106) b) Result in substantial soil erosion X or the loss of topsoil? (General Plan pages 97-106) d) 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 (General Plan pages 97-106) e) Have soils incapable of X adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (General Plan pages 97-106) -15- }•.� ... !.. VI. a)-e) The site will experience significant ground shaking in a seismic event. The City implements the standards of the UBC for seismic zones, and will apply these standards to this project. The site is located adjacent to the Bureau of Reclamation levee, which carries water flows during storm events. The levee has been constructed to withstand significant seismic events, and is not expected to result in significant impacts to the homes, should an earthquake occur during a rain storm. The site is not located adjacent to hillsides, and will not be subject to landslides or rock fall hazards. The site is located in an area of the City subject to liquefaction. The City requires, as part of the process of securing building permits, site specific geotechnical analysis of each property. The project proponent will be required to submit such an analysis, and to conform to any standards and requirements for liquefaction, should it be identified as a potential impact on the site. The site is not located on expansive soils, and will be required to connect to sanitary sewer service, and will not require septic tank systems. Overall impacts associated with geology and soils are expected to be less than significant. _E3 -16- 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 MEA, p. 95 ff.) c) Emit hazardous emissions or X handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (General Plan MEA, p. 95 ff.) d) Be located on a site which is X included 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? ("Phase I Environmental Site Assessment," CTL Environmental, May 2003) e► For a project located within an X airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) f) For a project within the vicinity X of a private airstrip, would the -4 -17- 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 X physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff) h) Expose people or structures to a X 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) VII. a)-h) The 57 homes proposed for the project site are not expected to generate, store or transport significant amounts of hazardous materials. The homes will utilize small amounts of cleaning products and similar materials. The City's solid waste franchisee is responsible for the proper disposal of these products, and implements programs for household hazardous waste as part of its contract with the City. Impacts are expected to be insignificant. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared for the project site'. The site is not identified on any database as having had hazardous materials incidents. The site survey did not identify any area where materials had been spilled or poured onto the soil. No impacts associated with hazardous materials on the site are expected. The site is not located in the vicinity of an airport or private airstrip. The site is not located adjacent to hillsides, and is not subject to wildland fire hazards. 4 "Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of SW Corner of Madison Street and 60" Avenue," prepared by CTL Environmental Services, May 2003. -18- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would theproject: a) Violate any water quality X standards or waste discharge requirements? (General Plan EIR p. III- 187 ff.) b) Substantially deplete X groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (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. III-187 ff.) c) Substantially alter the existing X drainage 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 X drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) e) Create or contribute runoff water X which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater -19- , : r, drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (General Plan EIR p. III- 187 ff.) f) Place housing within a 100-year X flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) g) Place within a 100-year flood X hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 6.6) VIII. a) & b) Domestic water is supplied to the project site by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The development of the site will result in the need for domestic water service and for landscaping irrigation. The CVWD has prepared a Water Management Plan which indicates that it has sufficient water sources to accommodate growth in its service area. The CVWD has implemented or is implementing water conservation, purchase and replenishment measures which will result in a surplus of water in the long term. The project proponent will be required to implement the City's water efficient landscaping and construction provisions, including requirements for water efficient fixtures, which will ensure that the least amount of water is utilized within the homes. The applicant will also be required to comply with the City's NPDES standards, which protect surface waters from contamination. These City standards will assure that impacts to water quality and quantity wiNl be less than significant. The project site includes Bureau of Reclamation Irrigation Lateral No 123.45, an irrigation water line. Prior to development of the site, the line must be relocated to assure that these waters are not impacted by project development. In order to assure that the irrigation water is not impacted by the proposed project, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented. 1. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project proponent shall relocate Bureau of Reclamation Irrigation Lateral No. 123.45 to the satisfaction of the Bureau of Reclamation and the Coachella Valley Water District. -20- VIII. c► & d) The City requires that all projects retain the 100 year storm on site. In order to accomplish this, the project proponent has submitted a preliminary hydrology study', to support the design of the flood control improvements on the site. These include a retention basin located at the northeastern corner of the property, which is proposed to have a capacity of 115,400 cubic feet of storage. The City Engineer will review and approve the hydrology for the project prior to the issuance of any permits for the site, which will assure that the impacts associated with storm waters are reduced to less than significant levels. VIII. e)-g) The site is not located in a flood zone as designated by FEMA. 5 "Preliminary Hydrology Report Coral Mountain Estates," prepared by Glenmorra Consultants, April, 2005. -21- 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 X use 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) c) Conflict with any applicable X habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 74 ff.) IX. a)-c) The project site is designated for Low Density Residential development on both the General Plan and Development Code maps. The site is vacant, and will not impact an established community. The site is outside the fee mitigation area for the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan. There will be no impacts to land use and planning. F -22- bo 8 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability X of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff.) b) Result in the loss of availability X of a 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 site is outside the boundary of areas within the City studied for mineral resources. However, lands immediately north and east are all designated in the MRZ-1 Zone, and it can therefore be expected no mineral resources occur on the project site. -23- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XI. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or X 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. 111 ff.) b) Exposure of persons to or X generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (General Plan MEA p. 111 ff.) c) A substantial permanent increase X in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project (General Plan MEA p. 111 ff.) d) A substantial temporary or X periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project (General Plan MEA p. 111 ff.) e) For a project located within an X airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (General Plan land use map) f) For a project within the vicinity X of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (General Plan land use map) -24- XI. a)-f) The area surrounding the project site is currently experiences relatively low ambient noise levels. The circulation surrounding the project is not expected to increase substantially, due to the lack of potential development in the area. Noise levels predicted in the General Plan EIR show that acceptable CNEL standards can be maintained at the project site through design. The proposed project will include two 6 foot walls, and landscaped setbacks, which will reduce on -site noise from Madison Street and Avenue 60. The first wall will be located at the edge of the project, on all sides, including adjacent to the future location of Madison Street. The ultimate construction of Madison Street from Avenue 60 southerly past the project site will result in a sloping roadway which rises above the southern portion of the project. The plans for Madison Street include a second screen wall, located adjacent to the roadway and 6 feet in height, which will screen the project site from the vehicles and associated noise on this roadway. Impacts are expected to be less than significant. The construction of the single family homes has the potential to result in temporary and periodically high noise levels associated with these construction activities. The development of the homes on the site will occur during the noisier daytime hours, as prescribed by the Municipal Code. The project is also required, as a mitigation measure under the air quality section, to construct its perimeter wall immediately following grading of the site. There is, however, a single family home occurring immediately west of the project site which could be impacted by construction noise. The home is surrounded by a wall. In order to assure that those impacts are reduced to less than significant levels, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented. 1. All equipment and construction staging and storage areas shall be located in the northeastern portion of the property, as far from the western property line as possible. The site is not located within the area of influence of an airport or air strip. With implementation of the above -listed mitigation measure, impacts associated with noise are expected to be less than significant. -25- J 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 X growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (General Plan, 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 development of 57 single family homes will not induce substantial growth, as the project site is designated for the single family development proposed in the General Plan. The construction of the homes will not displace existing housing or people. No impacts are expected. 3 �. -26- 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. X 57) Police protection? (General Plan MEA, X p. 57) Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.) X Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and X Parks Master Plan) Other public facilities? (General Plan X MEA, p. 46 ff.) XIII. a) Buildout 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. Buildout of the proposed project will generate property tax and sales tax which 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 in place at the time of issuance of building permits to reduce the impacts to those services. -27- _ 03 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XIV. RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the X use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Application materials) b) Does the project include X recreational 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 construction of 57 units will not significantly impact recreational facilities. In addition, the project proponent will be required to contribute the park land mitigation fees in place at the time of recordation of the final map for the site. These fees are designated specifically for the purchase of land for recreational facilities in the City. -28- 34 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 X which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (General Plan EIR, p. III- 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. III-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 X due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (TTM 339597) e) Result in inadequate emergency X access? (TTM 339597) f) Result in inadequate parking X capacity? (TTM 339597) g) Conflict with adopted policies, X plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project description) -29- ° ' .35 XV. a)-g) The development of 57 single family homes will result in approximately 546 average daily trips on City roadways. The project site is in an area with limited development potential, and is proposing 57 units, when the site could generate up to 92 units. Therefore, the proposed project is likely to result in lower impacts to the circulation system than those analyzed in the General Plan EIR. For this area of the community, the EIR found that at General Plan buildout, levels of service would remain at acceptable levels. The project does not include inadequate parking or unsafe designs. The single family homes will be required to provide parking to City standards, which will include 2 car garages. Overall impacts associated with transportation are expected to be less than significant. -30- 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 X construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) c) Require or result in the X construction of 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 which 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 X sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (General Plan -31- MEA, p. 58 ff.) g) Comply with federal, state, and X local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) XVI. a)-g) Utilities are available at the project site. The service providers for water, sewer, electricity and other utilities have facilities in the immediate vicinity of the site, and will collect connection and usage fees to balance for the cost of providing services. The construction of the proposed project is expected to have less than significant impacts on utility providers. -32- 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 X potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the X potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? c► Does the project have impacts X that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? d) Does the project have X environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. a) The proposed project will result in potential impacts to biological and cultural resources. These impacts have been mitigated to less than significant levels in this Initial Study. -33- XVII. b) The proposed project will not have any impact on long term environmental goals, insofar as the property is designated for the land use proposed, and impacts associated with the buildout of the General Plan have been analyzed in the General Plan EIR. XVII. c) The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan vision for this area. Construction of the project will have no significant cumulative impacts, insofar as the development of single family homes on this site was analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and impacts associated with the project are expected to be equivalent or less than those in the EIR. XVII. d) The impacts associated with air quality and noise have the potential to significantly impact human beings. However, mitigation measures included in this Initial Study reduce those potential impacts to less than significant levels. 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. Environmental Assessment 2003-483 was used in this Study. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. Not applicable. -34- 'J �) %—iiI %jr LAl, ujumlf'\ MONITORING PROGRAM FOR CEOA COMPLIANCE DATE: June 4, 2005 ASSESSORS 1 PARCEL NO.: 766-110-016 CASE NO.: Tentative Tract Map 33597 PROJECT LOCATION: Southwest corner of Avenue 60 and Madison St. EA/EIR NO: 2005-541 APPROVAL DATE: In Process APPLICANT: R.T. Hughes Co., LLC THE FOLLOWING REPRESENTS THE CITY'S MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE ABOVE CASE NUMBER SUMMARY MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE CHECKED BY DATE III. AIR QUALITY Pre -water to 3 feet. Building Dept. Prior to grading Inspection Water site on an on -going basis. Public Works Dept. During grading Inspection Stabilize areas undeveloped for 30 Building Dept. During construction Inspection days. Landscape Avenue 60 and slope Building Dept. Immediately following Inspection easement early. grading Building Dept. During construction Inspection Implement SCAQMD Rule 403. Building Dept. During construction Inspection Suspend grading during 1 S` & 2°d stage ozone alerts, or winds of over 25 mph. SUMMARY MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE CHECKED BY DATE IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Conduct pre -construction desert Community Development Prior to grading Submittal of tortoise and burrowing owl surveys. Department report SUMMARY MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE CHECKED BY DATE V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Archaeological monitor to be on site Building Department During grading Inspection during grading. SUMMARY MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE CHECKED BY DATE VHL HYDROLOGY Relocate BOR lateral No. 123.45 Building Department Prior to grading Clearance letter SUMMARY MITIGATION RESPONSIBLE FOR TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE DATE MEASURES MONITORING CHECKED BY XI. NOISE Storage and staging as far away from Building Department During Construction Inspection residential as possible. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION OF 22.97 ACRES INTO 57 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND MISCELLANEOUS LOTS CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT 33597 R.T. HIGHES CO. LLC WHEREAS, The Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 141" day of June, 2005, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of R. T. Hughes Co. LLC, for the subdivision of 22.97 acres into 57 single-family residential lots and other miscellaneous lots, located at the southwest corner of Avenue 60 and Madison Street, more particularly described as: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 766-110-016-2 WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63) in that the La Quinta Community Development Department has reviewed this project under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), in that the La Quinta Community Development Department has prepared Environmental Assessment 2005-541 for this Tentative Tract Map in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended. The Community Development Director has determined that, as conditioned, the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and therefore, is recommending that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact be certified. A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted with the Riverside County Recorder's office as required by Section 15072 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) statutes.; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department published the public hearing notice in the Desert Sun newspaper on June 4, 2005, as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site; and WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings to justify a recommendation for approval of Tentative Tract Map 33597: PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\RT Hughes\TTReso.doc 43 Planning Commission Resolution 2005-_ Tentative Tract Map 33597 R.T. Hughes Co. LLC Adopted: June 14, 2005 1. The Tentative Tract Map and its improvement and design, are consistent with the General Plan in that its lots and map design are in conformance with applicable goals, policies, and will provide adequate infrastructure and public utilities. 2. The design of the subdivision and its proposed improvements are not likely to create environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure wildlife or their habitat because the site does not contain significant biological resources. 3. The design of the subdivision and subsequent improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems because the construction of 57 residential units will not have considerable cumulative impacts. The project is consistent with the General Plan, its density was considered in the General Plan EIR, and the potential impacts associated with General Plan buildout. 4. The design of the subdivision and the proposed types of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of the property within the subdivision in that the irrigation line currently located through the property will be relocated to the satisfaction of the Bureau of Reclamation. 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 the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Tentative Tract Map 33597 to the City Council for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 141h day of June, 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\RT Hughes\TTReso.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Tentative Tract Map 33597 R.T. Hughes Co. LLC Adopted: June 14, 2005 ABSENT: ABSTAIN: TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: DOUGLAS EVANS Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\RT Hughes\TTReso.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 33597 R. T. HUGHES CO. LLC JUNE 141h, 2005 GENERAL_ 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)/Bureau of Reclamation • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) • SunLine Transit Agency • SCAQMD 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 4 Planning Commission Resolution 2005-_ Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 33597 — RT Hughes Co. LLC June 14, 2005 improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those improvements plans for City approval. A project -specific NPDES construction permit must be obtained by the applicant; and who then shall submit a copy of the Regional Water Quality Control Board's ("RWQCB") acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent ("NOI"), prior to the issuance of a grading or site construction permit by the City. 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. PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\RT Hughes\—WRL3157.tmp I Planning Commission Resolution 2005-_ Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 33597 — RT Hughes Co. LLC June 14, 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. 5. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). PROPERTY RIGHTS 6. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction and reconstruction of essential improvements. 7. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Final Map all public street right-of- ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer. 8. The public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this development include: A. PUBLIC STREETS 1) Madison Street (Secondary Arterial with Class II Bike Lane, 96' ROW) — 48 feet from the centerline of Madison Street for a total 96-foot ultimate developed right of way. 2) Avenue 60 (Local Street, 60' ROW) — The standard 30 feet from the centerline of Avenue 60 for a total 60-foot ultimate developed right of way. 9. 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, PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\RT Hughes\—WRL3157Amp Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 33597 — RT Hughes Co. LLC June 14, 2005 applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer. 10. The private street right-of-ways to be retained for private use required for this development include: A. PRIVATE STREETS 1) Private Residential Streets 32-foot travel width measured at gutter flow line to gutter flow line with parking restricted to one side and provided there is adequate off-street parking for residents and visitors, and the applicant establishes provisions for ongoing enforcement of the parking restriction in the CC&R's. The CC&R's shall be reviewed by the Engineering Department prior to recordation. 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. Curve radii for curbs at all street intersections shall not be less than 25 feet. 11. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction plans. Pursuant to this requirement, the Applicant shall include in the submittal packet containing the draft final map submitted for map checking, an offsite street geometric layout, drawn at 1 " equals 40 feet, detailing the following design aspects: median curb line, outside curb line, lane line alignment including lane widths, left turn lanes, deceleration lane(s) and bus stop turnout(s). The geometric layout shall be accompanied with sufficient professional engineering studies to confirm the appropriate length of all proposed turn pockets and auxiliary lanes that may impact the right of way dedication required of the project and the associated landscape setback requirement. 12. 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. PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\RT Hughes\—WRL3157Amp i Planning Commission Resolution 2005-_ Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 33597 — RT Hughes Co. LLC June 14, 2005 13. 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. 14. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public right- of-ways as follows: A. Madison Street (Secondary Arterial with Class II Bike Lane) - 10-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. 15. 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. 16. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as appropriate, from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments will occur. 17. 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. 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. P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\RT Hughes\—WRL3157.tmp ' ' ) Planning Commission Resolution 2005-_ Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 33597 — RT Hughes Co. LLC June 14, 2005 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 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. PM 10 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 berming design in the combined parkway and landscape setback area. 1. P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\RT Hughes\--WRL3157.tmp 5 Planning Commission Resolution 20057_ Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 33597 — RT Hughes Co. LLC June 14, 2005 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. 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 P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\RT Hughes\ — WRL3157.tmp Planning Commission Resolution 2005 Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 33597 — RT Hughes Co. LLC June 14, 2005 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 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. Depending on the timing of the development of this Tentative Tract Map, and the status of the off -site improvements at the time, the applicant may be required to: A. Construct certain off -site improvements. B. Construct additional off -site improvements, subject to the reimbursement of its costs by others. C. Reimburse others for those improvements previously constructed that are considered to be an obligation of this tentative tract map. D. Secure the costs for future improvements that are to be made by others. E. To agree to any combination of these means, as the City may require. PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\RT Hughes\--WRL3157AMP i,'-0 Planning Commission Resolution 2005-_ Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 33597 — RT Hughes Co. LLC June 14, 2005 Off -Site Improvements should be completed on a first priority basis. The applicant shall complete Off -Site Improvements in the first phase of construction or by the issuance of the 20 % Building Permit (add number when applicable). In the event that any of the improvements required for this development are constructed by the City, the applicant shall, prior to the approval of the Final Map, or the issuance of any permit related thereto, reimburse the City for the costs of such improvements. 27. 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. 28. 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. GRADING 29. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\RT Hughes\—WRL3157.tmp �'� Planning Commission Resolution 2005-_ Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 33597 — RT Hughes Co. LLC June 14, 2005 Improvements), LQMC. 30. 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. 31. 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. 32. 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. 33. 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 P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\RT Hughes\ — WRL3157.tmp &" C' Planning Commission Resolution 2005 Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 33597 — RT Hughes Co. LLC June 14, 2005 six (6) feet adjacent to the curb shall not exceed 4:1 when the nearest edge of sidewalk is within six feet (61 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. 34. 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. 35. Building pad elevations of perimeter lots shall not differ by more than one foot higher from the building pads in adjacent developments. 36. The applicant shall minimize the differences in elevation between the adjoining properties and the lots within this development. Where compliance within the above stated limits is impractical, the City may consider alternatives that are shown to minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties and neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential. 37. 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. 38. 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. FOWAIRMURI 39. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.120 (Drainage), LQMC, Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03. More specifically, stormwater falling on site during the 100 year storm shall be retained within the development, unless PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\RT Hughes\—WRL3157.tmp j � O Planning Commission Resolution 2005-_ Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 33597 — RT Hughes Co. LLC June 14, 2005 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. 40. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. 41. 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. 42. 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 disposed of in a trickling sand filter and leach field or equivalent system approved by the City Engineer. The sand filter and leach field shall be designed to contain 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. 43. 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. D P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\RT Hughes\—WRL3157.tmp Planning Commission Resolution 2005-_ Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 33597 — RT Hughes Co. LLC June 14, 2005 44. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. 45. 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. For retention basins on individual lots, retention depth shall not exceed two feet. 46. 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. 47. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. 48. 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 49. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.1 10 (Utilities), LQMC. 50. 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. 51. 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. 52. 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. PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\RT Hughes\—WRL3157Amp 'J Planning Commission Resolution 2005-_ Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 33597 — RT Hughes Co. LLC June 14, 2005 The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for approval by the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 53. 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. 54. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan (street type noted in parentheses.) A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1► Madison Street (Secondrary Arterial with Class II Bike Lane; 96' R/W): a) Widening of Madison has been made a requirement of the Travertine Specific Plan. However, if this widening has not been completed within 2 years of this approval, the applicant shall 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. The west curb face shall be located thirty six feet (36') west of the centerline. Applicant shall bond for this widening prior to approval of any final map. Other required improvements in the Madison Street right or way and/or adjacent landscape setback area include: b) All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to: curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs. c) 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk. The meandering sidewalk shall have an arrhythmic horizontal layout PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\RT Hughes\—WRL3157.tmp _ �� Planning Commission Resolution 2005-_ Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 33597 — RT Hughes Co. LLC June 14, 2005 that utilizes concave and convex curves with respect to the curb line that touches the back of curb at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. The sidewalk curvature radii should vary between 50 and 300 feet, and at each point of reverse curvature, the radius should change to assist in creating the arrhythmic layout. The sidewalk shall meander into the landscape setback lot and approach within 5 feet of the perimeter wall at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. c) Establish a benchmark in the Madison Street_right of way and file a record of the benchmark with the County of Riverside. 2) Avenue 60 (Local Road, 60' R/W): a) Widen the south side of the street along all frontage adjacent to the Tentative Map boundary to its ultimate width on the south side as requirements of these conditions. the south curb face shall be located twenty feet (20') south of the centerline. Other required improvements in the Avenue 60 right or way and/or adjacent landscape setback area include: b) All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to: curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs c) A minimum 5-foot wide sidewalk with landscaping provided between the curb and the sidewalk as approved by the Community Development and the Engineering Departments. d) An additional street widening along all frontage adjacent to the Tentative Map boundary of fourteen feet (14') north of the centerline to accommodate west bound traffic unless street improvements have been constructed by development on the north side of Avenue 60. e) Lighting at the project entry. The applicant shall design and install a single street light or equivalent landscape lighting at the shared entry. Additionally, the applicant or Home PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\RT Hughes\—WRL3157.tmp � Planning Commission Resolution 2005-_ Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 33597 — RT Hughes Co. LLC June U, 2005 Owners Association shall pay for the perpetual maintenance of the street light or landscape lighting. 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 1) Construct 32-foot wide travel width as shown on the tentative map measured from gutter flow line to gutter flow line, provided parking is restricted to one side and there is adequate off-street parking for residents and visitors, and the applicant makes provisions for perpetual enforcement of the restrictions. 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. 55. All gated entries shall provide for a three -car minimum stacking capacity for inbound traffic to be a minimum length of 62 feet from call box to the street; and shall provide for a full turn -around outlet for non -accepted vehicles. Where a gated entry is proposed, the applicant shall submit a detailed exhibit at a scale of 1 " = 10, demonstrating that those passenger vehicles that do not gain entry into the development can safely make a full turn -around (minimum radius to be 24 feet) out onto the main street from the gated entry. Two lanes of traffic shall be provided on the entry side of each gated entry, one lane shall be dedicated for residents, and one lane for visitors. The two travel lanes shall be a minimum of 20 feet of total paved roadway surface or as approved by the Fire Department. Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, standard knuckles, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes and other features shown on the P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\RT Hughes\—WRL3157.tmp j Planning Commission Resolution 2005-_ Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 33597 — RT Hughes Co. LLC June 14, 2005 approved construction plans, may require additional street widths as may be determined by the City Engineer. 56. 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/Local 3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b. Secondary Arterial 4.0" a.c./6.0" c.a.b. or the approved equivalents of alternate materials. 57. 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. 58. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Primary Entry (Avenue 60, 580 feet west of Madison Street): Full turn movements are allowed. B. Secondary Entry (Avenue 60, 1,170 feet west of Madison Street): Full turn movements are allowed for resident traffic only. 59. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs and sidewalks. 60. 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. CONSTRUCTION PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\RT Hughes\—WRL3157.tmp f � Planning Commission Resolution 2005-_ Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 33597 — RT Hughes Co. LLC June 14, 2005 61. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly - maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets in residential developments are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the development or when directed by the City, whichever comes first. LANDSCAPING 62. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC. 63. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, common lots and park areas. 64. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. 65. The applicant shall submit the landscape plans for approval by the Community Development Department (CDD), prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking has been completed by CDD, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner, prior to submittal for signature by the City Engineer. NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. 66. 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. QUALITY ASSURANCE 67. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 68. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such other appropriate professionals as are required to provide the expertise with which to prepare and sign accurate record drawings, and to provide adequate PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\RT Hughes\—WRL3157.tmp Planning Commission Resolution 2005-_ Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 33597 — RT Hughes Co. LLC June 14, 2005 construction supervision. 69. 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. 70. 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 71. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance), LQMC. 72. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual maintenance of all private on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. In particular, the applicant shall provide language in the CC&Rs for continuous and perpetual maintenance by the HOA of the landscaped slope easement along Madison Street. FEES AND DEPOSITS 73. 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. 74. 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). MISCELLANEOUS 59. Perimeter wall designs including height, color, material, design shall approved by P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\RT Hughes\—WRL3157.tmp 6 4 Planning Commission Resolution 2005-_ Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract 33597 — RT Hughes Co. LLC June 14, 2005 the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee and the Planning Commission prior to issuance of building permit for the wall. 60. Proposed street names with a minimum of two alternative names per street shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval. Names to be approved prior to recordation of final map. 61. All mitigation measures contained in Environmental Assessment 2005-541 shall be met. 62. Prior to final map approval, the developer shall submit to the Community Development Department for review, a copy of the proposed Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) for the project. 63. The CC&R's shall include full disclosure that Madison Street is to be constructed adjacent to the project site, and that the grade of the roadway will be elevated above the project site. 64. This Tentative Tract Map shall expire two years after City Council approval, unless recorded or granted a time extension pursuant to the requirements of Division 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. 65. Production homes require approval of a Site Development Permit application by the Planning Commission. 66. The westerly access shall be restricted to exit only for residents, and emergency access only for entry into the site by emergency vehicles. 67. The design of the home on Lot 57 shall incorporate a circular driveway to allow vehicles to leave the lot front-end first. 68. The final map and landscaping plans for the slope adjacent to Madison Street shall include an access easement for maintenance of slope landscaping. ��► PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\RT Hughes\--WRL3157.tmp PH #F 67hti i CASE NOS.: APPLICANT/ ARCHITECTS: OWNER: LOCATION: PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT JUNE 14, 2005 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-822 KKE ARCHITECTS (MARK GILES) THE DUNES BUSINESS PARK, LLC 2005-533 AND SITE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 1 1 1, 1,300' ± EAST OF DUNE PALMS ROAD REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO CERTIFY A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR PHASE 1 (44,300 SQ. FT.) OF A 61,650 SQ. FT. CENTER ON A 6.38 ACRE SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS PREPARED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-533 FOR THIS SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED. THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THEREFORE, IS RECOMMENDING THAT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BE CERTIFIED. ZONING: CR (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: M/RC (MIXED REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USES: NORTH: FP / FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL SOUTH: CR/VACANT EAST: CR / RETAIL CENTER UNDER CONSTRUCTION WEST: CR/VACANT P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\KKE Architects\sdp 2005-822 pc rpt.doc BACKGROUND: The 6.38-acre property is located along the Highway 111 commercial corridor between Dune Palms Road and Jefferson Street (Attachment 1). To the east of the subject property is commercial land that is being developed with a center that includes Smart and Final and 990 Only. Jack -in -the -Box which is adjacent to Highway 1 1 1 is immediately to the east of this site. The parking lots between this center and the subject property will be connected at two points. Power poles run next to and parallel to Highway 1 1 1 . Tentative Parcel Map 31 143 for this site was approved at a Directors hearing on April 10, 2003. The map subdivided this site into four parcels and coincides with the main building and three freestanding pad buildings. The map has not been finalized and recorded and at present a time extension of the approval is being processed by staff. PROJECT PROPOSAL AND DISCUSSION: General: The architectural and landscaping plans have been submitted for the first phase of this project (Attachment 2). This includes the main building near the north property line and Retail 1 near the southwest corner of the site. The center pad (2,350 sq. ft.) and adjacent proposed Retail E (15,000 sq. ft.) are part of Phase 2 and will require separate Site Development Permits in the future. The first phase of construction will consist of the main building (A through D) and parking necessary to support it. Circulation/Parking: The required parking for the entire center had been calculated based on the overall size of 61,650 square feet of retail commercial uses. This permits 20% of the center (12,330 sq. ft.) to be drive -through, fast food or sit down restaurant uses. This requires a total of 247 parking spaces. The plan provides 284 spaces, which exceeds the required spaces. Access to the site is from Highway 1 1 1 at the west end. This access is shown as a shared access with the undeveloped property to the west. This shared access will require reciprocal access and circulation easements. Two vehicular access points are provided from this site to the westerly property. Proposed Retail 1 and the adjacent pad to the east have drive -through lanes which wrap around the buildings and run next to Highway 111. Specific users are not indicated, but are likely to be restaurant uses. h P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\KKE Architects\sdp 2005-822 pc rpt.doc Orr_hitactima- The architectural style is "Desert Contemporary" with materials including a float finish exterior plaster, slate and ledgestone veneer, turquoise colored metal awnings, and red blend concrete s-tile roofing. Exterior colors will consist of darker earth tones, including garnet and two shades of green. The material sample and color board will be available at the meeting. Architectural features of the project include flat roofs with a decorative cornice, six tower features of different heights, styles, materials and colors. Two types of stone veneer will be used around the base of the store fronts and tower columns. These features, with the exception of the stone, will extend around the sides and rear of the building. The Retail 1 building is rectangular and has the same architectural features as the main building. The main building height varies from approximately 22 feet at the flat parapet to 37.5 feet for one of the towers near the west end of the building. The freestanding Retail 1 building varies from 21.5 feet high at the parapet to 30 feet high for the tower at the northeast corner of the building. A portion of the south facing parapet (68 feet long of the 126 feet long building) extends up to 24 feet high as part of a false arcade. Landscaping: Conceptual landscaping plans have been submitted for the project. The plans are conceptual and show specific trees, but not shrub and groundcover details. A plant palette for trees, shrubs and groundcover is included. Trees to shade the parking lot are shown throughout the site. Along the north property line an eight foot high wrought iron fence is shown. The only planting shown adjacent to the north property line is a planter at the east end. A minimum 50 foot landscape setback is provided adjacent to Highway 111. A meandering sidewalk is shown along with a number of trees in this setback. Miscellaneous: Four trash enclosures are shown at the rear of the main building, at the rear of the site. No enclosures are shown for the three buildings near Highway 1 1 1. No sign program has been submitted to date. However, the elevations indicate proposed sign locations. The sign program will be submitted and approved prior issuance of the first building permit. Parking lot lighting information has not been submitted. Because the adjacent parking lot to the east is integrated, it would be desirable to have the same lighting system. P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\KKE Architects\sdp 2005-822 pc rpt.doc ISSUES: Access to Highway 1 1 1 is dependent upon obtaining from and giving an easement to the property owner to the west. If it is not consummated it will be necessary to revise the site plan to provide the driveway on site. This will likely affect the number of parking spaces and square footage of the buildings. The two drive -through lanes will require screening from view of Highway 111. This will necessitate a combination of berming, planting and/or short decorative walls. The screening will need to be reviewed as landscaping plans are refined. The freestanding Retail 1 building is within the 150 foot setback distance where building heights are restricted to 22 feet. As noted, the false arcade is at 24 feet high. In the past, tower, spire and other non floor area features have been allowed to exceed 22 feet. This parapet feature does exceed the height by two feet but does not increase floor space and has no depth to it. If it is reduced to 23 feet high, it would be acceptable. Trash enclosures for the front three buildings will need to be provided as part of the final plan check prior to issuance of building permits. Additionally, clearance for adequacy and design will need to be obtained from Waste Management. A sign program for the Center will need to be submitted for Planning Commission approval prior to issuance of the first building permit. If during final plan check it is determined there are excessive parking spaces, strategically placed spaces should be replaced with landscaping to enhance the site design. ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE: The Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC) reviewed this request at their meeting of April 6, 2005 and adopted Minute Motion 2005-010, recommending approval of the architectural and landscaping plans, subject to several revisions (Attachment 3). The applicant is requesting to use wrought iron fence with heavy planting adjacent to the inside of the fence along the north property line. The ALRC had no objections. PUBLIC NOTICE: These applications were advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on June 3, 2005. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the Public Hearing notice as required by the La Quinta Municipal Code. As of this writing, no comments have been received. P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\KKE Architects\sdp 2005-822 pc rpt.doc ENVIRONMENT ASSESSMENT FINDINGS: The findings needed to certify a Mitigated Negative Declaration, as noted in the Zoning Code, can be made as stipulated in the attached Resolution. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FINDINGS: The findings needed to approve this Site Development Permit, as noted in the Zoning Code, can be made as stipulated in the attached Resolution, subject to the Conditions of Approval. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005- certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact, subject to mitigation measures. 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005- approving Site Development Permit 2005-831, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Development Plans 3. Minutes of Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee meeting of April 6, 2005 Prepared by: Stan Sawa, Principal Planner e- P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\KKE A•chitects\sdp 2005-822 pc rpt.doc - �� PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA CERTIFYNG A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-822 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-533 APPLICANT: KKE ARCHITECTS (FOR THE DUNES BUSINESS PARK, LLC) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 14" day of June, 2005 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of KKE ARCHITECTS (FOR THE DUNES BUSINESS PARK, LLC) for Environmental Assessment 2005-533 prepared for Site Development Permit 2005-822 which allows a commercial retail center located on the north side of Highway 1 1 1, 1,300 ± feet east of Dune Palms Road, more particularly described as: PORTION OF APN 646-020-014 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department published the public hearing notice in the Desert Sun newspaper on June 3, 2005, for the Planning Commission meeting as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site; and WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify recommending to the City Council certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1. The proposed applications will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2005-533. 2. The proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Potential impacts associated with cultural and resources can be mitigated to a less than significant level with monitoring during earth - moving activities. ti � Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Environmental Assessment 2005-533 KKE Architects for The Dunes Business Park, LLC Adopted: June 14, 2005 3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends. 4. The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as the proposed project supports the long term goals of the General Plan by providing a variety of housing opportunities for City residents. No significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the Environmental Assessment. 5. The proposed project will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the proposed project. The construction of the commercial shopping center will not have considerable cumulative impacts. The project is consistent with the General Plan, and the potential impacts associated with General Plan build -out. 6. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly. The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect human beings, due to air quality and noise impacts. The Coachella Valley is in a non -attainment area for PM 10, and the site will generate PM 10; however, there are a number of mitigation measures to reduce the potential impacts on air quality. Noise impacts have been addressed through a series of mitigation measures, which will lower the potential for significant impacts to less than significant levels. 7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. 8. The Planning Commission has considered Environmental Assessment 2005-533 and said reflects their independent judgment. 9. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d). 10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California. Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Environmental Assessment 2005-533 KKE Architects for The Dunes Business Park, LLC Adopted: June 14, 2005 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment. 2. That it does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 2005-533 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Mitigation Monitoring Program, attached and on file in the Community Development Department. 3. That Environmental Assessment 2005-533 reflects the Commission's independent judgment. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 14t" day of June, 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 Environmental Checklist Form (EA 2005-533) 1. Project title: Site Development Permit 05-822, The Dunes Retail Center 2. Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact person and phone number: Stan Sawa 760-777-7125 4. Project location: North side of Highway 111, 1,300 feet east of Dune Palms Road. 5. Project sponsor's name and address: KKE Architects 35 East Colorado Boulevard Pasadena, CA 91105 6. General plan designation: Regional 7. Zoning: Regional Commercial Commercial 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.) Site Development Permit to review the site planning and architecture for a 44,300 sq. ft. retail shopping center. This represents the first phase of a two phase project, which will total 6.38 acres, and up to 61,650 (maximum 65,000) square feet of retail commercial space on contiguous lands. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: North: Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel South: Highway 111, Regional Commercial West: Vacant, Regional Commercial East: Existing Shopping Center, Regional Commercial 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Coachella Valley Water District -1- 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. f Aesthetics Biological Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Mineral Resources lr Public Services f -- 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 environment, g p p p J X 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. Signature May 23 2005 Date -2- EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the 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). Z) 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 or 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 mitigation 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 to 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 Mitigation Measures 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. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) 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 -3- -I t 1. 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. -4- 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? (General Plan Exhibit 3.6) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, X including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Aerial photograph) 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)-d) The project site is currently vacant desert lands which have been impacted by surrounding roadway development. A fast food restaurant occurs south of the proposed project. The site is flat, and surrounded by Regional Commercial lands. The project will be required to implement the requirements for building setbacks and height restrictions on Highway 111, as required for this Primary Image Corridor. The development of single story commercial at this location will not significantly impact viewsheds for single family development to the north, due to the intervening storm water channel. There are no rock outcroppings or other significant resources on the site. Impacts associated with scenic resources are expected to be insignificant. The construction of the proposed project will cause an increase in light generation, primarily from car headlights and landscape lighting. The City regulates lighting levels and does not allow lighting to spill over onto adjacent property. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique X Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide 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. I11-21 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) II. a)-c) The proposed project is located in the urban core of the City. There are no agricultural lands on or near the proposed project. The site and all surrounding lands are designated and partially constructed for Regional Commercial land uses. The proposed project will have no impact on agricultural lands. -6- III. a) C iml: i qua Proj b) con pro; cI:( �_C) F net whi atta stat (inc exc I prei 1 2 00' Proi d) I sub (Prc sub Des Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact AIR QUALITY: Would the project: 'onflict with or obstruct X lementation of the applicable air lity plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, :ct Study) 'iolate any air quality standard or X [ribute substantially to an existing or ected air quality violation? (SCAQMD 'A Handbook, Project Study) .esult in a cumulatively considerable X increase of any criteria pollutant for ch the project region is non- inment under an applicable federal or - ambient air quality standard luding releasing emissions which .ed quantitative thresholds for ozone -ursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, ! PM 10 Plan for the Coachella Valley, xt Study) ,xpose sensitive receptors to X stantial pollutant concentrations? ject Description, Project Study) reate objectionable odors affecting a X stantial number of people? (Project j :ription, Aerial Photo, site inspection) III. a), b) & c) The proposed project can generate pollutants during the construction and operation of the site. Both these impacts are addressed below. Unnctnirtinn The grading of the site has the potential to generate fugitive dust. The City and region arc in a severe non -attainment area for the generation of PM10, a component of fugitive dust. As a result, the City participates and implements regional plans for the prevention and suppression of fugitive dust, including the mandatory preparation of PM10 Management Plans for construction projects. The project site has the potential to generate 89.232 pounds of fugitive dust during each phase (3 acres) of development, assuming mass grading of each 3 acre phase is undertaken. This dust generation falls below the thresholds of significance established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Therefore, impacts associated with construction air quality are expected to be less than significant. Operations The proposed project will generate up to a maximum 65,000 square feet of commercial retail development. Although a site specific traffic study was not prepared for the proposed project buildout, it can be estimated that the site will generate up to 2,791 average daily trips at buildout'. These vehicle trips will generate the following emissions. Table 1 Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout (hounds Der dav) Ave. Trip Total Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Length (miles) miles/day 2,971 x 15 = 44,565 PM10 PM10 PM]o Pollutant ROC CO NOX Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wear Pounds at 50 mph 8.85 230.20 47.22 - 0.98 0.98 SCAQMD Threshold (lbs /day) 75 550 100 150 Assumes 2,971 trips, ITE categories 820. Based on California Air Resources Board's EMFAC7G Emissions Model. Assumes Year 2005 summertime running conditions at 75°F, light duty autos, catalytic. _ As demonstrated, the buildout of the proposed project will not exceed thresholds of significance during operation of the proposed center. Impacts associated with vehicle emissions are expected to be less than significant. III. d) & e) The construction of retail commercial space is not expected to generate objectionable odors. 1 "'Trip Generation, 70' Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, for category 820, Shopping Center. 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, pages 74-87) 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, pages 74-87) 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, pages 74- 87) 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, pages 74-87) e) Conflict with any local policies or X ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance (General Plan MEA, pages 74-87) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, X Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? General Plan MEA, pages 74-87) -9- r-a IV. a)-f) The proposed project occurs on an isolated parcel immediately north of Highway 111. The site has been impacted by surrounding development, and the construction of neighboring roadways. The site is sparsely vegetated, and does not contain either riparian habitat or wetlands. The site has not been identified in the General Plan as a survey area for regional species of concern. The site is within the fee area for the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Plan, and will be required to pay the fees in place at the time of issuance of building permits. Impacts associated with biological resources are expected to be less than significant. IN Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact 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," CRM Tech) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in X the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to'15064.5? ("Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey," CRM Tech) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique X paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (General Plan Exhibit 6.8) d) Disturb any human remains, including X those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ("historical/Archaeological Resources Survey," CRM Tech, September 2004) V. a)-b) & d) A historical and archaeological Phase I report was prepared for the proposed project2. The survey included both a records search and an on -site survey. The records search identified 60 prehistoric sites and nine historic sites within one mile radius of the proposed project. The on -site survey did not identify any resources on the site, however, given the number of sites identified in close proximity of the project site, the report concluded that the potential for buried resources exists. As a result, the following mitigation measure must be implemented. 1. A qualified archeological monitor shall be present during all earth moving activities on the project site. The monitor shall be empowered to stop or redirect earth moving activities should resources be identified. Any resources identified shall be properly catalogued and curated. A final report of the monitoring activities shall be submitted to the Community Development Department within 30 days of completion of grading on the site. Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. V. c) The project site is outside the boundary of ancient Lake Cahuilla. No paleontological resources are expected to occur on the site. No impacts are expected. 2 "historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report The Dunes Retail Center...," prepared by CRM Tech. 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? (General Plan pages 97-106) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X (General Plan pages 97-106) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, X including liquefaction? (General Plan pages 97-106) iv) Landslides? (General Plan pages 97-106) X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or X the loss of topsoil? General Plan pages 97- 106) d) 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 (General Plan pages 97-106) e) Have soils incapable of adequately X supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (General Plan pages 97-106) VI. a)-e) The site is located in a Zone IV ground shaking zone as defined by the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The site, and the City as a whole, can expect to experience significant ground shaking in a seismic event. The City implements the standards of the UBC for seismic zones, and will apply these standards to this project. The site is flat, and is not located adjacent to slopes which might pose a rockfall hazard. The site is not within an area susceptible to liquefaction. The site is not located on expansive soils, and will be required to connect to sanitary sewer service which occurs adjacent to the site. Overall impacts to geology and soils are expected to be less than significant. -12- 1 _10 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 MEA, 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? (General Plan MEA, p. 95 ff.) 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? (General Plan MEA, p. 95 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 result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) f) For a project within the vicinity of a 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 X physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff) I -13- h) Expose people or structures to a X 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) VII. a)-h) The proposed project will generate up to 65,000 square feet of retail commercial space. Although the users of the space are not known at this time, it is expected that the use of hazardous materials in these businesses will be limited to that typical of retail businesses (Primarily cleaning products). Should a use which handles hazardous materials be proposed within the project, the business will be required to meet all local, regional, state and federal standards for the handling and storage of these materials. The City coordinates such activities with the Fire Department, and would implement whatever conditions of approval are necessary to adequately address this issue. The site is not in an area subject to wildland fire hazards. Impacts associated with hazardous materials and risk of upset are expected to be insignificant. -14- ey Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would theproject: a) Violate any water quality standards or X waste discharge requirements? (General Plan EIR p. III-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. III-187 ff.) c) Substantially alter the existing X drainage 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 X drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) e) Create or contribute runoff water X which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) 0 Place housing within a I00-year flood X hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard -15- '" delineation map? (General Plan EIR p. III- 187 ff.) g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard X area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 6.6) VIII. a) & b) Domestic water is supplied to the project site by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The development of the site will result in the need for domestic water service use in the commercial buildings, and for landscaping irrigation. The CVWD has prepared a Water Management Plan which indicates that it has sufficient water sources to accommodate growth in its service area. The CVWD has implemented or is implementing water conservation, purchase and replenishment measures which will result in a surplus of water in the long term. The project proponent will be required to implement the City's water efficient landscaping and construction provisions, including requirements for water efficient fixtures, which will ensure that the least amount of water is utilized within the homes. The applicant will also be required to comply with the City's NPDES standards, requiring that potential pollutants not be allowed to enter surface waters. These City standards will assure that impacts to water quality and quantity will be less than significant. VIII. c) & d) The City requires that all projects retain the 100 year storm on site. The applicant will be required to design a plan for on -site detention based on hydrology and hydraulic analysis prepared for the site as part of the grading permit process. These plans will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of these permits. These existing City standards will assure that the proposed project will meet the City's requirements for flood control. VIII. e)-g) The site is not located in a flood zone as designated by FEMA. -16- 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) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat X conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 74 ff.) IX. a)-c) The proposed project will result in the construction of up to 65,000 square feet of commercial retail space in the Regional Commercial land use and zoning designation. The development is consistent with the designation. The site is currently vacant, and will not interfere with an established community. The project site is in the boundary of the mitigation fee for the Coachella Valley Fringe - toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan, and will be required to pay the fee in place at the time that building permits are issued. There will be no impacts to land use and planning. -17- .) Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant 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 ff.) 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 site is within the MRZ-1 Zone, and is therefore not considered to have potential for mineral resources. -18- �� Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XI. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation X 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. 111 ff.) b) Exposure of persons to or generation X of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (General Plan MEA p. 111 ff.) c) A substantial permanent increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project (General Plan MEA p. 111 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. 111 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)-f) The proposed project will result in the development of 65,000 ± square feet of retail commercial development. No sensitive receptors are planned for the site. Although noise levels in this portion are higher, due to the noise generated by Highway 111, the impacts, particularly since the project will be located away from the highway, are expected to be within the range typical of commercial development, and within the City's standards for noise generation. 6 p%s -19- Noise levels will be highest on the site during the construction phase. As previously stated, the site is located in a commercial area, and not adjacent to any sensitive receptors. The noise generated by construction will be periodic and temporary. The construction activities will be limited by the Municipal Code to day time hours, which are less susceptible to discernable noise increases. Impacts are expected to be less than significant. The site is not located within the area of influence of an airport or air strip. 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, :3y 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 development of 65,000 square feet of commercial space is not expected to generate substantial growth in the City, but is more likely to offer employment opportunities to new residents within the normal annual growth rates which the City experiences. The site is currently vacant and will not displace any population or housing. Impacts associated with the proposed project are expected to be less than significant. -20- ..� < 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)Buildout 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. Buildout of the proposed project will generate property tax and sales tax which 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 in place at the time of issuance of building permits to reduce the impacts to those services. -21- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact 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) 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 development of commercial space is not expected to have any impact on recreational facilities in the City. -22- 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. III-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. III-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)? Proposed site plan) c) Result in inadequate emergency X access? (Proposed site plan) 0 Result in inadequate parking capacity? X (Proposed site plan) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, X or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project description) XV. a)-g) The proposed project will result in approximately 2,791 daily trips. This number is likely to be conservative, insofar as no reduction has been taken for pass -by trips, and the type of development within the project is likely to generate pass -by trip activity. The anticipated square footage on the site, 65,000 square feet, is less than the potential 97,200 square feet that could be constructed on the site, based on the 35% building coverage allowed in the City's Zoning Ordinance. The total trip generation, therefore, is likely to be less than that analyzed in the General Plan traffic study, which considered the types of -23- J uses currently proposed for the site. The traffic study concluded that this section of Highway 111, and the City's general circulation system, would operate at acceptable levels of service at buildout of the General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project is expected to have a less than significant impact on circulation and traffic. The project does not include inadequate parking or unsafe designs. The proposed project parking will be calculated based on the City's Zoning standards, which allow flexibility based on the mix of uses and the preparation of supporting documentation for variations from its standards. The Highway 111 corridor is served by SunLine transit agency, which will serve the proposed project. Overall impacts associated with transportation are expected to be less than significant. i ',I -24- 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 which 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.) 0 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.) XVI. a)-g) Utilities are available at the project site. The service providers for water, sewer, electricity and other utilities have facilities in the immediate vicinity of the site, and will collect -25- connection and usage fees to balance for the cost of providing services. The construction of the proposed project is expected to have less than significant impacts on utility providers. 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 proposed project site has the potential to significantly impact cultural resources. Mitigation measures included in this Initial Study, however, will assure that the potential impacts are reduced to less than significant levels. XVII. b) The proposed project will provide additional commercial services and products for City residents, consistent with the General Plan's goals and policies. -26- E� XVII. c) The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan vision for this area. Construction of the project will have no significant cumulative impacts, insofar as it is expected to result in a lower square footage than that anticipated in the General Plan. XVII. d) The impacts associated with air quality, noise and hazards are all expected to be less than significant. Impacts to human beings are therefore expected to be less than significant. 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 effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. Not applicable. -27- 1� w 0 0 0 M .-r x o O w � o b z o o O CIO a daaQd N N 00 �n O 0 N a � v 0 O 0 ; M O CA N ®d Fy O z x� w~ A U W d F d A A a� ° v U d � o a U � S z Q� a o� z A O Q � � � ° O � v fri a � a a� C% O O W d � U O N F a O cl U PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- A RESOLUTION OF THE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR PHASE 1 OF A SHOPPING CENTER LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 111, 1,300 ± FEET EAST OF DUNE PALMS ROAD CASE: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-822 APPLICANT: KKE ARCHITECTS (FOR THE DUNES BUSINESS PARK, LLC) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did, on the 1.4" day of June, 2005, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by KKE Architects for approval of a Site Development Permit to allow Phase 1 (with 44,300 square feet) of a shopping center on 6.38 ± acres located on the north side of Highway 1 1 1, 1,300 ± feet east of Dune Palms Road in the CR (Regional Commercial) zone district, more particularly described as: APN: Portion of 649-020-014 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department published a public hearing notice in the Desert Sun newspaper on June 3, 2005 as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site; and WHEREAS, the La Quinta Community Development Department has prepared Environmental assessment 2005-533 for this Site Development Permit in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended. The Community Development Director has determined that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and therefore, is recommending that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact be certified; and WHEREAS, at the Public Hearing upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings to justify approval of said Site Development Permit: 1. The General Plan designates the project area as Regional Commercial. The proposed commercial buildings are consistent with this land use designation. PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\KKE Architects\sdp 2005-822 peres.doc • x, C Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Site Development Permit 2005-822 — KKE Architects Adopted: June 14, 2005 Page 2 2. The proposed commercial buildings are designed to comply with the Zoning Code requirements, including, but not limited to, height limits, parking, and lot coverage. 3. The Community Development Department has prepared Environmental Assessment 2005-533 for this Site Development Permit in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended. The Community Development Director has determined that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and therefore, is recommending that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact be certified. 4. The architectural design of the project, including, but not limited to the architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors, architectural details, roof style, and other architectural elements are compatible with the surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the City. 5. The site design of the project, including, but not limited to project entries, interior circulation, pedestrian and bicycle access, pedestrian amenities, screening of equipment and trash enclosures, exterior lighting, and other site design elements are compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the City. 6. Project conceptual landscaping, including, but not limited to the location, type, size, color, texture, and coverage of plant materials has been designed and conditioned to provide relief, compliment buildings, visually emphasize prominent design elements and vistas, screen undesirable views, provide a harmonious transition between adjacent land uses and between development and open space, provide an overall unifying influence, enhance the visual continuity of the project, and compliment the surrounding project area, ensuring lower maintenance and water use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of said Planning Commission in this case; and PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\KKE A•chitects\sdp 2005-822 peres.doc .� t 3 Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Site Development Permit 2005-822 - KKE Architects Adopted: June 14, 2005 Page 3 2. That it does hereby acknowledge that Environmental Assessment 2005-533 has determined that no significant effects on the environment have been identified that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level; and 3. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 2005-822, 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 141h day of June, 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: DOUGLAS R. EVANS Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\KKE Architects\sdp 2005-822 peres.doc n.i . PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-822 — KKE ARCHITECTS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED ADOPTED: JUNE 14, 2005 GENERAL 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 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 any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain any necessary clearances and/or permits from the following agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) • SunLine Transit Agency • SCAQMD Coachella Valley • Caltrans 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. A project -specific NPDES construction permit must be obtained by the applicant; and who then shall submit a copy of the Regional Water Quality Control Board's ("RWQCB") acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent ("NOI"), prior to the issuance of a grading or site construction permit by the City. 3. 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. 1 �Ir P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\KKE Architects\sdp 2005-822 pccoa.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Site Development Permit 2005-822 — KKE Architects Conditions of Approval - Recommended Adopted: June 14, 2005 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. 6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control. E. All erosion and sediment control BMPs proposed by the applicant shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any onsite or offsite grading, pursuant to this project. F. The approved SWPPP and BMPs shall remain in effect for the entire duration of project construction until all improvements are completed and accepted by the City. 5. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\KKE Architects\sdp 2005-822 pccoa.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Site Development Permit 2005-822 — KKE Architects Conditions of Approval - Recommended Adopted: June 14, 2005 PROPERTY RIGHTS 6. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction and reconstruction of essential improvements. 7. The applicant shall offer for dedication 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. 8. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction plans. Pursuant to this requirement, the Applicant shall include in the submittal packet containing the draft final map submitted for map checking, an offsite street geometric layout, drawn at 1 equals 40 feet, detailing the following design aspects: median curb line, outside curb line, lane line alignment including lane widths, left turn lanes, deceleration lane(s) and bus stop turnout(s). The geometric layout shall be accompanied with sufficient professional engineering studies to confirm the appropriate length of all proposed turn pockets and auxiliary lanes that may impact the right of way dedication required of the project and the associated landscape setback requirement 9. When the City Engineer determines that access rights to the proposed street right-of- ways shown on the approved Parcel Map No. 31143, the applicant shall grant the necessary right-of-ways within 60 days of a written request by the City. 10. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as appropriate, from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments will occur. 11. 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. 12. The applicant shall provide and obtain easements necessary for the adjoining parcel(s) to construct and use the shared entry drive to Highway 1 1 1 along the west property line of Parcel Map No. 31143 as well as to proposed parking and access drive associated with this Site Development Permit. PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\KKE Architects\sdp 2005-822 pccoa.doc x a Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Site Development Permit 2005-822 — KKE Architects Conditions of Approval - Recommended Adopted: June 14, 2005 IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENTS 13. When improvements are phased through a "Phasing Plan," or an administrative approval (e.g., Site Development Permits), all off -site improvements and common on - site improvements (e.g., backbone utilities, retention basins, perimeter walls, landscaping and gates) shall be constructed prior to the issuance of any permits in the first phase of the development, or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer unless said improvements are secured under Tentative Parcel Map 31143. Improvements and obligations required of each subsequent phase shall be completed prior to the occupancy of permanent buildings within such latter phase, or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. In the event the applicant fails to construct the improvements for the development, or fails to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, pursuant to the approved phasing plan, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of all permits, and/or final inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. 14. 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. 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. 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. 15. 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 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. P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\KKE Architects\sdp 2005-822 pccoa.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Site Development Permit 2005-822 — KKE Architects Conditions of Approval - Recommended Adopted: June 14, 2005 A. On -Site Commercial Precise Grading Plan B. PM 10 Plan C. SWPPP D. Temporary Storm Drain/Retention Basin Plan Note: A thru D to be submitted concurrently. 1 " = 30' Horizontal 1 " = 40' Horizontal 1 " = 40' Horizontal 1 " = 30' Horizontal NOTE: Will not be processed for plan check review unless Rough Grading Plans and Hydrology are approved by the Public Works Department. 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. The applicant shall prepare an accessibility assessment on annotated print of the building floor plan identifying every building egress and notes the 2001 California Building Code accessibility requirements associated with each door. The assessment must comply with submittal requirements of the Building & Safety Department. A copy of the reviewed assessment shall be submitted to the Engineering Department in conjunction with the Site Development Plan when it is submitted for plan checking. "Precise Grading" plans shall normally include all on -site surface improvements including but not necessarily limited to finish grades for curbs & gutters, building floor elevations, parking lot improvements and ADA requirements, retaining and perimeter walls, etc. ADA accessibility to public streets, adjacent buildings and existing and proposed handicap parking shall be shown on the Precise Grading Plans at a scale to be determined by the Public Works Department. Precise Grading Plans shall also require approval by the Community Development and Building and Safety Departments. 16. 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. 17. 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. PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\KKE Architects\sdp 2005-822 pccoa.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Site Development Permit 2005-822 — KKE Architects Conditions of Approval - Recommended Adopted: June 14, 2005 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. GRADING 18. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements), LQMC. 19. 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. 20. 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 applicable improvement plans 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. W. PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\KKE Architects\sdp 2005-822 pccoa.doc 9 ) Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Site Development Permit 2005-822 — KKE Architects Conditions of Approval - Recommended Adopted: June 14, 2005 21. 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. 22. Building pad elevations on the rough grading plan submitted for City Engineer's approval shall conform with pad elevations shown on the Site Development Permit Plan, unless the pad elevations have other requirements imposed elsewhere in these Conditions of Approval. 23. Prior to any site grading or re -grading 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. 24. 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. nRAimAnF- 25. Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage report for Parcel Map No. 31 143 and as revised for this site development permit. As the applicant proposes discharge of storm water directly, or indirectly, into the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, the applicant shall indemnify the City from the costs of any sampling and testing of the development's drainage discharge which may be required under the City's NPDES Permit or other City- or area -wide pollution prevention program, and for any other obligations and/or expenses which may arise from such discharge. The indemnification shall be executed and furnished to the City prior to the issuance of any grading, construction or building permit, and shall be binding on all heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and successors in interest in the land within the overlying tentative parcel map and this site development permit excepting there from those portions required to be dedicated or deeded for public use. The form of the indemnification shall be acceptable to the City Attorney. If such discharge is approved for this development, the applicant shall make provisions in the final development CC&Rs for meeting these potential obligations. PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\KKE Architects\sdp 2005-822 pccoa.doc I i {' G �� Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Site Development Permit 2005-822 — KKE Architects Conditions of Approval - Recommended Adopted: June 14, 2005 26. Nuisance water shall be retained onsite and disposed of via an underground percolation improvement approved by the City Engineer. 27. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and handled accordingly on -site or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. UTILITIES 28. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.110 (Utilities), LQMC. 29. 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. 30. 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. 31. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for approval by the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 32. 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. 33. 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: PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\KKE Architects\sdp 2005-822 pccoa.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Site Development Permit 2005-822 — KKE Architects Conditions of Approval - Recommended Adopted: June 14, 2005 Parking Lot & Aisles (Low Traffic) 3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b. Access Driveways/Loading Areas (Heavy Duty Traffic) 4.5" a.c./5.5" c.a.b. or the approved equivalents of alternate materials. 34. 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. 35. 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 and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. 36. The applicant shall advise any prospective buyer of any parcel on this Site Development Permit of its continuing obligation to maintain all sidewalks located in the public right of way adjacent to its property in a good state of repair pursuant to Streets & Highways Code Section 5610. PARKING LOTS and ACCESS POINTS 37. The design of parking facilities shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150 (Parking). In particular, the following are conditioned with this approval. A. Accessibility routes to public streets and adjacent development shall be shown on the Precise Grading Plan. B. Cross slopes should be a maximum of 2% where ADA accessibility is required including accessibility routes between buildings. C. Building access points shall be shown on the Precise Grading Plans to better evaluate ADA accessibility issues. Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes, ADA accessibility route to public streets and other features shown on the approved construction plans, may require additional street widths and other improvements as may be determined by the City Engineer. PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\KKE Architects\sdp 2005-822 pccoa.doc r t, Planning Commission Resolution 2005- site Development Permit 2005-822 — KKE Architects Conditions of Approval - Recommended Adopted: June 14, 2005 38. General access points and turning movements of traffic to off site public streets are limited to the access locations approved in the approved Parcel Map No. 31 143 and these conditions of approval. LANDSCAPING 39. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC. 40. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, common lots and park areas. 41. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. 42. The applicant shall submit the landscape plans for approval by the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee and Community Development Department (CDD), prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking has been completed by CDD, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner, prior to submittal for signature by the City Engineer. NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. 43. 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. 44. Provide evergreen substitute tree for Crape Myrtle. 45. Planting along Highway 111 perimeter shall comply with adopted Highway 111 design theme while providing screening of drive -through lane of Retail 1 building and future pad building. 46. Parking lot tree wells shall be a minimum 6'x6' in size. Palm Springs Gold Fines or equal shall cover all planter areas. 47. An eight foot high wrought iron fence shall be provided along the north property line with a landscape planter with dense trees and other plant material provided. Planter shall be as deep as possible while providing minimum aisle widths. 48. The west end of Retail "A" and "D" buildings shall be provided with landscape planters to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\KKE Architects\sdp 2005-822 pccoa.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Site Development Permit 2005-822 — KKE Architects Conditions of Approval - Recommended Adopted: June 14, 2005 QUALITY ASSURANCE 49. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 50. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such other appropriate professionals as are required to provide the expertise with which to prepare and sign accurate record drawings, and to provide adequate construction supervision. 51. 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. 52. 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 53. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance), LQMC. 54. 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 55. 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. 56. 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). �i PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\KKE Architects\sdp 2005-822 pccoa.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Site Development Permit 2005-822 - KKE Architects Conditions of Approval - Recommended Adopted: June 14, 2005 57. Within 24 hours after final approval by the Planning Commission, applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department a check for $1,314. (made out to the County of Riverside). This check is to accompany the required Notice of Determination filed by the City of La Quinta. MISCELLANEOUS 58. Trash enclosures shall be provided for the southerly three buildings and shown on the parking lot improvement plans. All enclosures shall be reviewed and approved by Waste Management. 59. A Sign Program for the Center shall be submitted for Planning Commission approval prior to issuance of the first building permit. 60. The south elevation of Retail 1 building shall be provided with additional articulation (i.e. metal awnings). 61. Parking lot lighting shall be down -shining, shielded nearest residential uses and match those used in the project to the east. 62. Phase 1 parking lot improvements shall include adequate parking spaces to comply with parking and access requirements. 63. Exterior building wall lighting shall be down -shining with shielded fixtures to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. 64. All back-up aisles shall be a minimum of 26 feet wide. 65. Pad building and Retail "E" building requires approval of Site Development Permits. The layouts shown on the site plan are conceptual only and subject to future approval. 66. The development plans shall be submitted to the Fire Marshal for review and approval prior to submission to the City for plan check. 67. The south -facing 24 foot high parapet on Retail 1 building shall be reduced to 23 feet. 68. If during final plan check it is determined there are excessive parking spaces, strategically placed spaces shall be replaced with landscaping to enhance the site design. PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\KKE Architects\sdp 2005-822 pccoa.doc �' K ATTACHMENT #3 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee April 6, 2005 a. The qu ntity of California Pepper trees shall be reduced on the entrance and common area and replaced with one or m re different varieties. C. Site Development Permit 2004-822; a request of KKE Architects/The Dunes Business Park, LLC for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for a retail center located on the north side of Highway 1 1 1, between Jefferson Street and Dune Palms Road. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff introduced the applicant Mark Giles, who gave a presentation on the project. 2. Committee Member Christopher asked if the parking lot spaces would be double -striped. The applicant stated they will be. Committee Member Christopher stated he has a concern on the north elevation in regard to the view of the property owners looking at the rear elevation with distracting lighting. If they are to be shielded and down lit, the wall should be a minimum of eight feet. 3. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if there was any provision for landscaping adjacent to the wash. Mr. Giles stated they were proposing a fence with landscaping on the interior. They would prefer to do the eight foot wrought iron fence with landscaping. 4. Committee Member Thoms asked what was proposed by Smart and Final for their fence. Staff stated the same wrought iron fencing with planting. 5. Committee Member Christopher stated it would not be as big an issue as Wal-Mart where they needed to address all the deliveries and aesthetics instead of just the noise. 6. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he would prefer the plant material rather than the block wall. He asked if the tree wells were four feet in size. Mr. Giles stated they are all six foot diamonds. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he thought they were supposed to be eight foot minimum. Staff stated the Code had not been amended to require the larger tree wells. Mr. Giles stated that to go to that size planter, it would be better to use the finger island. G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\4-6-05 ALRC.doc 6 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee April 6, 2005 7. Committee Member Thorns asked about the small building on the south elevation; it appears too bland. His concern is that it faces Highway 111. 8. Committee Member Christopher agreed. Discussion followed regarding the uses of the building. 9. Committee Member Thorns stated the south elevation will have to be upgraded. He also noted the berm and plant material are not noted on the plans. Staff noted they will have to work within the height limits of this location. 10. Committee Member Christopher suggested canopies be added over the three window resets and some serious landscaping with more color. Mr. Giles stated they are working out the issue of a deceleration lane into the site. This will determine how much landscaping they can do. 11. Committee Member Thorns asked about staff's recommendation on Item #7. Staff stated there is no project proposed for the west side of this project and on the east side the landscaping belongs to the other project. Staff is concerned about landscaping pockets along the end buildings. Committee Member Thorns stated landscape trellises may work. Mr. Giles stated they could reduce the size of the drive aisle to gain the space for landscaping. 12. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Thoms/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2005-010 approving Site Development Permit 2004-822, as recommended by staff and amended: a. The south elevation of building one shall be upgraded. b. The end buildings shall have additional landscaping. C. The crepe myrtle trees shall be substituted with a different tree variety. d. An eight foot high wrought iron rear wall with landscaping and shielded light shall be constructed. Unanimously approved. G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\4-6-05 ALRC.doc 7 ) PH #G STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 14, 2005 CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-830 APPLICANT: JOHN GARRISON — GSR ANDRADE ARCHITECTS REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A ± 36,000 SQUARE FOOT, TWO-STORY MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF WASHINGTON STREET, ±400 FEET SOUTH OF AVENUE 47 (ATTACHMENT 1) ARCHITECT: GSR ANDRADE ARCHITECTS GENERAL PLAN: CC (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) ZONING: CC (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS PROPOSAL IS EXEMPT FROM REVIEW UNDER THE GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PER SECTION 15332 (INFILL DEVELOPMENT). BACKGROUND: The proposed project involves one parcel, comprising 2.92 acres, to be developed with a two-story medical office building of approximately 36,000 square feet. The site is zoned Community Commercial, and does allow the proposed use. It is currently vacant but was previously approved under SDP 2002-736, on May 28, 2002, as a medical office use for Tenet Care California, Inc. The facility was a single -story, 25,486 square foot medical clinic with outpatient surgery. The site consists of vacant graded land, with no topographical constraints, and is serviceable by all utility purveyors. PROJECT PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting development approval to construct an approximately 36,000 square foot two-story medical clinic with outpatient surgery facilities (Attachment 2). This proposed use is the same as that previously approved, but in P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\GSR Medical off\perptsdp830.doc a larger facility. The building is generally sited as a north/south facing rectangular footprint, with the front of the building oriented to the south. Access is taken from one driveway off Caleo Bay, and a second access is proposed at the northwest portion of the site from La Quinta Professional Plaza to the existing drive aisle, which would provide indirect access to Washington Street for this site. The building itself is a two-story structure, with the main roof ridgeline heights at 34 feet, 8 inches and 36 feet 6 inches, at the west and east elevations, respectively (Attachment 3). The tower element at the south elevation rises to 43 feet 11 inches. The proposed building is sited more than 150 feet from the Washington Street ultimate right-of-way. Washington Street is designated as a Major Arterial in the La Quinta General Plan, and no building in excess of one-story, 22 feet in height, is permitted within 150 of its ultimate right-of-way line. The architecture is best described as contemporary office, characterized by a clean, straightforward design with some limited Mediterranean and Spanish detail elements and materials. Architectural features consist of medium textured stucco exterior, smooth masonry stone trim areas and window eyebrows, clay roof tiles, and anodized aluminum storefront trim. There are balconies shown on the north and west elevations, which will incorporate wrought iron railings. The first floor wainscot lines and all window edges will be finished in a smooth cast stone. The window and door surrounds and mullions will be framed in a finished aluminum storefront trim. In regard to the landscaping plan, the major landscape components and plant palette are acceptable (Attachment 4). The applicant has not provided preliminary water use calculations based on the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance; this is routinely required under the approval conditions as a plan check item. Adequate shading will be provided through use of carport shade structures and tree canopies to be provided. It is to be noted that there have been revisions to the site plan that are not reflected in the landscape plan provided. A material and color board, along with a full-size color illustration, will be provided at the meeting. Architecture and Landscape Review Committee The Architecture and Landscape Review Committee (ALRC) reviewed this request at its meeting of May 4, 2005, and on a 3-0 vote, adopted Minute Motion 2005- 018, recommending approval of the proposed project (Attachment 5). The ALRC did recommend the following measures be included in the approval of the project: 1. The building exterior shall employ a smooth trowel plaster finish. 2. Roof tile shall be a mission clay "S" tile, possibly using a mudded treatment. 3. Metal porte-cochere, wrought iron and other metal railings shall be painted in a contrasting color, consistent with the building color scheme. Plans shall be submitted for plan checking for the porte-cochere cover. PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\GSR Medical off\perptsdp830.doc 4. Provide more architectural detailing around the building. 5. Provide more extensive solar treatment to window areas, particularly with respect to recessing of the main entry at the south elevation. 6. Eliminate the Date Palm trees and replace them with an appropriate shade tree. 7. Provide landscape screening of the parking area at Washington Street. Staff has incorporated these recommendations as conditions where appropriate. Public Notice This request was advertised in the Desert Sun Newspaper on June 4, 2005, and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the project site. To date, no correspondence has been received. Public Agency Review A copy of this request has been sent to all applicable public agencies and City Departments. 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 - Access - Project access is provided at Caleo Bay Drive, and at a point at the northwest portion of the site via a drive aisle extending south from La Quinta Professional Plaza into this project. Acquisition of reciprocal access for this point will be the responsibility of the applicant, and is not required; however, the approved conditions will require that such access be procured as proposed. The original approval for Tenet Care included a shared access to Washington Street with the south property, which has Werner Family Medicine and Windermere Real Estate as main tenants. The current applicant is not pursuing this arrangement as it would require reconstruction of the existing Washington Street profile to include a deceleration land for the shared access. Instead, the applicant is proposing access to Washington Street, through the La Quinta Professional Plaza, where a deceleration lane currently exists for their driveway access. In terms of ADA access, the applicant recently revised the site plan to address certain ADA issues, parking stall design requirements and small layout details. Staff has no concerns with the revisions; however, plans for the remaining project aspects, such as landscaping, are conditioned to be revised for consistency with the site plan as currently proposed. Regarding pedestrian access, there are no provisions for such circulation other than directly around the building. There should be defined walkway areas from Caleo Bay and Washington Streets, as well as access between the adjacent uses. Sunline Transit has made comments regarding pedestrian and transit accessibility PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\GSR Medical off\perptsdp830.doc (Attachment 6), as they have a dedicated existing bus stop within '/4 mile of the site, and also provide para-transit services for which this project should provide access. A condition has been added to require the applicant to address these issues, and consult with Sunline in regard to their comment letter. Building Design - Regarding the height of the proposed building, the Zoning Code requires that buildings within 150 feet of a Major or Primary Arterial roadway be limited to 22 feet/one story in height. This building is not affected by that stipulation. That being noted, the building has a height of 36.5 feet at its highest ridgeline, with a central tower element that extends to 43 feet, 11 inches. This project site is in the CC zoning district, with a height limit of 40 feet. However, the Zoning Code does allow architectural projections such as this, to extend up to 15 feet above the district height limit if approved as part of a Site Development Permit, and providing that the building footprint of the projection is less than 10% of the ground floor area of the main structure. This element is within the limits of that standard. Staff recommends further elaboration on the ALRC recommendation, to specifically require a two-piece clay barrel tile edge finish for the building roof. This is incorporated into the approval conditions. Parking — The revised project site plan provides for 205 parking spaces, of which 51 spaces are covered. This project is proposed as a medical office, which requires 205 spaces for the 36,000 s.f. total building area. The project also provides for two properly sized loading berths, as required for a building of this size. The Code requires that a minimum of 30% of all required parking be covered; for this project, 62 covered spaces are required. In addition, two bicycle parking spaces will be required. These requirements have been incorporated into the approval conditions. Landscaping — This project lies immediately south of the La Quinta Professional Plaza complex, and is proposed to have access to that site via a drive aisle at the northwest portion of this site. This project provides a five-foot planter along its entire northern property line. This addresses a concern the Commission had regarding landscaping abutting the recently approved 4,600 s.f. medical office at La Quinta Professional Plaza, submitted by Dr. William Kelly. It was noted that this plan does not reflect recent site plan changes to the project, and that the conditions require the conceptual elements of the landscape plan, as may be approved, be carried over into the revised final landscape plan, consistent with the site plan. Landscape screening of the parking area along Washington Street was a concern expressed by the ALRC. There are some existing oleander plantings that do shield the view along a major portion of this stretch. The landscape plans provide for some shade trees in finger planters and the parking area curb line along this front row of parking stalls. Staff has included a condition, based on ALRC direction, to require the final landscape plans incorporate a 30 to 36-inch shrub line along the north and south portions of the west parking area curb line. This screening could also be achieved through a combination wall and/or plant materials. PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\GSR Medical off\perptsdp830.doc MANDATORY FINDINGS: As required by Section 9.210.010 (Site Development Permits) of the Zoning Code, all findings can be met, and are incorporated into the attached adopting Resolution. CONCLUSION: The project, as designed, complies with the City's Zoning Code provisions and the applicable policies of the General Plan. Overall, the parking required for the proposed building as medical office use is 205 parking spaces, with 205 having been provided. A single project access point is proposed along Caleo Bay, with a secondary access into an existing office complex located at the north property line, in the northwest portion of the site. The building design and siting have been reviewed and conditions assigned to meet design review requirements of the City. The landscaping plan concept is consistent with relevant City requirements, as conditioned. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005- _, approving Site Development Permit 2005-830, subject to findings and conditions. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Proposed Site Plan 3. Proposed Project Elevations 4. Proposed Landscape Plan 5. ALRC Minutes of May 4, 2005 (Excerpt) 6. Letter from Sunline Transit, dated 6/1 /05 Respectfully submitted Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\GSR Medical off\perptsdp830.doc F PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A ± 36,000 SQUARE FOOT MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS CASE NO: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-830 APPLICANT: JOHN GARRISON — GSR ANDRADE ARCHITECTS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 141h day of June, 2005, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request to approve Site Development Permit 2005-830, development plans for a ± 36,000 square -foot medical office building on a 2.92 acre site, located on the east side of Washington Street, ±400 feet south of Avenue 47, more particularly described as: BEING PARCELS 7 OF PM 27892 WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee, on the 4th day of May, 2005, at a regular meeting, recommended approval of the architectural plans by adoption of Minute Motion 2005-018 on a 3-0 vote; and, WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63) in that the Community Development Department has determined that this proposal is exempt from review under the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per 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 said Site Development Permit pursuant to Section 9.210.010 of the Zoning Code: 1. Consistency with General Plan. The proposed 36,000 sq. ft. medical office building is in a Community Commercial designated area that encourages retail and office uses in close proximity to arterial thoroughfares and residential neighborhoods. This medical use, as designed, complies with the overall development concepts of the City's General Plan Land Use guidelines. 2. Consistency with Zoning Code. The proposed medical office building is consistent with the development standards of the Community Commercial Zoning District with regard to setbacks, building height, and parking requirements based on the proposed Conditions of Approval. i; Planning Commission Resolution 2005-_ Site Development Permit 2005-830 — GSR Andrade Architects Adopted: June 14, 2005 3. Architectural Design. The proposed architectural design of the two-story building incorporates design elements consistent with past approvals for similar types of commercial structures and uses. 4. Site Design. As conditioned, the proposed project will not be contrary to the existing design policies or standards established by the city of La Quinta. 5. Landscape Design. As conditioned, the project landscaping designed for the proposed Site Development Permit will provide a basis from which to extend a visual continuity of the proposed project into future surrounding developments. 7. Infrastructure. There are adequate existing provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities to ensure that the proposed building will not be detrimental to public health and safety. 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 approve Site Development Permit 2005-830 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 14th day of June, 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ; P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\GSR Medical off\resopcsdp830.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Site Development Permit 2005-830 — GSR Andrade Architects Adopted: June 14, 2005 ATTEST: DOUGLAS R. EVANS, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\GSR Medical off\resopcsdp830.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-830 LA QUINTA M.O.B. LP JUNE 14, 2005 GENERAL 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 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 any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain the necessary clearances and/or permits from the following agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Building and Safety Department • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District (DSUSD) • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) • Sunline Transit Agency • South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those improvement plans for City approval. 3. 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. PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\GSR Medical off\coapcsdp830.doc Planning Commission No. 2005- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2005-830 La Quinta M.O.B. LP June 14, 2005 Page 2 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"). 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. 6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control. 4. 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. A. The approved SWPPP and BMP's 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 P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\GSR Medical off\coapcsdp830.doc� Planning Commission No. 2005- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2005-830 La Quinta M.O.B. LP June 14, 2005 Page 3 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 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: A. PUBLIC STREETS 1) Washington Street (Augmented Major Arterial, 132' ROW) — The standard 66 feet from the centerline of Washington Street for a total 132-foot ultimate developed right of way. The existing 20-foot wide landscape setback owned by the Commercial Property Owners Association shall be maintained along the Site Development Permit boundary. 2) Caleo Bay (Collector Street, 60' ROW) — No additional right of way dedication is required. 8. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction plans. 9. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public right-of-ways as follows: A. Washington Street (Augmented Major Arterial, 132' ROW) - The landscape setback shall be reconfigured as needed to reflect the new right of way configuration. B. Caleo Bay (Collector, 60' ROW) - 10-foot from the R/W-P/L. The setback requirements shall apply to all frontages including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\GSR Medical off\coapcsdp830.doc Planning Commission No. 2005- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2005-830 La Quinta M.O.B. LP June 14, 2005 Page 4 Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the applicant shall offer for dedication blanket easements for those purposes. 10. 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. 11. Direct vehicular access to Washington Street is restricted. Vehicular access to Washington Street shall be through the joint access from the existing driveway for Parcel Map No. 29889 to the north. 12. Direct vehicular access to Caleo Bay is restricted, except for those access points identified on the approved Site Development Permit, or as otherwise conditioned in these conditions of approval. 13. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as appropriate, from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments will occur. IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect," refers to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 14. 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. 15. 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 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 Commercial Precise Grading Plan 1 " = 20' Horizontal PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\GSR Medical off\coapcsdp830.doc Planning Commission No. 2005- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2005-830 La Quinta M.O.B. LP June 14, 2005 Page 5 B. PM 10 Plan C. SWPPP D. Storm Drain Plans E. Off -Site Street Plan F. Off -Site Signing & Striping Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal 1 " = 40' Horizontal 1 " = 40' Horizontal 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical 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 berming design in the combined parkway and landscape setback area. 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. All Off -Site Plan & Profile Street 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. "Precise Grading" plans shall normally include all on -site surface improvements including but not necessarily limited to finish grades for curbs & gutters, building floor elevations, parking lot improvements and ADA requirements, retaining and perimeter walls, etc. ADA accessibility to public streets, adjacent buildings and existing handicap parking shall be shown on the Precise Grading Plans at a scale to be determined by the Public Works Department. The applicant shall prepare an accessibility assessment on a marked up print of the building floor plan identifying every building egress and notes the 2001 California Building Code accessibility requirements associated with each door. The assessment must comply with submittal requirements of the Building & Safety Department. A copy of the reviewed assessment shall be submitted to the Engineering Department in conjunction with the Precise Grading Plan when it is submitted for plan checking. 16. The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes for elements of construction. For a fee, established by City Resolution, the P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\GSR Medical off\coapcsdp830.doc Planning Commission No. 2005- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2005-830 La Quinta M.O.B. LP June 14, 2005 Page 6 applicant may purchase such standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes from the City. 17. 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 18. 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 GRADING 19. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements), LQMC. 20. 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. 21. 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 or architect, B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified engineer, #4 P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\GSR Medical off\coapcsdp830.doc Planning Commission No. 2005- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2005-830 La Quinta M.O.B. LP June 14, 2005 Page 7 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. 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. 22. The applicant shall maintain graded, undeveloped land to prevent wind and water erosion of soils. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. 23. 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 0 .5") in the first eighteen inches (18") behind the curb. 24. 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 Preliminary Grading Plan submitted with this Site Development Permit, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance finding review. # P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\GSR Medical off\coapcsdp830.doc Planning Commission No. 2005- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2005-830 La Quinta M.O.B. LP June 14, 2005 Page 8 25. 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. nRAINAf;F Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage report for Lake La Quinta Drainage Report or as modified for this Site Development Permit. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets except that tributary drainage flow from Washington Street shall be handled along the Site Development Permit westerly boundary within a retention basin/dry well system as approved by the City Engineer. Nuisance water shall be disposed of in a trickling sand filter and leach field or equivalent system approved by the City Engineer. The sand filter and leach field shall be designed to contain first flush storm water and nuisance water surges from landscape area, commercial activity and off -site street nuisance water. The sand filter design shall be per La Quinta Standard 370 with the equivalent of 137.2 gph of water feed per sand filter to accept the abovementioned nuisance water requirements. Leach line requirements are 1.108 feet of leach line per gph of flow. 26. 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. 27. 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. 28. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. 29. Stormwater from building roof drains shall not be directed to flow over walkways or planter areas but be directed to parking lot or drainage facilities via a drainage system. PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\GSR Medical off\coapcsdp830.doc Planning Commission No. 2005- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2005-830 La Quinta M.O.B. LP June 14, 2005 Page 9 UTILITIES 30. 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. 31. Existing overhead utility lines within, or adjacent to the proposed development, and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground. 32. All existing utility lines attached to joint use 92 KV transmission power poles are exempt from the requirement to be placed underground. 33. 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 trench compaction for approval of the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 34. 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. 35. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses. A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1) Washington Street (Augmented Major Arterial — 132' R/W): No widening of the east side of the street along all frontage adjacent to the Site Development Permit is required for its ultimate width as specified in the General Plan and the requirements of these conditions except at locations where additional street PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\GSR Medical off\coapcsdp830.doc Planning Commission No. 2005- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2005-830 La Quinta M.O.B. LP June 14, 2005 Page 10 width is needed to accommodate: a) Reconstructing the existing deceleration/right turn only lane on Washington Street to Parcel Map No. 29889 to the north. The east curb face shall be located sixty feet (60') east of the centerline of Washington Street and length to be determined by a traffic study prepared for the applicant by a licensed traffic engineer per Engineering Bulletin # 03-08. As a minimum, the required right of way shall be for a length of 100 feet plus a variable dedication of an additional 50 feet. Other required improvements in the right or way and/or adjacent landscape setback area include: b) All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to: curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs. c) 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk. The meandering sidewalk shall have an arrhythmic horizontal layout that utilizes concave and convex curves with respect to the curb line that either touches the back of curb or approaches within five feet of the curb at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. The sidewalk curvature radii should vary between 50 and 300 feet, and at each point of reverse curvature, the radius should change to assist in creating the arrhythmic layout. The sidewalk shall meander into the landscape setback lot and approach within 5 feet of the perimeter wall at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. 2) Caleo Bay (Collector — 60' R/W Option): No widening of the west side of the street along all frontage adjacent to the Site Development Permit is required. Other required improvements in the right or way and/or adjacent landscape setback area include: a) The applicant shall contribute fair share cost for the recent restriping of Caleo Bay along the easterly property P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\GSR Medical off\coapcsdp830.doc Planning Commission No. 2005- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2005-830 La Quinta M.O.B. LP June 14, 2005 Page 11 line to accommodate the left turn lane at the driveway. 36. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design procedure for 20-year life pavement, and the site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows: Parking Lots and accessways 3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b. Collector 4.0" a.c /5.0" c.a.b Major Arterial 5.5" a.c./6.5" c.a.b. or the approved equivalents of alternate materials. 37. 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. 38. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Washington Street - Shared Access at existing driveway to Parcel Map No. 29889: Right turn in and out movements are permitted. Left turn in and out movements are prohibited. B. Caleo Bay (Primary Entry) - Full turn movements are permitted. 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). 39. 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. P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\GSR Medical off\coapcsdp830.doc Planning Commission No. 2005- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2005-830 La Quinta M.O.B. LP June 14, 2005 Page 12 40. 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. PARKING LOT AND ACCESSWAYS 41. The parking area design shall incorporate provisions for pedestrian circulation to allow ingress and egress to the site from surrounding areas, as well as internal site circulation. At a minimum, pathways into the site shall be provided from Washington Street and Caleo Bay Drive, with connections to the main building footprint. The applicant shall work with the City and Sunline Transit in addressing the common issues as identified by Sunline transit in their letter dated 6/1 /05. 42. The design of parking facilities shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150; especially the parking stall and aisle widths and the parking stall striping design. A. Parking stall striping shall be the City of La Quinta double -striped hairpin design (Section 9.150.080.B.7). B. Building access points shall be shown on the Precise Grading Plans to better evaluate ADA accessibility issues. C. The location of carport support posts shall comply with Section 9.150.080(B5) of the Zoning Code. Light fixtures, meeting the requirements of Section 9.100.150 (Outdoor Lighting) may be mounted to the underside of the carport roofing for nighttime security needs. Weather resistant materials shall be used to construct carport structures (e.g., metal, gludams or para-lams, etc.). CONSTRUCTION 43. 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 PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\GSR Medical off\coapcsdp830.doc ' 11 Planning Commission No. 2005- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2005-830 La Quinta M.O.B. LP June 14, 2005 Page 13 thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the development or when directed by the City, whichever comes first. FIRE DEPARTMENT 44. Approved super fire hydrants, shall be spaced no more than every 330 feet and shall be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the buildings as measured along outside travel ways. 45. Blue dot reflectors shall be placed in the street 8 inches from centerline to the side that the fire hydrant is on, to identify fire hydrant locations. 46. The water mains shall be capable of providing a potential fire flow of 2,625 GPM and the actual fire flow from any two adjacent hydrants shall be 1500 GPM for a 2-hour duration at 20-PSI residual operating pressure. 47. City of La Quinta ordinance requires all commercial buildings 5,000 sq. ft. or larger to be fully sprinkled. NFPA 13 Standard. Sprinkler plans will need to be submitted to the Fire Department. 48. Fire Department connections (FDC) shall be not less than 25 feet nor more than 50 feet from a fire hydrant, and shall be located on the front street side of the building. FDC's and PIV's may not be located at the rear of buildings. Note also that FDC's must be at least 25 feet from the building and may not be blocked by landscaping, parking stalls or anything that may restrict immediate access. 49. Building plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for plan review to run concurrent with the City plan check. 50. Water plans for the fire protection system (fire hydrants, fdc, etc.) shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 51. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\GSR Medical off\coapcsdp830.doc Planning Commission No. 2005- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2005-830 La Quinta M.O.B. LP June 14, 2005 Page 14 material being placed on an individual lot. 52. Fire Department street access shall come to within 150 feet of all portions of the 1 s` floor of all buildings, by path of exterior travel. Minimum road width is 20 feet clear and unobstructed with a vertical clearance of 13.5 feet clear. Turning radii shall be no less than 38 feet. 53. 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. 54. Install a KNOX key box on each commercial building and/or suite (Contact the Fire Department for an application). 55. Medical buildings with surgical suites and/or storage of medical gases exceeding exempt amounts as detailed in the 2001 California Building and Fire codes may require additional plan checks and inspections. 56. Install portable fire extinguishers as required by the California Fire Code. 57. Any submissions to the Fire Department are the responsibility of the applicant. QUALITY ASSURANCE 58. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 59. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such other appropriate professionals as are required to provide the expertise with which to prepare and sign accurate record drawings, and to provide adequate construction supervision. 60. 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. PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\GSR Medical off\coapcsdp830.doc Planning Commission No. 2005- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2005-830 La Quinta M.O.B. LP June 14, 2005 Page 15 61. 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 62. 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. 63. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance), LQMC. PUBLIC SERVICES 64. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as may required by SunLine Transit Agency and approved by the City Engineer, and shall consult with Sunline in regard to their comment letter dated 6/1 /05. LANDSCAPING 65. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC. 66. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks, common lots, and park areas. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. The applicant shall submit revised plans for approval by the Community Development Department, prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department, to be consistent with the revised site plan as approved by the Planning Commission on 6/14/05. Landscape and irrigation plans (three copies) shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect, or PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\GSR Medical off\coapcsdp830.doc Planning Commission No. 2005- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2005-830 La Quinta M.O.B. LP June 14, 2005 Page 16 professional landscape designer, subject to the rules and regulations of Chapter 8.13 of the Municipal Code. When plan checking is complete, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner prior to submitting for signature by the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. 67. 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 or private parking areas. The Date Palm trees shown at the west elevation shall be replaced with appropriate shade tree(s). 68. A 30 to 36 inch shrub line shall be provided generally along the north and south sections of the west parking area, in order to screen views from Washington Street into the parking area, with the location and plant type to be reviewed and approved as part of the overall landscape plans submitted for plan checking. FEES AND DEPOSITS 69. 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. 70. 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). COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 71. The building area as approved under Site Development Permit 2005-830 shall be limited to medical office uses in order to maintain adequate parking. The parking required for this use is 205 spaces, inclusive of handicapped stalls, which shall be the total required parking count to be developed with this use. A minimum of 62 of these spaces shall be covered by carport, VJ P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\GSR Medical off\coapcsdp830.doc Planning Commission No. 2005- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2005-830 La Quinta M.O.B. LP June 14, 2005 Page 17 trellis, or similar structures. Separate plans for the proposed porte-cochere and all other carport/trellis structures for covered parking purposes shall be reviewed during the plan check process. 72. The final location of trash enclosures and recycling provisions shall be approved and accepted by Waste Management of the Desert, subject to the provisions of Section 9.100.200 of the Zoning Code. The recycling plan shall include a description of the anticipated materials and volumes to be recycled and a description of the facilities to be provided for collecting general refuse and recyclable materials. Written proof shall be provided to the Community Development Department during plan check consideration. 73. Building plans submitted for plan checking shall incorporate the following revisions to the building materials and architectural elements: A. Building exterior shall employ a smooth trowel plaster finish. B. Roof tile shall be a mission clay "S" tile, using a mudded 2-piece clay barrel tile edge finish. C. Metal porte-cochere, wrought iron and other metal railings shall be painted in a contrasting color, consistent with the building color scheme. Plans and details shall be submitted for plan checking for the porte-cochere cover. D. Provide more architectural detailing around the building. E. Provision of more extensive solar treatment to window areas, particularly with respect to recessing of the main entry at the south elevation. 74. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the following items shall be submitted or shown on the appropriate plan: A. An exterior lighting plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval that includes specific details of the fixtures for the landscape lighting and exterior security lighting, including photometric drawings pursuant to Section 9.150.080(K) of the Zoning Code. Pole -mounted parking lot lighting, no higher than 18 feet, shall be adequately shielded to prevent glare from being cast onto adjacent properties and placed so that tree growth does not interfere with the lighting needs of the site. B. Roof structure and/or parapets shall screen all roof mounted mechanical equipment so that they cannot be viewed from adjacent P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-14-05\GSR Medical off\coapcsdp830.doc Planning Commission No. 2005- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2005-830 La Quinta M.O.B. LP June 14, 2005 Page 18 properties. Prior to occupancy of the proposed building complex, a visual inspection shall be made by the Community Development Department from all sides of the building from a distance of 800 feet to confirm that the parapets conceal any roof mounted equipment. PAReports - PC\2005\6-14-05\GSR Medical off\coapcsdp830.doc 01 '7 o N r 0 a i mil N c 107be ` 4 PAR. 04 140.57 4928 o 1 4.05 �p Or e , N ? i R at 4O N ' .Id w 4 � N O d is a m o '"V 202.41 i1Z.b4 b38g2 g I I LOl,� II M I I ® — -- WASHINMN Y J ASSESSOR'S NAP BK643 PG.20 Riverside County, Calif. ATTACHMENT 1 4og Lo10�1 8� g EG ATTACHMENT 2 W A S H I N G T 0 N S T R E E T r..-..-..-..----------....-..-..-..-------------..., /o o w LA QUINTA MEDICAL PLAZA WASHMM LA QWA. GALFaau a� G J J W g ATTACHMENT, olw0Ego3'01uinp 01 DZDId DjUIDb D��7 gaurew o, }? xva oYao-+u�°x,�, Q, 8� 01� w ® �x6 { ID0Ip2N t. 1 a s a a a s a s a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a x a a a s w © ®o0®®Om oOoQo®op000+ o Q ®®�#� t� 11 �OOUO�J•p�„,_, � •�0 �oio 0 �00 � • 0 0 0' o III/ b I Y 1 1' 1 i 1 1 1 19 sc 6] o�.. W Sl W V) 9 m 3 9 N 0 1 0 N I H$ V M ATTACHMENT 5 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee May 4, 2005 additional detail if the downspouts are removed. Mr. Barrett explained the detail they had added and noted it backs up to the Post Office parking lot. 4. Committee Member Christopher asked that some stacked stone be added to towers to match the other end of the Center. Mr. Barrett suggested it be added to the columns. 5. Committee Member Thorns asked that the Drexel building add a gable roof. Discussion followed regarding the concern of the tenants. Committee Members suggested adding the stone to the front of the Drexel building as well. 6. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Christopher to adopt Minute Motion 2005-017 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2005-831, as recommended by staff and as amended: a. Stack stone shall be added to the columns of the Office Max and Drexel buildings. b. Eliminate the recommendation for the trellis work. C. The east elevation sign for the Best Buy building, the blue area on the lower portion shall be reduced. d. Landscape planters shall be provided in front of the building in non -pedestrian areas. e. Lengthen all tower structures at the top rear where they meet the roof towards the rear of the building and provide with a finished solid back to ensure they are not visible and provide adequate bulk to the towers. :,'`Unanimously approved. E. Site Development Permit 2005-830; a request of GSR Andrade Architects for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for a 2 story, 37,212 square foot medical office building on a 2.85 acre site located on the east side of Washington Street, on the south side of the La Quinta Professional Plaza. 1. Committee Member Thoms withdrew from discussion due to a potential conflict of interest due to the location of his residence. GAWPD0CS\ALRC\5-4-05 ALRC.doc 6 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee May 4, 2005 2. Associate Planner Wally Nesbit presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff introduced the applicant, Fernando Andrade, who gave a presentation on the project. 3. Committee Member Christopher asked if the window casing on the west end of the building was recessed. Mr. Fernando Andrade explained how the walls recess and popout to create shadow lines. The entry and first floor windows are shaded by the cover. 4. Committee Member Bobbitt commended the applicant on the design of the building. On the parking area bordering Washington Street, where the existing landscaping is on the grade, is this higher than the parking lot? The applicant stated the plants will hide the parking lot. 5. Mr. David Thoms, 47-410 Via Cordova asked the color of the building. Mr. Andrade went over the proposed colors and stated the building would have a smooth trowel finish. Mr. Thorns asked if the landscaping on the west elevation could be improved as well as the landscaping along Washington Street. 6. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Christopher/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2005-018 confirming their recommendation for approval of Site Development Permit 2005- 830, as recommended by staff and amended: a. The applicant shall provide plans for the covered entry way. b. The parking lot shall have adequate landscaping on all sides per the existing requirements, to hide the front of the car screens from Caleo Bay and Washington Street. C. The parking lot islands shall not have any plant material. Unanimously approved with Committee Member Thorns being absent. Committee Member Thorns rejoined the Commission. G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\5-4-05 ALRC.doc 7 1 A Public Agency June 1, 2005 Mr. Wally Nesbit, Associate Planner City of La Quinta Community Development Department 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92240 MEMBERS Desert Hot Springs Rancho Mirage Indio Palm Springs Palm Desert Coachella Cathedral City Indian Wells Riverside County La Quinta �� JUN 6 2005 ATTACHMENT 6 RE: Site Development Permit #2005-830/Medical Facility Dear Mr. Nesbit: This letter responds to your request for comments regarding the proposed medical building within the La Quinta Professional Plaza, located on the eastside of Washington Street. We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments and offer the following suggestions: Ensure that pedestrian circulation is provided throughout the proposed development to facilitate direct and continuous access to and from the parking lot to the main entrance on the proposed building. Consider working with the project developer to revise the plan to show better connectivity to and from the buildings as shown in the preliminary conceptual plan. Additionally, consider working with the developer to make the project more pedestrian -friendly. This may be achieved by requiring the developer to reduce the building setback thereby, minimizing the walking distance from the sidewalk to the main entrance of the building. Also encourage the developer to locate more parking behind or side of the building he instead of the layout shown in the overall conceptual plan. 2. Ensure that sidewalks are incorporated and constructed as part of the final design plan to assure that pedestrians and future clients can access services provided in the neighborhood. 3. Ensure that pedestrian circulation provide connections to Washington Street to afford future medical clients the opportunity to use transit service presently offered in the vicinity. 4. Work with the developer to ensure that the turning radii into the facility can accommodate a 25-30ft paratransit bus. Since the proposed building will service medical clients, it is important that this feature is incorporated fJ $ et 32-505 Harry 011ver Trail,, Thousand Palms, CA 92276 Ph 760 343 3456 Fax 760.343.3845 www. sunl,ine. org Mr. Nesbit, Associate Planner Page Two into the final design plan. This will enable SunLine to offer service directly to the main entrance of the building for clients needing medical attention at the new facility. SunLine currently provide transit service along Washington Street on Line 70, which offers weekday and weekend, as well as late evening service to residential neighborhoods and businesses along the corridor. In addition, we offer ADA Dial -A - Ride paratransit service for Coachella Valley residents, who may utilize this service for medical appointments and other activities. These amenities when provided will help foster and facilitate an environment where Coachella Valley residents can use alternate transportation modes. Feel free to call me at 760-343-3456, ext. 119 if I can be of further assistance to you. Sincerely, Eunice Lovi Director of Planning cc: Mikel Oglesby, General Manager Thank you for expressing your views and concerns regarding future development at PGA West. At this time no application has been submitted regarding an Amendment to the Specific Plan at PGA West with regards to the "Hotel Site." Staff has received a preliminary review of a potential proposal for the "Hotel Site". Staff has been informed that based upon meetings with several PGA West homeowner groups the developer is revising the proposed plan to respond to some of the concerns raised by the homeowners. The revised plans will take approximately 2-3 months to prepare. Until a completed application is submitted with all the appropriate information and/or studies, this item will not be scheduled for Planning Commission or City Council. Once an application is submitted and determined to be complete, staff would schedule a public hearing before the Planning Commission. A public hearing before the City Council would follow at a later date. When those dates are determined, a public notice would be sent to those living within PGA West and all homeowner associations as well as advertised in the Desert Sun. The address list will be obtained from the Riverside County Assessor's Office from their current tax roll records. This process could take anywhere from three to six months from the date the application is submitted. If we can be of further assistance, please contact the Community Development Department at (760) 777-7125. t - G:\WPDOCS\Documents\PGA response.doc Proposed Eden Rock Development at PGA West Page 1 of 1 Betty Sawyer From: Dan Rendino [drendino@dc.rr.com] Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 5:52 PM To: Betty Sawyer Subject: Proposed Eden Rock Development at PGA West Paul Quill, Tom Kirk, Rick Daniels, El Elderson, Kay Ladner I am a home owner at PGA West. I have just come from a meeting at PGA West at which the proposed Eden Rock development was discussed. Present at the meeting were many other angry PGA West homeowners who heard from the developer their plans for this most valuable piece of property at PGA West. Quite frankly I am surprised that their plans have progressed so far without sounding out the members. It was indicated to us that they plan to present their plans to the council within the next couple of weeks. I urge you to get involved in doing what you can to have this project rejected. The density of the units come nowhere near the density of the units in 95% of PGA West. We do not need multi -level units (some are three levels and there is a fourth level for a "clock tower") obstructing the views that many of us have paid dearly for. Also the proposed selling prices of the units are way under the existing values at PGA West. It looks to me that these units will be sold to people who have no interest in living in them but will buy them as rental properties. I do not believe that since the cost of these units are so low, that the buyers will also purchase the club membership. (Why would someone spend 25% of the cost of the home for a golf membership?). There is not enough pools per unit compared to the existing units which will have the renters and owners of these units using the pools outside of Eden Rock as there is no room for individual pool ownership.. The plans give the impression that they are building army barracks as opposed to building a project that meshes with the existing homes. There is no need to take the most prime piece of property and turn it into a high density project - 300 hundred unit on 42 acres is unacceptable. Two and three story units are unacceptable. Where else are there these high rises in La Quinta?. I would like you to consider that if this monstrosity ever gets built that it have the restriction that any rentals must be for at least 1 year, that PGA West golf membership be added to the price of the unit, and that there be at least 10 community pools provided which would be in line with the density of pools to units for the rest of PGA West. I urge you to reject this project when it comes before you. Paul and Rick, since there is an election later this month, can you let me know your thoughts on this project before the election so that I can cast my vote accordingly. Sincerely, ban Rendino 760 880 3275 Email drendino@dc.rr.com 6/9/2005 Page 1 of 1 Betty Sawyer From: Ppgawest@aol.com Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 6:01 PM To: Betty Sawyer Cc: Ppgawest@aol.com Subject: Att: Tom Kirk (Re: Eden Roc Project) Dear Mr. Kirk, My husband has just come from a meeting at PGA West at which the proposed Eden Rock development was discussed. Present at the meeting were many angry PGA West homeowners (we are PGA West residents) who heard from the developer their plans for this most valuable piece of property at PGA West. Quite frankly I am surprised that their plans have progressed so far without sounding out the members. It was indicated that they plan to present their plans to the council within the next couple of weeks. I urge you to get involved in doing what you can to have this project rejected. The density of the units come nowhere near the density of the units in 95% of PGA West. We do not need multi -level units (some are three levels and there is a fourth level for a "clock tower") obstructing the views that many of us have paid dearly for. Also the proposed selling prices of the units are way under the existing values at PGA West. It looks to me that these units will be sold to people who have no interest in living in them but will buy them as rental properties. I do not believe that since the cost of these units are so low, that the buyers will also purchase the club membership. (Why would someone spend 25% of the cost of the home for a golf membership?). There is not enough pools per unit compared to the existing units which will have the renters and owners of these units using the pools outside of Eden Rock, particularly the pools at PGA West. There is no room for individual pool ownership.. The plans give the impression that they are building army barracks as opposed to building a project that meshes with the existing homes. There is no need to take the most prime piece of property and turn it into a high density project - 300 hundred units on 42 acres is unacceptable. Two and three story units are unacceptable in keeping withe the integrity of PGA West. I urge you to reject this proposal out of hand as unacceptable when it comes before you. Sincerely, Priscilla Rendino 80390 Weiskopf La Quinta, CA 92253 760-564-6002 6/9/2005 Page 1 of 1 Betty Sawyer From: Ppgawest@aol.com Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 6:02 PM To: Betty Sawyer Subject: Att: Paul Quill (Re: Eden Roc Development) Dear Mr. Quill, My husband has just come from a meeting at PGA West at which the proposed Eden Rock development was discussed. Present at the meeting were many angry PGA West homeowners (we are PGA West residents) who heard from the developer their plans for this most valuable piece of property at PGA West. Quite frankly I am surprised that their plans have progressed so far without sounding out the members. It was indicated that they plan to present their plans to the council within the next couple of weeks. I urge you to get involved in doing what you can to have this project rejected. The density of the units come nowhere near the density of the units in 95% of PGA West. We do not need multi -level units (some are three levels and there is a fourth level for a "clock tower") obstructing the views that many of us have paid dearly for. Also the proposed selling prices of the units are way under the existing values at PGA West. It looks to me that these units will be sold to people who have no interest in living in them but will buy them as rental properties. I do not believe that since the cost of these units are so low, that the buyers will also purchase the club membership. (Why would someone spend 25% of the cost of the home for a golf membership?). There is not enough pools per unit compared to the existing units which will have the renters and owners of these units using the pools outside of Eden Rock, particularly the pools at PGA West. There is no room for individual pool ownership.. The plans give the impression that they are building army barracks as opposed to building a project that meshes with the existing homes. There is no need to take the most prime piece of property and turn it into a high density project - 300 hundred units on 42 acres is unacceptable. Two and three story units are unacceptable in keeping withe the integrity of PGA West. I urge you to reject this proposal out of hand as unacceptable when it comes before you. Sincerely, Priscilla Rendino 80390 Weiskopf La Quintc, CA 92253 760-564-6002 6/9/2005 Page 1 of 1 Betty Sawyer From: Ppgawest@aol.com Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 6:04 PM To: Betty Sawyer Subject: Att: Rick Daniels (Re: Eden Roc Development) Dear Mr. Daniels, My husband has just come from a meeting at PGA West at which the proposed Eden Rock development was discussed. Present at the meeting were many angry PGA West homeowners (we are PGA West residents) who heard from the developer their plans for this most valuable piece of property at PGA West. Quite frankly I am surprised that their plans have progressed so far without sounding out the members. It was indicated that they plan to present their plans to the council within the next couple of weeks. I urge you to get involved in doing what you can to have this project rejected. The density of the units come nowhere near the density of the units in 95% of PGA West. We do not need multi -level units (some are three levels and there is a fourth level for a "clock tower") obstructing the views that many of us have paid dearly for. Also the proposed selling prices of the units are way under the existing values at PGA West. It looks to me that these units will be sold to people who have no interest in living in them but will buy them as rental properties. I do not believe that since the cost of these units are so low, that the buyers will also purchase the club membership. (Why would someone spend 25% of the cost of the home for a golf membership?). There is not enough pools per unit compared to the existing units which will have the renters and owners of these units using the pools outside of Eden Rock, particularly the pools at PGA West. There is no room for individual pool ownership.. The plans give the impression that they are building army barracks as opposed to building a project that meshes with the existing homes. There is no need to take the most prime piece of property and turn it into a high density project - 300 hundred units on 42 acres is unacceptable. Two and three story units are unacceptable in keeping withe the integrity of PGA West. I urge you to reject this proposal out of hand as unacceptable when it comes before you. Sincerely, Priscilla Rendino 80390 Weiskopf La Quinta, CA 92253 760-564-6002 6/9/2005 Page 1 of 1 Betty Sawyer From: Ppgawest@aol.com Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 6:05 PM To: Betty Sawyer Cc: Ppgawest@aol.com Subject: Att: El Elderson (Re: Eden Roc Development) Dear Mr. Elderson, My husband has just come from a meeting at PGA West at which the proposed Eden Rock development was discussed. Present at the meeting were many angry PGA West homeowners (we are PGA West residents) who heard from the developer their plans for this most valuable piece of property at PGA West. Quite frankly I am surprised that their plans have progressed so far without sounding out the members. It was indicated that they plan to present their plans to the council within the next couple of weeks. I urge you to get involved in doing what you can to have this project rejected. The density of the units come nowhere near the density of the units in 95% of PGA West. We do not need multi -level units (some are three levels and there is a fourth level for a "clock tower") obstructing the views that many of us have paid dearly for. Also the proposed selling prices of the units are way under the existing values at PGA West. It looks to me that these units will be sold to people who have no interest in living in them but will buy them as rental properties. I do not believe that since the cost of these units are so low, that the buyers will also purchase the club membership. (Why would someone spend 25% of the cost of the home for a golf membership?). There is not enough pools per unit compared to the existing units which will have the renters and owners of these units using the pools outside of Eden Rock, particularly the pools at PGA West. There is no room for individual pool ownership.. The plans give the impression that they are building army barracks as opposed to building a project that meshes with the existing homes. There is no need to take the most prime piece of property and turn it into a high density project - 300 hundred units on 42 acres is unacceptable. Two and three story units are unacceptable in keeping withe the integrity of PGA West. I urge you to reject this proposal out of hand as unacceptable when it comes before you. Sincerely, Priscilla Rendino 80390 Weiskopf La Quinta, CA 92253 760-564-6002 6/9/2005 Page 1 of 1 Betty Sawyer From: Ppgawest@aol.com Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 6:06 PM To: Betty Sawyer Cc: Ppgawest@aol.com Subject: Att: Kay Ladner (Re: Eden Roc Development) Dear Ms. Ladner, My husband has just come from a meeting at PGA West at which the proposed Eden Rock development was discussed. Present at the meeting were many angry PGA West homeowners (we are PGA West residents) who heard from the developer their plans for this most valuable piece of property at PGA West. Quite frankly I am surprised that their plans have progressed so far without sounding out the members. It was indicated that they plan to present their plans to the council within the next couple of weeks. I urge you to get involved in doing what you can to have this project rejected. The density of the units come nowhere near the density of the units in 95% of PGA West. We do not need multi -level units (some are three levels and there is a fourth level for a "clock tower") obstructing the views that many of us have paid dearly for. Also the proposed selling prices of the units are way under the existing values at PGA West. It looks to me that these units will be sold to people who have no interest in living in them but will buy them as rental properties. I do not believe that since the cost of these units are so low, that the buyers will also purchase the club membership. (Why would someone spend 25% of the cost of the home for a golf membership?). There is not enough pools per unit compared to the existing units which will have the renters and owners of these units using the pools outside of Eden Rock, particularly the pools at PGA West. There is no room for individual pool ownership.. The plans give the impression that they are building army barracks as opposed to building a project that meshes with the existing homes. There is no need to take the most prime piece of property and turn it into a high density project - 300 hundred units on 42 acres is unacceptable. Two and three story units are unacceptable in keeping withe the integrity of PGA West. I urge you to reject this proposal out of hand as unacceptable when it comes before you. Sincerely, Priscilla Rendino 80390 Weiskopf La Quinta, CA 92253 760-564-6002 6/9/2005 Page 1 of 1 Betty Sawyer From: Bregman@aol.com Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 2:57 PM To: Betty Sawyer Subject: Eden Roc development at PGA West Tom Kirk Paul Quill Rick Daniels El Elderson Kay Ladner Community Development City of La Quinta Dear Commissioners: We have attended the presentation of the proposed Eden Roc Development for the PGA West homeowners on May 27, and Tuesday, June 6. The developer attempted to answer some of the concerns that the home owners raised with this proposed project. In our view his answers were not acceptable and his messege was "we should all work together and come to a compromise." We were told the developer intends to submit their plans to the city for approval in the next few weeks. Most of the home owners are away for the summer and it is going to be difficult to communicate with many of them in such a short time frame. We suggest that all the home owners who reside here permanently be given adequate time to meet with the developers and see if a compromise can be worked out, and present the findings to all the home owners who are not in residence here in the summer for their consideration as well. Therefore, we suggest the city take no action on this matter until such time. If a satisfactory compromise cannot be reached, then we are strongly opposed to the present proposed Eden Roc project to be built on the PGA West property. Yours truly, Jewel and Allan Bregman 80860 Weiskopf La Quinta, CA 92253 6/ 10/2005 Page 1 of 1 Betty Sawyer From: Barbara Salomone [BarbaraS@bioelements.com] Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 9:01 AM To: Betty Sawyer Subject: Fw: PROPOSED EDEN ROC DEVELOPMENT ----- Original Message ----- From: Barbara Salomone To: dadolph@la-quinta.org ; devans@la-quinta.org Cc: ross salomone Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 8:59 AM Subject: PROPOSED EDEN ROC DEVELOPMENT As a year-round PGA West resident, I strongly oppose the proposed Eden Roc development. I am especially opposed to multi -level structures which will be offensive to our neighborhood, rental units with transient tenants, and the ridiculous "clock tower" concept. This type of high density development would also make PGA facilities more vulnerable to unauthorized usage. Do we really need "guards" in our health club and clubhouse? The increasing trend has been that more and more homes built in PGA West are luxurious, multi -million dollar structures. And, as we understand it, our neighborhood is zoned to build only single story, single family structures. Eden Roc is proposing to build multi -unit, multi -story rental units right in the middle of PGA West. My husband and I vehemently oppose this! Why would we even consider allowing these units in our community at the expense of our tranquil lifestyle? Do not let this project go through! We don't need the high traffic. We don't need the noise. We don't need any obstruction of views. We don't need unauthorized people in our facilities. And we certainly don't need our property values placed in jeopardy. Put a stop to this project NOW. Sincerely, Ross and Barbara Salomone 80-933 Spanish Bay (760)777-7670 6/10/2005 Page 1 of 1 Betty Sawyer From: Cecily Bauer [cecily@gmx.at] Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 11:05 AM To: Betty Sawyer Subject: Eden Roc My wife Barbara and myself have been spending our holidays in the Coachella Valley for about 15 years. From the first visit on it was clear for us, one day to buy a home there, which we did 2 years ago. We visited and inspected really a lot of communities and we have very carefully picked PGA West, the Masters at Weiskopf because of PGA's prestige, the quality of life, it's variety of high class communities and the high value of the properties. The last thing we wanted was an overcrowded place. With the Eden Roc project we see our investment endangered! We, as lots of PGA residents oppose the Eden Roc project, as it was presented with multi story buildings! PGA West should remain a high class place with million dollar single story homes! There should be no multi story clusters within PGA West! Sincerely yours, Fritz Gabriel Bauer Prof. Fritz Gabriel Bauer Barbara Bauer Pummergasse 20 A 3002 Purkersdorf Austria/Europe 80370 Weiskopf Way La Quinta, 92253 CA/USA e-mail: bbfgb@gmx.net 6/10/2005