Loading...
2004 06 22 PCPlanning 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 22, 2004 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING Beginning Resolution 2004-037 Beginning Minute Motion 2004-013 1. 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 June 8, 2004. B. Department Report 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 ................ SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-809 Applicant.......... Watermark Villas L.Q., LLC Location........... Northwest corner of Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street Request............ Consideration of development plans for the construction of 250 resort residential condominium units, a restaurant/clubhouse and other minor ancillary facilities. Action .............. Resolution 2004- B. Item ................ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-504 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32201 Applicant.......... Choice Enterprise Location........... Northwest corner of Madison Street and Avenue 60. Request............ Consideration of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact and the subdivision of 7.41 acres into 24 single-family lots and one retention lot. Action .............. Resolution 2004- and Resolution 2004- C. Item ................ TENTATIVE TRACT 32453 Applicant.......... ND La Quinta Partners, Inc. LLC Location.........../ i !!fit side of Jefferson Street, north of Avenue 54 (within The Hideaway) Request............ Consideration of the subdivision of 27 acres into 28 residential lots, one clubhouse lot and other miscellaneous lots Action .............. Resolution 2004- G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PCAgendaW.doc VI BUSINESS ITEM: A. Item ................ STREET NAME CHANGE 2004-018 Applicant.......... ND La Quinta Partners Location........... East side of Jefferson Street, north of Avenue 54, with in the hideaway Request............ Consideration of adoption of a Resolution of Intent, setting a public hearing date to consider a street name change. Action .............. Resolution 2004-_ VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Review of City Council meeting IX. ADJOURNMENT: This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be held on July 13, 2004, 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 22, 2004, was posted on the outside entry to the Council Chamber, 78-495 Calle Tampico, the bulletin board at the La Quinta Chamber of Commerce, and at Stater Bros. 78-630 Highway 1 1 1, on Friday, June 18, 2004. DATED: June 18, 2004 r BETi'Y, J..SAWYER, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PCAgendaW.doc 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 June 8, 2004 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Kirk who asked Commissioner Abels to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Jacques Abels, Rick Daniels, Paul Quill, Robert Tyler, and Chairman Tom Kirk. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston, Planning Manager Oscar Orci, Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer, Associate Planners Wallace Nesbit and Greg Trousdell, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of the regular meeting of May 11. 2004. There being no corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Daniels to approve the minutes as submitted. C. Department Report: None. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Tentative Tract Map 31087; a request of Tahiti Partners V, LLC for consideration of a subdivision of ± 5 acres into 19 single-family lots for the property located on the south side of Darby Road, east of Washington Street. 1. Chairman Kirk informed everyone that a request had been received to continue this item to the regular meeting of July 13, 2004. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-8-04.doc Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2004 2. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Abets to continue Tentative Tract Map 31087 to July 13, 2004. Unanimously approved. B. Tentative Tract Map 31852; a request of Ehline Company for consideration of a subdivision of ± 8.5 acres into 14 single-family lots for the property located at the northwest corner of Avenue 52 and Madison Street. 1. Chairman Kirk informed everyone that a request had been received to continue this item to the regular meeting of July 13, 2004. 2. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to continue Tentative Tract Map 31852 to July 13, 2004. Unanimously approved. C. Site Development Permit 2004-807; a request of Thomas Enterprises for consideration of development plans and sign program for Phase I of the Pavilion at La Quinta 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 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 Daniels asked if the post office was included in the area of the Specific Plan, or did they decide where they wanted to be located. Staff stated the land was part of the original Specific Plan, but when the land was sold to the post office it was no longer a part of the Specific Plan. Commissioner Daniels asked if the parking for the post office was calculated into the overall Specific Plan. Staff stated no, and there will be no access from this development to the post office. Commissioner Daniels asked if the property to the east was part of this development. Staff stated no, but there is a provision for the circulation to tie the two together to give access to the signal at Highway 1 1 1. 3. Commissioner Tyler noted the minor changes that had been made in the Specific Plan and asked why the Commission was not approving an amendment to the Specific Plan. Community Development Director Jerry Herman noted that the provisions of G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-8-04.doc 2 Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2004 the Specific Plan allow the Community Development Director to approve minor changes and in this instance staff approved those changes. Commissioner Tyler noted he had not received the sign program in his packet. He ' then asked for clarification as to whether or not a full turn movement, or a signal, will be permitted at the Adams Street access across from the car wash entrance. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated that instead of a signal, a median island would be required to prevent a left turn movement out. Rather than signals so closely spaced, the left turn restriction works better. Commissioner Tyler stated Condition #2.b. applies to the sign program, but is not specific as to what may be allowed. It needs to be more specific. Staff stated it was reworded, but the condition was written this way because even though a business may be allowed a certain sign size, the sign may overpower the area and this condition gives staff the flexibility to work with the applicant. Commissioner Tyler noted Condition #2.d. should be worded to state one of the three tenant identification monument signs along Highway 111 shall be eliminated. He then asked about the pads in the first phase as to whether any were intended to have fast food restaurants. Staff noted those pads that were intended to have a drive through. 4. Chairman Kirk asked abut the first entry north of Highway 1 1 1 as to whether the restrictors could be installed early in the development stage. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated yes, it could be required; however, It has been the consensus of the City Council to wait and see if they were needed as it will have an impact on the entire area. Chairman Kirk asked if staff was comfortable with the two right -in lanes along Highway 1 1 1. Staff stated they, as well as Caltrans, were fine with them. Discussion followed regarding circulation issues. Chairman Kirk asked about the sign program as to how the signs can exceed the maximum size. Staff noted there were instances where major tenants have been allowed larger signs. Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston stated the size is not a trade mark issue and can be regulated by the Commission. Chairman Kirk asked staff if they have reviewed the sign program to determine what part of the sign program is less restrictive than the City's sign program. Staff stated not specifically. Chairman Kirk asked if the city's Ordinance allows for a free standing pad structure to have four signs, one on each facade? Staff stated the Ordinance does not differentiate between a pad, or inline building. It allows a sign per frontage. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-8-04.doc 3 Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2004 5. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Norman Barrett, architect for the project, gave a presentation on the project. 6. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Daniels asked if the applicant concurred with the conditions. Mr. Barrett stated they have no issues with the conditions, but would request consideration regarding the new conditions just imposed. At. a previous meeting the width was established by Caltrans and they have enough room for a right turn lane off Highway 1 1 1. The Adams Street issues were resolved. They would like to request these conditions be looked at again. This is a Caltrans issue and they have resolved it with them. In regard to the restrictor, Mr. Mel Kuhnel, the owner of the project, stated they would also like to object to the restrictor on Adams Street. The 70-foot right-of-way off Highway 111 is also a hardship and they would like to object to this condition. 7. Chairman Kirk asked if the tenants were informed they might not have full turn movement. Mr. Kuhnel, stated yes they were informed. They were told however, they were informed they would have full have for at least five years. 8. There being no further questions of the applicant and no other public comment, Chairman Kirk closed the public participation portion of the hearing. 9. Commissioner Tyler suggested Condition 50.B.1 remain as it is written. 10. Commissioner Daniels asked staff why they were amending the condition. As he understands it, he concurs with the amendment, but has a problem receiving it at the last minute. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer clarified why staff had made the change. It was not the requirement to add the right turn lane that had been added; that condition already exists. What is being changed is the amount of right-of-way the City is requesting. There is a possibility Caltrans may agree to a slightly less stringent right-of- way dedication as there is already an eight foot shoulder. If the City had a choice they would only push the curb back four feet, but it is up to Caltrans who wants 12 feet. When the deceleration lane policy was presented to the Council, staff understood the G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-8-04.doc 4 Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2004 hardship this could cause the developer, so staff asked Council if they wanted to push the setback back onto the developer's site to keep the landscaping the same or pushing the landscape setback into the parking. *Staff asked Council whether they would want to keep the landscaping or reduce the parking. The Council did not take a hard stance, but in that instance asked that they retain as much landscaping as possible. In this particular case, we have a lot of landscaping and this could be a hardship on this developer, so Council may have grace in this instance. Lastly, this is the second development that has come before the Commission where they have a specific plan and staff has added this condition as part of the site development permit. As a matter of consistency between developers, he would recommend staying consistent. 11. Chairman Kirk asked if we are losing the amount of landscaping setback; what was staff's recommendation? Staff stated we would maintain the landscaping and reduce the parking. 12. Commissioner Tyler stated that in reference to Condition #49.A.1.b., it is his understanding that a right turn deceleration lane will be constructed and the developer will give up 60 feet. So the change is a ten foot change in the amount of right-of-way given up. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer clarified this condition addresses the curb face, the other condition on Page 15, staff is asking for the additional right-of-way. The curb line was the issue. Commissioner Tyler asked if the Commission was being asked to approve the extra ten feet and could it come out of the 50-foot landscape setback. Staff stated that was correct. 13. Commissioner Quill stated he likes the project and if the deceleration lanes can be done without removing any parking, he would agree as there is ample landscaping along the parkway to install the deceleration lane. We should strive to minimize the impact on the developer whether in the right-of-way or width of the deceleration lane. 14. Chairman Kirk commended the applicant on his project and stated he does want to maintain the entire landscape setback along Highway 111 and encouraged staff to work with Caltrans to minimize the impact of the deceleration lane. He would suggest adding a clarification to Condition #50.b.1 that the restrictor be in - lieu of a signal and the applicant notify in writing, all the tenants that this access may not be a full turning movement in five years. G:\WPDDCS\PC Minutes\6-8-04.doc 5 Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2004 Also an elimination of sign program Condition 1.e as it is redundant. 15. Commissioner Tyler asked whether or not the Commission was going to allow the removal of the ten foot landscape setback. 16. Commissioner Quill stated that as this is something that is being required of them at the last moment, they should be allowed to take it from the landscaped parkway. By doing this there is no change in the engineering for the parking or buildings. If we require the landscape setback to be maintained, this will require them to shift their buildings. This could also be a loss of 12 parking spaces. 17. Commissioner Tyler stated he would like a maximum of ten feet and it should come from the City portion, not the developer. 18. Commissioner Daniels stated anywhere except Highway 1 1 1. 19. Chairman Kirk agreed. 20. Commissioner Daniels asked the likelihood of them needing the curb face moved back. Assistant City Engineer Steve stated this is a good size shopping center, and when it originally went to Caltrans they asked for a continuous right turn lane for the length of the project. The developer was able to remove this requirement. The deceleration lane will probably be 150-200 feet and hopefully, only push the sidewalk back four feet. It is very likely the primary entrance will be required as it will meet the threshold of 50 miles per hour. Adams Street will require a study to see if it meets the threshold. 21. Commissioner Kirk asked if the Commissioners would be in favor of reducing the parking requirement. Perhaps the developer could move the building on the east to the north of the primary entrance and potentially lose eight stalls on the north side of the building. 22. Commissioner Tyler noted they have already lost 70 parking spaced when they revised the Specific plan. Staff noted they also reduced the size of the buildings by 15,000 square feet. The current configuration complies with the City's Ordinance. Mr. Kuhnkle stated they have expended a lot of money getting the project to this point and they would like to request the area be G:\WPDDCS\PC Minutes\6-8-04.doc 6 Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2004 taken from the landscape buffer, but reducing the parking requirement will help. 23. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Daniels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-034, approving Site Development Permit 2004-807, as amended: a. Condition added: landscaping from the curb to the parking lot of the structures shall be reduced by four feet. If Caltrans increases that size to eight feet or greater, adjustments to the site plan and landscaping are required. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Daniels, Quill, Tyler, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 24. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners to adopt Minute Motion 2004-011 approving Sign Permit 2004-786 as recommended. Unanimously approved. D. Tentative Tract Map 31681; a request of Coral Option I, LLC for consideration of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact and the subdivision of ± 548 acres into 492 single-family lots, a lot for 80 casitas, golf course lots and miscellaneous lots for the property located at southwest corner of Madison Street and Avenue 58. 1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Martin Magana presented the information contained in the report a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff noted a change to Condition #8.a.3 and 4 and that the number of lots is 472. 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler noted a change to the staff report. 3. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Patrick O'Dowd gave a presentation on the project. He raised an issue regarding the requirement for an eight foot sidewalk. They would like to request six feet. Condition #17 noted there will be well site on the perimeter and they would like to retain access to the well site from the perimeter. In addition, there will be two emergency accesses for the well site on the perimeter. They would request G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-8-04.doc 7 Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2004 those accesses be allowed. Condition #53 needs to be clarified as Avenue 58 was constructed in various stages on the north. This design caused the centerlilne to meanders. Therefore, the centerline and section line are not the same. The street design is to the General Plan standards, but the centerline meanders to conform to the County standards. Also, on split rail fences for the multi -purpose trail, their concern is that the split rail fence is inconsistent with their theme. They would like the latitude to consider alternative fencing that would be more in keeping with the theme of the project. They have no objection to Condition #56 in regard to the dual entry at primary entries, but secondary entrances this would be unwarranted. Lastly, in regard to street sections (Condition #10) the City calls for the measurement to be flow line to flow line. They would like this measured from back of gutter to back of gutter. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated that in regard to the measurement between the flow lines, staff agrees there can be a reduction. Staff has no problem with the access to the well sites as requested. In regard to sidewalk widths, staff has no issues with a reduction to six feet as different widths have been approved throughout the City. Planning Manager Oscar Orci stated that in regard to the split rail fencing, these are the minimum requirements, staff will work with the applicant to determine the appropriate material and fencing for the split rail fencing. 4. Commissioner Quill asked for clarification on the location of the main entries. Mr. O'Dowd stated the main entrances were on Monroe Street and Madison Street. These entrances would have the two lanes entering and one leaving. 5. There being no further questions of the applicant and no other public comment, Chairman Kirk closed the public participation portion of the hearing. 6. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Daniels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-035, approving Tentative Tract Map 31681, as amended: a. Conditions amended: 1.) The measurement between flow lines can be reduced; 2.) Access to the well sites is granted; 3.) Sidewalks shall be six feet in width; and G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-8-04.doc 8 Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2004 4.) The applicant shall submit an alternative design and materials list for the multi -use trail for staff approval. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Daniels, Quill, Tyler, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Street Name Change 2004-017; a request of Larry Sherman for consideration of adoption of a Resolution of Intent setting July 13, 2004 as a Public Hearing date to consider a street name change from Simon Drive to Deputy Lee Drive. 1. Chairman Kirk asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Oscar Orci presented the information contained in the 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 Abels noted the achievements of Fred Simon to the City and even though he agreed with the recognition of Deputy Lee, he would not like to see this street renamed. He noted the recognition the City was giving Deputy Lee on the Civic Center Campus. 3. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Larry Sherman stated he was available to answer any questions. 4. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Tyler asked if the Commission could not set the hearing date. Planning Manager Oscar stated that if the Commission finds that the applicant has met the intent of the Code, which is to obtain approval from 60 percent of the property owners adjacent to the street, the public hearing date shall be set. 5. There being no further questions of the applicant and no other public comment, Chairman Kirk closed the public participation portion. 6. Commissioner Abels asked why the applicant had chosen Simon Drive to be renamed. Mr. Sherman stated because of the location and since the dealership has moved, it seems an appropriate location for a peace officer to be recognized for giving his life. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-8-04.doc 9 Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2004 7. Commissioner Tyler stated he finds it unfortunate the City does not have a procedure for the naming of streets. He would recommend the staff come up with a procedure. 8. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners DanielsAbels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-036, approving a Resolution of Intent to consider Street Name Change 2004-017, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Daniels, Quill, Tyler, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. C. Minor Use Permit 2004-483; a request of Jack Duke for consideration of placement of a mobile home on residentially zoned property located at 58-007 Monroe Street. 1. Chairman Kirk asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit presented the information contained in the report a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Daniels asked if this approval would resolve the Code enforcement problems. Staff stated yes. 3. Commissioner Tyler stated he did not agree with Finding "D" and did not believe it was appropriate. Staff stated this finding was originally made to regulate mobile homes in the Cove. In this instance there are mobile homes in the area of this proposed mobile home and therefore, in staff's opinion, it was an appropriate finding to include. Commissioner Tyler asked if the foundation for the mobile home was up to Code. Staff stated that is unknown at this time as there have not been any inspections. Planning Manager Oscar Orci stated approval of this application would allow the City to inspect the footings. Commissioner Tyler stated that if this application is granted, he would request it apply only to the current owner. Staff stated the approval would have to run with the property. Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston clarified the approval would run with the property. 4. Commissioner Quill asked the purpose of the other trailers. Staff stated it is thought that other family members live there. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-8-04.doc 10 Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2004 5. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Jack Duke, 58-007 Monroe Street, explained the purpose of the request. 6. There being no questions of the applicant and no other public comment, Chairman Kirk closed the public participation portion of the hearing. 7. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Quill to adopt Minute Motion 2004-012, approving Minor Use Permit 2004-483, as amended: a. Condition #5 amended: Any extension of time shall be approved by the Planning Commission. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Daniels, Quill, Tyler, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. A report was given on the City Council of June 1, 2004. IX. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abelsl/Daniels to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on June 22, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned 8:30 p.m., on June 8, 2004. Respectfully submitted, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-8-04.doc 11 PH #A STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 22, 2004 CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-809 APPLICANT: WATERMARK VILLAS LQ, L.L.C. REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 250 RESORT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS, A RESTAURANT/CLUBHOUSE, AND OTHER MINOR ANCILLARY FACILITIES LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF AVENUE 52 AND JEFFERSON STREET (ATTACHMENT 1) ARCHITECT: KEN STOCKTON/BRUCE SHINDELUS GENERAL PLAN: MHDR - (MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, UP TO 12 UNITS/ACRE) ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: BACKGROUND: RMH - (MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-486, IN CONJUNCTION WITH APPROVAL OF A SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE PROJECT. THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS ARE PROPOSED WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THE PREPARATION OF ANY SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS, PURSUANT TO SECTION 15162 OF THE GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT Specific Plan 2003-069 and Tentative Tract 31798 were approved by the City Council on January 6, 2004. This approval granted conceptual site plan approval for 250 resort residential condominiums on approximately 21 acres (Attachment 2). The project approval also permitted a clubhouse restaurant on a ±0.4 acre site, at the immediate corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue 52. Site development conditions were placed on the project as part of the Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map approvals. perptsdp809 PROJECT PROPOSAL: This proposal incorporates all development elements of the approved Specific Plan for the Watermark Villas project. The illustrations (Attachment 3) represent the typical floor plans and elevations of the units and buildings. These elements are described as follows: 1. Building footprint/elevations for 31 two-story, eight -unit structures (typical design) — Each structure shall be the same design, with an area footprint of 4,780 s.f. (first floor). The total floor area of both stories is 8,940 s.f. Each building will have a 5,800 s.f. underground parking area with 17 spaces. The total height of each building will be 28 feet. There will be one 16-foot high, single -story duplex structure (Site 28) along Jefferson Street. There are four different unit plans, as listed below. • Unit A: 1 BR, 880 s.f. — 62 units, all on 2"d floor. • Unit B: 2 BR, 1,000 s.f. - 36 units, all on 1" floor. • Unit B ALT: 1 BR + den, 1,000 s.f. — 26 units, all on 1st floor • Unit C: 2 BR + den, 1,200 s.f. — 62 units, all on 2"d floor. • Unit D: 2 BR + den, 1,390 s.f. - 64 units, all on 1st floor. Note: Unit B ALT was added on June 9, 2004. It does not change the overall unit size, configuration or exterior elements from Unit B. 2. Building footprint/elevations for a recreation building located on the project's southeast corner, at Jefferson Street and Avenue 52 - This is a three -level structure with an underground cart barn (9,800 s.f.), a 10,000 s.f. resident gym on the second level (first floor), and a 6,000 s.f. restaurant, with an additional ±4,000 s.f. outdoor patio dining area, on the third level (second floor). 3. Building footprint/elevations for the following ancillary buildings: • A two-story, 4,100 s.f. association office/convenience store, with a height of 24 feet. • A one-story, 740 s.f. maintenance building, with a height of 13' 4". • A one-story, 270 s.f. entry guard shelter, with a height of 16 feet. The general architectural theme reflects a Mediterranean villa influence, and is consistent throughout the design of all buildings proposed for this development. Materials consist of terra cotta roof tile, stucco exterior wall and trim covering in earth tones, and door and window frames in a medium green color as an accent. The tallest buildings are the eight -unit structures, at 28 feet, which is the maximum permitted height under the RMH zoning. In regard to landscaping, the landscape concept (Attachment 4) centers on the retention of the existing date palms and their integration into the site design. Most will be left in place, while those to be relocated will be placed in common areas and perptsdp809 around the residential buildings. The plan incorporates the use of Citrus trees around the project perimeter areas, particularly at the north and west boundaries shared with the Citrus Country Club. Additional tree species to be used in the project are Chilean Mesquite, Evergreen Elm, California Pepper and Tipuana. A well - varied assortment of vine, shrub and groundcover species will accent the infill of the plan. Architecture and Landscape Review Committee (ALRC) The ALRC reviewed this request at its meeting of June 2, 2004, and on a 2-0 vote (Committee Member Cunningham absent), adopted Minute Motion 2004-021, recommending approval of the proposed project (Attachment 5). The ALRC did not include any conditions with their recommendation. Public Notice This request was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on June 12, 2004 and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the project site. To date, no correspondence has been received. However, several members of the Citrus Course Country Club did visit the City to view the proposed plans. It is anticipated that several residents from this area will be in attendance. 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. ISSUES: 1. Specific Plan Consistency - The project layout, design, and component elements are in compliance with the Specific Plan for Watermark Villas as approved. As the plan did not contain the specific design and development details for the units and ancillary buildings, site development review was required for these elements against the provisions and rights associated with the Specific Plan approval and the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Zoning Code Requirements - All proposed buildings are within the height limits specified under the Zoning Code, including the clubhouse building which is limited to 22 feet in height due to it's proximity to identified image corridors. The Watermark Villas Specific Plan does not designate the size of the individual units. Under the Zoning Code for the RMH district, the minimum unit size is 1,400 s.f., with a 750 s.f. minimum for multi -family. Since these units are multi -family in nature, and the smallest proposed unit is 880 sq. ft, they meet the minimum unit size of 750 s.f., as permitted in the district. perptsdp809 3. Parking — Each building will provide below -grade parking for 17 cars, for a total of 527 covered spaces and 81 uncovered. Based on the unit mix of 88 one -bedroom and 162 two -bedroom units, 430 covered spaces and 125 guest spaces are required for airspace condominium or apartment units. The applicant has provided excess parking at the clubhouse and office/convenience store uses. The clubhouse restaurant dining areas total 7,350 s.f., requiring 98 parking spaces. The plan provides 44 spaces at the clubhouse area, and staff recommends that an additional 54 spaces be located along the access road to the clubhouse and adjacent to the existing provided spaces. It is anticipated that the restaurant will draw a share of it's client base from within the development and potentially from the Silverrock project, which will reduce the demand for on -site parking. However, staff is requiring the additional spaces to insure the minimum required restaurant parking will be available 4. Citrus Course concerns - The City Council approval of the project assured that certain provisions, as presented by the Citrus homeowners, were to be considered during the Site Development Permit process. These stipulations are contained in a letter dated December 10, 2003 (Attachment 6). Review of the site landscaping provisions at the west and north boundaries of the project indicate that the concerns of the residents have been incorporated into the project. However, due to the concerns expressed by the Citrus homeowners related to privacy, a condition has been incorporated to include the provisions of the December 10 letter (i.e. berms, landscaping and wall design). Any agreements by the developer pertaining to improvements to be done on Citrus course property, are exclusively between those two parties. 5. Existing Approval Conditions — This site development application is required to review the building design aspects of the project, which were not set forth in the Specific Plan. As such, it relates only to design review elements of the architecture and site landscaping. Technical review for street improvement requirements, dedications, drainage control, etc. was completed as part of the Specific Plan and Tract Map applications, approved in January 2004. These prior conditions are incorporated by reference in the conditions prepared for this application, in order to maintain continuity and eliminate redundancies. MANDATORY FINDINGS: As required by Section 9.210.010 (Site Development Permits) of the Zoning Code, all findings neede to approve this request can be met as noted in the attached Resolution. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004- , approving Site Development Permit 2004-809, subject to findings and conditions. perptsdp809 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Proposed Site Plan 3. Proposed Building Plans/Elevations 4. ALRC Minutes of June 2, 2004 (Excerpt) 5. Project Landscape Plan 6. Citrus Course Homeowner's Association letter dated 12/10/03 Prepared by: Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner perptsdp809 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR 250 RESORT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS, A ± 28,800 SQUARE FOOT CLUBHOUSE/RESTAURANT COMPLEX, AND OTHER ANCILLARY USES CASE NO: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-809 WATERMARK VILLAS LQ, L.L.C. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 22"d day of June, 2004, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider Site Development Permit 2004-809, for 250 resort residential condominium units and a ± 28,800 square -foot clubhouse and restaurant complex on a ± 21 gross acre site, located at the northwest corner of Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street, more particularly described as: LOT 47 of TR 24889, BOOK 210, PAGES 38 THROUGH 52, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit application 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 no changed circumstances or conditions are proposed from those evaluated under the previously certified Environmental Assessment 2003-486, which would require the preparation of any subsequent environmental documents, pursuant to Section 15162 of the Guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, the Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings to justify approval of said Site Development Permit: 1. The proposed Site Development Permit is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan and the Watermark Villas Specific Plan (SP 2003-069), as it will not be developed in any manner inconsistent with the General Plan land use designation of Medium High Density Residential and other development standards established by the Specific Plan. Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Site Development Permit 2002-731 - WG Properties Adopted: May 28, 2002 2. The proposed Site Development Permit is consistent with the La Quinta Zoning Code, as the project contemplates land uses that are equivalent to those permitted under existing zoning of permitted uses. Specifically, development of existing Medium High Density land use is considered to implement zoning consistency with the General Plan, and the project approval as previously granted under the Watermark Villas Specific Plan. 3. The proposed Site Development Permit complies with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (City Council Resolution 83-63), as it has been determined that no changed circumstances or conditions are proposed from those evaluated under the previously certified Environmental Assessment 2003-486, which would require the preparation of any subsequent environmental documents. 4. The architectural and site design aspects of the proposed Site Development Permit will be compatible with and not detrimental to surrounding development in the surrounding area, and with the overall design quality prevalent in the City. 5. The project landscaping for the proposed Site Development Permit has been designed to unify and enhance visual continuity of the proposed project with the surrounding development. 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 2004-809 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 City Planning Commission, held on this the 22"d day of June, 2004, by the following vote, to wit: ,_!►I PAReports - PC\6-22-2004\resopcsdp809.rtf Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Site Development Permit 2002-731 - WG Properties Adopted: May 28, 2002 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California P:\Reports - PC\6-22-2004\resopcsdp809.rtf } PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOOPMENT PERMIT 2004-809 ROBERT SELAN — WATERMARK VILLAS JUNE 22, 2004 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. The applicant shall comply with all applicable conditions and/or mitigation measures, which are incorporated by reference herein, for the following related approvals: • Environmental Assessment 2003-486 • Specific Plan 2003-069 • Tentative Tract Map 31798 In the event of any conflict(s) between approval conditions and/or provisions of these approvals, the Community Development Director shall determine precedence. No development permits will be issued until compliance with these conditions has been achieved. 3. 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 PAReports - PC\6-22-2004\coasdp809.doc J Planning Commission Resolution No. 2004-006 Site Development Permit 2004-809 / Watermark Villas LQ, L.L.C. Conditions of Approval - Recommended June 22, 2004 Page 2 The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those improvement plans for City approval. FEES AND DEPOSITS 4. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Art in Public Places program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 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) LANDSCAPING 6. Landscape plans as required under the approvals for Tract 31798 and Specific Plan 2003-069 shall include lighting locations and details of all proposed fixtures and mounting. Berms and walls shall be subject to review under the City's applicable development standards in effect at the time of plan submittal. 7. The applicant shall incorporate those measures as outlined in the letter on file dated December 10, 2003, prepared by the Citrus Course Homeowner Association, into the landscape plans, as appropriate. If any measure set forth in said letter conflicts with other City requirements and/or standards, alternative methods of compliance shall be investigated that are commensurate with the original standards, and in the absence of any commensurate alternative, the City standard(s) shall take precedence. BUILDING DESIGN 8. The applicant shall submit detailed building lighting plans to include exterior fixture details. The lighting plan shall be approved by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of any building permits. PAReports - PC\6-22-2004\coasdp809.doc Planning Commission Resolution No. 2004-006 Site Development Permit 2004-809 / Watermark Villas La, L.L.C. Conditions of Approval - Recommended June 22, 2004 Page 3 9. Final location of all structures submitted for plan check shall be reviewed against and meet all setback standards of the RMH zoning district. 10. Provide covered parking for the 7 stalls immediately south of duplex unit. An additional 54 stalls shall be located along the clubhouse access road and at the existing stall locations. All stalls shall be designed in accordance with Chapter 9.150 (Parking) of the LQMC, to include double hairpin striping. 11. All roof -mounted mechanical equipment must be screened within or otherwise integral to the roof structure, using compatible architectural materials and treatments, so as to not be visible from surrounding properties and streets. Working drawings showing all such equipment and locations shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Department along with construction plan submittal for building permits. Method and design of screening must be approved by the Community Development Department prior to any issuance of building permits related to structures requiring such screening. PAReports - PC\6-22-2004\coasdp809.doc ATTACHMENT 1 50TH AVE. � w SITE z � 0 0 �a 52ND AVE. z = w c 53RD AVE. VICINITY MAC' NOT TO SCALE SDP 2004-809 - WATERMARK VILLAS --�131tl�5 ON ATTACHMENT 2 O' JVI\ Uu GVV`Y w'JV ATTACHMENT 3 WATERMARK VILLAS, LA QUINTA UNIT MIX MODEL TYPE # UNITS SQ.PT. A 1 BEDROOM, 1 BATH 62 880 B ALT, 1 BEDROOM, DEN, 2 BATHS 26 1000 B 2 BEDROOM, 2 BATH 36 1000 C 2 BEDROOM, DEN 2 BATHS 62 1200 D 2 BEDROOM, DEN, 2 & 112 BATHS 62 1390 E DUPLEX 2 1420 TOTALS 250 UNIT MIX LISTING a ECEWE .20 D JCCUII N�p9Lq �q c0ZT ITY DEeEL?PMENT DEPARfMEN BUILDING FLOOR PLANS/ELEVATIONS PAGES A2 - A 1 Q 1-4 7 n VINInO SY"MIA >bVWNalVM a3NMo 'VT VINIM VI NOSba"WICS anV 7MN SVIIIA >NW(walVM 17aroad llft d 'NHO NVId 61-088 (9L8) : XVd 64ZS—o89 (m) me vo 'sysvavivo 'road "am vanoov ism ooaet O 1 3 1 I H 2i t/ ? LLJ w Q N Ol >i O Ol S NIA N to." 3tva SNOISIA3a 'S'3'N NMVaO aO tt. MASTM PIoYEK iaxia IOxio i EMI: II111 II III V1NIM WIIIA NUVKN21VM Flo •Vy V1NI(A� y-I NOSW2=laW#Cf. aAV 7MN SV111A NWV"-N31VM lVaroxd '-' 2Vd 6L-099 (9L9) : XVJ 61ZS-099 (9L9) zot{0 Y] 'sysvwwo ttO -as vanoov ism oom z Z �- Q 0 3 1 1 H 0 2J `dui NOlA001S N3A 'iH0 NV 8 SNOISLA38 'S'3'H NMYNa VII V1NIrIO V'TiIA� �VW2I3LVM Yl VINIW VI NOGW3d-Ltr •ts RAY 7MN 6V91VA NNVWN91VM 'l 3d Vd 61-088 (818) : XV3 64ZS-088 (Bl8) Zom -vo sysvwvo '4m1 "ON vanoov Ism aos" O Z 1 3 1 I H 0 V Q NO1>iOOlS ' N3A HHO .oy.-a alga SNOISIA38 'S'3'N NMV80 �i z A J 2 N z O w W M z 4 w J w o�� d1NIfIZ7 >'I'lln �IadWTJ3J VM ago v7 V1NIf1D d 1 NO9L2J.Ml-VQ anv WN Sd t'fln �IadWa31HM l�aroad lIV4N d 6L-09B (919) : mi st'n-o89 No?) ZOf 11 'Vo 'SVSVBV Wo '"W "ON vW=V 1S39 0049C Z Ln 0 3 1 1 H 0 zl `d Q N 01 A 3 0 i S N I A � HNO NVId 31VO SNOISA38 'S'3'H NMV80 OI UW i 9 a a I V rA L ,; iJj d1Nir#V ,V-MIA >NVP4W2lVM a3NMO V7 V.1NUR9 V9 Nosb3"3'tcs 9AV WN 9V"P71A NNVWTJ31YM 1'�31'oad 11ft3d 'NHO NVId 61-099 (9t9) : XVd on-099 (9l9) yaw wo 'sysvevwo 'ttel ^aa vanoov Ls3x oosex Z 1 0 3 1 1 H 0 b d Q w N Ol A 3 O1 S� N ll>i M — 31V0 SNOISIA3M 'S'3'N NMV210 a w W 1 I 1 1 1 I I I I yl I I I 1 I 1 I I I I 1 JT1 V1NInO V'TIIA NVYWU21YM wvWO VV VANIM yl N0SZM"31" #CG 3nV 7MN SVI-IIA UNYWN21YM 1'Jaroad lIW2i3d 61-099 (919) : XVJ ON-099 (9l9) zxle roo 'svwsvwo '»M '•aa vanoov ism oossz Z j— 1 0 3 1 1 H 0 2! bui Q N Ol y1 O OlS N 3) i m HHO NVI6 31V0 SNOISA38 'S7N NMVNO O"n V1NMO 5V 1"IIA �I21VW213. VM '63NMO 'V'�' V1NIfll7 V'1 N09W3d-4X1L5 aAV WN SV'TIVA >NVHN31VM lo) rO cl 1IV483d '%HO NVId 61-08B (m) : Xbd 6bZS-09H (m) zom 'vo 'sysveviv7 1"W -aw vvnoov 1s3M oocoz O ,A Z 11H0bd W 1�3� 'Q w uj N Ol A O Ol S- N C I N vo-t-a MVO SNOISIA38 'S'3'N NMVNG Ill V1NIM -nIA NWV"31VM 2{�p V7 yyunp M 1 N0S?/3d43'*rG anV VW SVIIIA NWYWNalyM 1'�3I'021d lIWM d 6L-09A (m) : XV3 64ZS-099 Ons) zocw vo 'sysveviro '"80 "Okivarwov ts3n+ onset z Z 1 0 3 1 1 H 0 zi V I— Q N01�1001S Nl>i N 'HHO NVId .o " 31v(l j SNOISVON 'S'3'N NMVaO m r .LNIrV d 1 11n �1aVW2136`dM a2wo ro7 VINIAD d1 No6aadd3r$VG 3AV IhA S�d1"IIn 71adWZ131HM l oad 117213d 61-099 (919) : XVd 61rZS-Ogg (M) O Q Lace ro 'rnvevivo '++sl "aa ranafv u� o0ssz Z j 0 3 1 1 H 0 2J d i N Ol �i Ol S N 3 ii = Q N 'NHO NV"ld 31VO SNOISIAM 'S'3')4 NMV80 i� 3 (:Fl 1 � Y 4 2. ATTACHMENT 4 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee June 2, 2004 1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department 2. Committee Member Bobbitt questioned the use of the Chilean Mesquite tree and suggested a different variety such as the Acacia or Crepe Myrtle be used. The ground cover suggested (Baccarus) will be seedy and suggested a different variety be used. Also, the date palm tree has a potential for crown drop and only healthy trees a minimum of 16 feet in height should be used. 3. There being no further .questions of the applicant, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Thoms/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2004-020 recommending approval of parkway landscape plans for Tentative Tract Map 31379, as recommended by staff. a. No Chilean Mesquite shall be used; Acacia or Crepe Myrtle, hybrid variety can be used. b. Sepatate meter and control for sprinkler system. Unanimo/Osly approved. D. Site Development Permit 2003-809; a request for review of -' architectural and landscaping plans for a 250-unit condominium complex, including a restaurant/clubhouse and other ancillary uses located at the northwest corner of Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street. 1. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff introduced Matt Hladek, project proponent, who gave a presentation on the project. 2. Committee Member Thorns stated he appreciates the site plan and the design is very good. 3. Committee Member Bobbitt also commended them on the design. He suggested the Chilean Mesquite be replaced with a different tree variety. Also, be very careful as to the location of the date palms so they are not close to pedestrian traffic. P� J G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\6-2-04 WD.doc 5 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee June 2, 2004 4. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Thoms/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2004-021 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2003-809, as recommended by staff. Unanimously approved. VI. (CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: VII1. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Thoms/Bobbitt to adjourn this regular meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee to a regular meeting to be held on July 4, 2004. This meeting ,was adjourned at 1 1:19 a.m. on June 2, 2004. Respectfully submitted, BETTY J. SAWYER,, Executive Secretary lyk G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\6-2-04 WD.doc 6 ATTACH ill EN T 5 ILI r ITRUS COURSE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION December 10, 2003 Mr. Tom Kirk, Commissioner - La Quinta Planning Commission P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 91152-1504 General Plan Amendment 03-096 Zone Change 03-117 Specific Plan 03-069 Tentative Tract Map 31798 Watermark Villas Dear Mr. Kirk, ATTACHMENT 6 UECA 820 I am writing in regard to the proposed project located at the northwest corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue 52 known as the Watermark Villas. The Citrus borders the project on its north and west sides and naturally, our community has concerns about the views from not only the homes bordering the proposed development but also from our golf course. Our Architectural Committee has met with the developer's representatives and they have generously made the following commitments to screen their two story villas and balconies from view from the Citrus community and golf course: _Landscape: map appliciaton 31798.• Developerwill insll rsps tfaveac • Developer will construct a 5' high by 8' wide berm and or planter boxes along the entire northerly and westerly perimeters of the Watermark Villas property and will plant mature citrus trees at no more than 20' apart. The developer assures us that the foliage of the trees will extend above the 6' high wall as indicated on the attached sketch effectively screening the villas from the Citrus community's view. In addition, planting within the 150' site line corridor on Jefferson and 52°d Avenue to be on a case -by -case basis. There are no buildings in this site line corridor. • Developer will provide and plant forty trees on the Citrus side of the 6' wall bordering our communities. The trees are to be 36" box size and will be a mix of variegated Jacaranda trees (20) and variegated (non -thorn type) Mesquite trees (20). In addition, these trees will be installed implementing standard planting methods only, no cranes will be utilized. The Citrus Course HOA will determine the exact location of each tree placement. • The Citrus Course. HOA will be responsible for irrigating each of the 40 new trees planted on our property and maintenance will be the responsibility of the Citrus Course HOA. Tennis Courts: • Developer will insure that tennis court use will be limited to the hours of 7:00 AM and 9:00 PM by including this use time in the CC&R's of the Watermark Association. The developer also agrees that these hours will be strictly enforced. • Lights will have an automatic timer switch that will turn off the light when not in use. • Extra trees will be planted around the lighted area to prevent glare to the Citrus residents if necessary. Villa balcony use: Due to the visibility of these balconies from our community, the developer has agreed that appropriate restrictions will be incorporated into the project's CC&Rs to prevent the use of villa balconies as clothes drying areas, storage areas, and a general repository for tools, grills, toys etc. f- 0 P.O. Box 4772 Palm Desert, CA 92261-4772 • 73-550 Alessandro, Suite 5 Palm Desert, California 760.346.1161 • FAX 760.346.9918 - E-mail: drmC dr ninternet.co,,n - www.citruscoursehoa.com City of La Quinta Water Mark Villas Project Page: 2 We were also pleased to learn that the developer plans to construct a golf cart tunnel under Avenue 52 that would allow residents from both communities access to the proposed Silver Rock Ranch project. As the only contiguous neighbor of the Project, we request that we have the right to review and "sign off" on the inclusion of the above stated provisions, before the City approves their rezoning request. We further request that we be notified when detailed plans and specifications have been submitted to the City for approval, so we may have the opportunity to review these documents and make comments as part of the City's approval process. I ,. If the City of La Quinta makes the above commitments a condition of ' Approval, then the Citrus Course HOA will support the development of the Watermark Villas. If you have any questions regarding our concerns, please call me at (760) 771-6835. Yours truly, _ Tom Morton, President Board of Directors Citrus Course Homeowners Association top w cc: CCHOA Board of Directors T. H. Gallaudet III, Chair, CCHOA Architectural Committee Tom Miller, CCAM, Community Association Manager Desert Resort Management Matthew Hladek, Watermark Villas �� J PH #B STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 22, 2004 CASE NO: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-504 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32201 APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: CHOICE ENTERPRISE REQUEST: 1) CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; AND 2) APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION OF 7.41 ACRES INTO 24 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS AND ONE RETENTION LOT. LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF MADISON STREET AND AVENUE 60 (APNS: 766-080-010 & 01 1). ENGINEER: WATSON & WATSON DESIGN DEVELOPMENT, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004- 504; BASED UPON THIS ASSESSMENT THE PROJECT MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT; HOWEVER, MITIGATION MEASURES HAVE BEEN IMPOSED ON THE PROJECT TO REDUCE IMPACTS TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL; THEREFORE, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR CERTIFICATION. GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING DESIGNATIONS: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL); MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MHDR)/LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR); MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RMH) SURROUNDING PAReports - PC\6-22-2004\PC Stf Rpt TTM 32201.doc LAND USES: NORTH: VACANT LAND, SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AND ANDALUSIA AT CORAL MOUNTAIN SPECIFIC PLAN SOUTH: VACANT LAND, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION DIKE AND TRILOGY COUNTRY CLUB EAST: ANDALUSIA AT CORAL MOUNTAIN SPECIFIC PLAN WEST: VACANT LAND, SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AND ANDALUSIA AT CORAL MOUNTAIN SPECIFIC PLAN BACKGROUND The site is vacant and approximately 7.41 acres in size. The property is located west of the Andalusia at Coral Mountain Country Club and kitty-corner to Trilogy Country Club (Attachment 1). Historic Preservation Commission Archaeological and Paleontological reports for this project were presented to the Historic Preservation Committee on April 22, May 20 and June 17, 2004, and accepted as submitted. The applicant has been conditioned to have an archaeologist and paleontologist on -site to monitor the project during all grubbing, grading and trenching operations. PROJECT PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting approval of a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 7.41 acres into 24 single-family lots and one retention lot. The lots range between 8,010 to 12,375 square feet in size. Lot "I" would be used for storm and nuisance water retention and is 13,939 square feet in size. Based on 7.41 acres, the maximum number of lots allowed would be 29. With 24 lots proposed, the project falls within the density allowed under the Low -Density Residential Land Use designation of up to four dwelling units per acre. Access: Access would be taken from Avenue 60, approximately 508 feet west of the centerline of Madison Street via a 59-foot wide entry roadway. This roadway would have a 58-foot wide entry, curb -line to curb -line, with two 24-foot wide lanes, a ten -foot wide median and two six inch wide curbs. The interior roadway would be a private cul-de-sac street, 36-feet wide, curb -line to curb -line. PAReports - PC\6-22-2004\PC Stf Rpt TTM 32201.doc Landscaping: Madison Street is designated as a Primary Arterial in the General Plan with a 110-foot right-of-way. Avenue 60 is designated in the General Plan as a local street with a 60-foot right-of-way. Based on these roadway designations, the applicant is providing a 20-foot wide landscape buffer along Madison Street and a ten -foot wide landscape buffer along Avenue 60. No residential unit plans are proposed at this time. When, the plans for this tract are submitted they will be processed under the appropriate Zoning Code requirements. PUBLIC NOTICE This project was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on June 11, 2004, and mailed to all property owners within 500-feet of the site. To date, no letters have been received. Any written comments received will be handed out at the meeting. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS Findings to recommend certification of Environmental Assessment 2004-504 and approval of Tentative Tract Map 32201, can be made and are contained in the attached Resolutions. RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_ recommending to the City Council certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment 2004-504, subject to the Mitigation Monitoring Program; and, 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004- recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 32201, subject to findings and Conditions of Approval. Attachments: 1. Site Location Map 2. Tentative Tract Map 31348 Prepared by: �� Martin Magana s` Associate Planner PAReports - PC\6-22-2004\PC SO Rpt TTM 32201.doc �1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-_ 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 32201 CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-504 APPLICANT: CHOICE ENTERPRISE WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 22"d day of June, 2004, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by Choice Enterprises for Environmental Assessment 2004-504 for a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide ± 7.41 acres into 24 single-family lots and one retention lot, generally located at the northwest corner of Madison Street and Avenue 60, more particularly described as follows: APNs: 766-080-010 and 01 1 WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the requirements and rules to implement the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended (Resolution 83-63), in that Environmental Assessment 2004-504 was prepared and determined that although the project could have a significant adverse effect on the environment, mitigation measures will be imposed on the project that will reduce impacts to less than significant levels; and WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following findings to justify recommending to the City Council certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that mitigation measures have been imposed on the project that would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. 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 in that the project site has been conditioned to mitigate impacts to biological and cultural resources to less than significant levels. ;j� Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Environmental Assessment 2004-504 Choice Enterprise June 22, 2004 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 in that the Environmental Assessment did not identify any wildlife resources on the site. 4. The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as significant effects on environmental factors will be reduced to less than significant levels as identified in 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 in that the site will be developed consistent with the density designated under the General Plan. 6. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, in that the Environmental Assessment did not identify any significant impacts 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 in that mitigation measures will be imposed on the project that will reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 8. The Planning Commission has considered Environmental Assessment 2004- 504 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, 92253. \\CLQADMFS 1 \PLANNING\Martin\TTM's\TTM 32201 Choice Enterprise\PC Reso EA TTM 32201.doc i Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Environmental Assessment 2004-504 Choice Enterprise June 22, 2004 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 2004-504 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. 3. That Environmental Assessment 2004-504 reflects the independent judgment of the City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 22nd day of June, 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California \\CLQADMFSI\PLANNING\Martin\TTM's\TTM 32201 Choice Enterprise\PC Reso EA TTM 32201.doc b i Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project Title: Tentative Tract Map 32201 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Martin Magana 760-777-7125 4. Project Location: Northwest corner of Madison Street and Avenue 60. APNs: 766-080-010 and —011 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Choice Enterprise 74-925 Highway 111, Suite 14 Indian Wells, CA 92210 6. General Plan Designation: Low Density 7. Zoning Designation: Low Density Residential 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.) Tentative Tract Map 32201 proposes the subdivision of a ±7.41 acre parcel into 24 residential lots and one retention basin. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: North: Single-family residential and Andalusia at Coral Mountain Specific Plan South: Avenue 60, vacant lands, Bureau of Reclamation dike, Trilogy Country Club West: Vacant Lands, Single-family development and Andalusia at Coral Mountain Specific Plan East: Madison Street, and Andalusia at Coral Mountain Specific Plan 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Coachella Valley Water District 51 -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. 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, 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. 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. 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. -3- 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 ._0 -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) X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, 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) Madison Street is designated an Agrarian Image Corridor in the General Plan. The Plan requires the implementation of enhanced parkway landscaping and aesthetic improvements. These requirements will be implemented by the City as the site develops, through the site development permit process. The ultimate construction of homes on the site will result in single and/or two story residences of limited height. The City restricts building heights in residential areas. The site is not adjacent or near any significant physical features or mountain ranges. No impacts to aesthetics are expected to occur as a result of the proposed project. The ultimate construction of single family homes on the site will result in a slight 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. Impacts will not be significant. -5- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Would the ro'ect: 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) The proposed project site is currently vacant desert land, which has been significantly impacted by off -road vehicle use and dumping. The parcel is not, nor has it been, in agriculture. No Williamson Act contracts occur on the property. Agricultural lands occur to the east, further on Avenue 60, but the site's location adjacent to the Andalusia at Coral Mountain Specific Plan, the Trilogy Country Club project and the Bureau of Reclamation dike physically limit the potential for agricultural activity in the area. No impacts to agricultural resources are expected to result from implementation of the proposed project. 0 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) The Tentative Tract Map will ultimately result in the construction of 24 single family homes, which could generate up to 258 trips per day'. Based on this traffic generation, and an average trip length of 10 miles, the following emissions can be expected to be generated from the project site. "Trip Generation, 6`h Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, Single Family Detached category 210. -7- Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout (sounds per day) Ave. Trip Total Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Length (miles) miles/day 258 x 10 = 2,580 PM10 PM10 PM10 Pollutant ROC CO NOX Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wear Grams at 50 mph 232.20 6,037.20 1,238.40 - 25.80 25.80 Pounds at 50 mph 0.51 13.33 2.73 - 0.06 0.06 SCAQMD Threshold (lbs./da) 75 550 100 150 Assumes 258 ADT. Based on California Air Resources Board's EMFAC7G Emissions Model. Assumes Year 2005 summertime running conditions at 75 F, ligtLq1qX autos, catalytic. As demonstrated above, the proposed project will not exceed any of SCAQMD's recommended daily thresholds. 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 PM10 (Particulates of 10 microns or less). The Valley's 2002 PM10 Plan adopted much stricter measures for the control of dust both during the construction process and during project operations. These include the following, to be included in conditions of approval for the proposed project: CONTROL MEASURE TITLE & CONTROL METHOD BCM-1 Further Control of Emissions from Construction Activities: Watering, chemical stabilization, wind fencing, revegetation, track -out control BCM-2 Disturbed Vacant Lands: Chemical stabilization, wind fencing, access restriction, revegetation BCM-3 Unpaved Roads and Unpaved Parking Lots: Paving, chemical stabilization, access restriction, revegetation BCM-4 Paved Road Dust: Minimal track -out, stabilization of unpaved road shoulders, clean streets maintenance The proposed project will generate dust during construction. Under mass grading conditions, this could result in the generation of 662.64 pounds per day, for a limited period while grading operations are active. The contractor will be required to submit a PM10 Management Plan prior to initiation of any earth moving activity. In addition, the potential impacts associated with PM10 can be mitigated by the measures below. 1. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize exhaust emissions. 2. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary power poles to avoid on -site power generation. -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 hydro -seed on the affected portion of the site. g. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for wind erosion. Landscape parkways on Madison Street and Avenue 60 shall be installed with the first phase of development on the site, as shall 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. III. d) & e) The project will consist of single family homes and will not result in objectionable odors, nor will it expose residents to concentrations of pollutants. -9- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the ro'ect: 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? (General Plan MEA, p. 73 ff.) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on X 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? (General Plan MEA, p. 73 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. 73 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. 73 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 conservationplan? (General Plan t) -10- Exhibit 6.3) IV. a)-f) The proposed project site is not located in an area of sensitivity for any of the species mapped in the General Plan. The site has been impacted by off road vehicle use, grubbing and other activities, and contains little native habitat. The proposed project site is not located within the mitigation fee area for the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard. -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? ("Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment," Archaeological Advisory Group, April 2004) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in X the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ' 15064.5? ("Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment," Archaeological Advisory Group, April 2004) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique X paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ("Paleontological Resources Assessment," CRM Tech, June 2004) X d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ("Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment," Archaeological Advisory Group, April 2004) V. a)-b) & d) Phase I and Phase II cultural resource surveys were completed for the project site 2. The Phase I investigation recommended the completion of a Phase II study, based on the potential historic resources identified at two locations on the site. The Phase II testing program found that there were not significant resources remaining on the site, and that no further impacts associated with cultural resources are possible on the site. The Phase II study concludes that impacts to cultural resources from development on the site will be less than significant. However, in order to assure that potential impacts to archaeological resources are mitigated to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented. 1. An archaeologist shall be present on site during all grubbing, earth moving and trenching activities. The archaeologist shall stop or redirect activities to adequately investigate potential resources. The project contractor is required by state law to report a finding of human remains, should such a find be made during project grading. Law enforcement and tribunal officials are responsible for the proper investigation and disposal of remains. 2 "Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for Tentative Tract Map 32201," prepared by Archaeological Advisory Group, April 2004. Also "Phase II Archaeological Test Program for Tentative Tract Map 32201...," prepared by Archaeological Advisory Group, May 2004 -12- V. c) A paleontologic survey was prepared for the proposed project site 3. The study found that the project site is within the historic lake bed of ancient Lake Cahuilla. The study further found mollusk shells on the property, which date back to the Holocene period. Development of the site could, therefore, result in significant impacts to paleontologic resources without mitigation. In order to assure that these potential impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented. A paleontologist shall be present on site during all earth moving and trenching activities. The paleontologist shall be empowered to stop or redirect earth moving activities to adequately investigate potential resources. The paleontologist 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. "Paleontological Resources Assessment Report," prepared by CRM Tech, June 2004. i -13- 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 X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or 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) X e) Have soils incapable of 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 Exhibit 8.1) VI. a)-e) The project site lies in a Zone III groundshaking zone. 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 requirements for seismic zones. The site is located in an area having a potential for liquefaction hazards. 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 and liquefaction are reduced to a less than significant level. 0 -14- The project site is located in an area of moderate blow sand potential. The mitigation measures included above under air quality are designed to mitigate the potential impacts associated with blow sand at the project site to a less than significant level. The site is not subject to landslides, nor does it have expansive soils. -15- MATERIALS --Would the a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Application materials) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Application materials) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Application materials) d) Be located on a site which is included 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? (Riverside County Hazardous :Materials Listing) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff) h) Expose people or structures to a Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Less Than No Significant w/ Significant Impact Mitigation I Impact ►ON X X M VA ON 91 X -16- 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 construction of single family homes on the proposed project site will not result in significant impacts associated with hazardous materials. The City implements the standards of Household Hazardous Waste programs through its waste provider. These regulations and standards ensure that impacts to surrounding areas, or within the project itself, are less than significant. The site is not in an area subject to wildland fires. -17- Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant w/ Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No 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-87 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-87 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-87 ff.) f) Place housing within a 100-year flood X hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate M42 or other flood hazard -18- delineation map? (General Plan EIR p. III-87 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 eventual development of the site will result in the need for domestic water service for residential units, both for domestic water and 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 also be required to implement the City's water efficient landscaping and construction provisions, 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 a retention basin (shown as lot 13), which will be required to accommodate the 100-year storm. The City Engineer will review and approve the drainage analysis for the site, prior to the issuance of any permits. These City requirements are expected to lower potential impacts to a less than significant level. VIII. e)-g) The site is not located in a flood zone as designated by FEMA. -19- 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 is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning designations assigned to it. The project site is currently vacant, and will not divide an existing community. The project site is outside the boundary of the mitigation fee for the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan. � 0 -20- X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability 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 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.) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant w/ Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X. a) & b) The proposed project site is within the MRZ-1 Zone. The MRZ-1 Zone includes areas where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence. Therefore, the site is not considered to have potential for mineral resources. -21- XI. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (General Plan EIR p. III- 144 ff.) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (General Plan EIR p. III-144 ff.) c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan EIR p. III-144 ff.) d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan EIR p. III- 144 ff.) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project 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 private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (General Plan land use map) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant w/ Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X XI. a)-f) The project site is in an area of the City, which is currently relatively quiet. Further, buildout of this area, due to the isolated nature of the site, should not result in excessive noise levels. The project proponent proposes a perimeter wall around the property which will serve to lower potential noise impacts from passing traffic by 6 to 10 dBA CNEL. Noise levels on the project site are expected to be well within the City's exterior noise standards of 65 dBA CNEL for sensitive receptors, and impacts are expected to be less than significant. -22- The construction of homes on the site will result in temporary and periodic increases in ambient noise levels at the site. Surrounding development is isolated from the site by walls or streets, however, and is at sufficient distance to reduce impacts to less than significant levels without mitigation. Overall, impacts associated with noise at and around the site are expected to be less than significant. ,-, 9 -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 development of single family homes will be consistent with General Plan and Zoning standards and will add to the options available to those seeking housing in the community. The development of 24 homes will not induce growth in the City. The site is currently vacant, and no housing or people will be displaced. -24- 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) Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57) Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.) Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan) Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant w/ Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X 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 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 and park in lieu fees in place at the time of issuance of building permits to reduce the impacts to those services. �1. -25- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XIV. RECREATION -- X a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Application materials) 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 construction of 24 residential units within the project will be supported by the payment of the City's parkland fee, to mitigate any additional impact to City parks. 32 -26- XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (No air traffic involved in project) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Tentative Tract Map 32201) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Tentative Tract Map 32201) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Tentative Tract Map 32201) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project description) Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant I Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact M P.- VA X 94 X X XV. a)-g) The development of 24 homes has the potential to generate 258 trips per day. This trip generation is consistent with that analyzed in the General Plan EIR, since the project is consistent with the land use designation assigned in the General Plan. The General Plan EIR identified acceptable levels of service on surrounding project roadways at buildout of the General Plan. -27- The project will be required to provide on -site parking through garages as required by the Development Code. The project does not include unsafe design or inadequate emergency access, and has been reviewed by the Fire Department. The project site can be integrated into the SunLine Transit route system as development continues to occur in the area. Overall impacts to traffic are expected to be insignificant. 34 -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 projects 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.) 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 -29- J of the proposed project is expected to have less than significant impacts on utility providers. -30- Potentially Significant Less Than Significant w/ Less Than Significant No 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? X b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? X b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current 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) All impacts associated with cultural resources have been mitigated by the completion of a Phase II Testing Program. The site is isolated and highly disturbed, and does not provide significant habitat for biological resources. XVII. b) The proposed project supports the long term goals of the General Plan by providing a variety of housing opportunities for City residents. XVII. c) The construction of 24 residential units will not have considerable cumulative impacts and is consistent with the General Plan. 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 PM10, and the site will generate PM10, Section III), above, includes a number of mitigation measures to reduce the potential impacts on air quality. r,1 qJ -31- 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. a� -32- W F G7 A A U� F WA �U OU U F+ � o o 0 En ¢. rn F a, i o � .. �a � U En o�Cd o oA on bo r. d a Ey E" 00 ra O z O O x W a O ° bn on on o�n A WCd o AdLYi r� w .. 'd i—i U U m U Q PoG CC1 pq U rE-4i� 0 bA �+ � N +-+ bA cwd mon a a� tQ cd co vi 't7 Enji ce F n� PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32201 TO SUBDIVIDE ± 7.41 ACRES INTO 24 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS AND ONE RETENTION LOT CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32201 APPLICANT: CHOICE ENTERPRISE WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 22"d day of June, 2004, hold duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by Choice Enterprises to subdivide ± 7.41 acres into 24 single family lots and one retention lot, generally located at the northwest corner of Madison Street and Avenue 60, more particularly described as follows: APNs: 766-080-010 and 011 WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map 32201 has complied with the requirements and rules to implement the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended (Resolution 83-63), in that Environmental Assessment 2004-504 was prepared and determined that although the project could have a significant adverse effect on the environment, mitigation measures will be imposed on the project that will reduce impacts to less than significant levels; 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 make the following mandatory findings to recommend to the City Council approval of said Tentative Tract Map 32201: 1. The proposed tract map will be consistent with the City of La Quinta General Plan in that the property is designated Low Density Residential (LDR) which allows single-family residential uses. 2. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision will be consistent with the City of La Quinta General Plan in that all streets and improvements in the proposed project will conform to City standards contained in the General Plan and Subdivision Ordinance. Access for the land uses on the site will be provided from an existing street in the immediate area. The density and design for the tract will comply with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. PAReports - PC\6-22-2004\PC Reso TTM 32201.doc `.1< Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Tentative Tract Map 32201 Choice Enterprise June 22, 2004 3. The design of the proposed subdivision and improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage, or substantially injure fish or wildlife, or their habitat in that, the City of La Quinta Community Development Department has completed Environmental Assessment 2004-504, and based upon this Assessment, the project may have a significant adverse effect on the environment; however, mitigation measures will be imposed on the project to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed land division and currently, development exists to the east and southeast of the site which has reduced the amount of habitat suitable for any fish or wildlife. 4. The design of the subdivision and type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems in that the applicant will be conditioned to meet all applicable requirements of the City of La Quinta to provide a safe environment for the public. 5. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision in that there is an existing street that will provide direct access to the site. All required public easements will provide access to the site or support necessary infrastructure improvements for the proposed project. 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 Tentative Tract Map; 2. That it does hereby recommend approval of Tentative Tract Map 32201 to the City Council, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. P:\Reports - PC\6-22-2004\PC Reso TTM 32201.doc 2 Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Tentative Tract Map 32201 Choice Enterprise June 22, 2004 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City of La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 22"d day of June, 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California PAReports - PC\6-22-2004\PC Reso TTM 32201.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32201 — CHOICE ENTERPRISE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED JUNE 22, 2004 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 applicable 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 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. 14 PAReports - PC\6-22-2004\PC COA TTM 32201.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32201 - CHOICE ENTERPRISE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED JUNE 22, 2004 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 his/her designer 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. 10 PAReports - PC\6-22-2004\PC COA TTM 32201.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32201 - CHOICE ENTERPRISE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED JUNE 22, 2004 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 (Primary Arterial, Option A 1 10' ROW) — The standard 55 feet from the centerline of Madison Street for a total 1 10-foot ultimate developed right of way. 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. PAReports - PC\6-22-2004\PC COA TTM 32201.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32201 - CHOICE ENTERPRISE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED JUNE 22, 2004 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: A. PRIVATE STREETS Private Residential Streets measured at gutter flow line shall have a 36-foot travel width. The travel width may be reduced to 32 feet with parking restricted to one side, and 28 feet if on -street parking is prohibited, 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 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. C. 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. 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 PAReports - PC\6-22-2004\PC COA TTM 32201.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32201 - CHOICE ENTERPRISE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED JUNE 22, 2004 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. Madison Street (Primary Arterial) - 20-foot from the R/W-P/L. The listed setback depth shall be the average depth where a meandering wall design is approved. The setback requirements shall apply to all frontages including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the applicant shall offer for dedication blanket easements for those purposes on the Final Map. 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 Madison Street from lots with frontage along Madison Street is restricted, except for those access points identified on the tentative tract map, or as otherwise conditioned in these conditions of approval. The vehicular access restriction shall be shown on the recorded final tract map. eSx P:\Reports - PC\6-22-2004\PC COA TTM 32201.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32201 - CHOICE ENTERPRISE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED JUNE 22, 2004 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. 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. 21. 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. R PAReports - PC\6-22-2004\PC COA TTM 32201.doc i ` PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32201 — CHOICE ENTERPRISE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED JUNE 22, 2004 A. Off -Site Street Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical The street improvement plans shall include permanent traffic control and 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. B. On -Site Street Plan: C. On -Site Rough Grading Plan: D. On -Site Precise Grading Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical 1 " = 40' Horizontal 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. "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. In addition to the normal set of improvement plans, a "Precise Grading" plan is required to be submitted for approval by the Building Official and the City Engineer. "Site Development" 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. 22. The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes for elements of construction on the Public Works Online Engineering Library at http://www.la-guinta.org/publicworks/tractl/z onlinelibrary/0 intropage.htm. PAReports - PC\6-22-2004\PC COA TTM 32201.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32201 - CHOICE ENTERPRISE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED JUNE 22, 2004 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. 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. 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. s� PAReports - PC\6-22-2004\PC COA TTM 32201.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32201 - CHOICE ENTERPRISE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED JUNE 22, 2004 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. 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. PAReports - PC\6-22-2004\PC COA TTM 32201.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32201 - CHOICE ENTERPRISE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED JUNE 22, 2004 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 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. r3 PAReports - PC\6-22-2004\PC COA TTM 32201.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32201 - CHOICE ENTERPRISE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED JUNE 22, 2004 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 (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. 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 Approval. 36. Building pad elevations of perimeter lots shall not differ by more that one foot from the building pads in adjacent developments. 37. 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. 714 A� PAReports - PC\6-22-2004\PC COA TTM 32201.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32201 - CHOICE ENTERPRISE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED JUNE 22, 2004 38. 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. 39. 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. 40. This development shall comply with Chapter 8.11 (Flood Hazard Regulations), LQMC. If any portion of any proposed building lot in the development is or may be located within a flood hazard area as identified on the City's Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the development shall be graded to ensure that all floors and exterior fill (at the foundation) are above the level of the project (100-year) flood and building pads are compacted to 95% Proctor Density as required in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 65.5(a) (6). Prior to issuance of building permits for lots which are so located, the applicant shall furnish elevation certifications, as required by FEMA, that the above conditions have been met. nRAINAGF 41. The applicant shall revise proposed 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. 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. 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. P:\Reports - PC\6-22-2004\PC COA TTM 32201.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32201 - CHOICE ENTERPRISE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED JUNE 22, 2004 43. 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. 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. 49. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. UTILITIES 50. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.110 (Utilities), LQMC. 51. 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, PAReports - PC\6-22-2004\PC COA TTM 32201.doc 1 {� PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32201 - CHOICE ENTERPRISE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED JUNE 22, 2004 water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 52. 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. 53. 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 54. 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. 55. Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations that will convey water without ponding, and provide lateral containment of dust and residue during street sweeping operations. If a wedge or rolled curb design is approved, the lip at the flowline shall be near vertical with a 1 /8" batter and a minimum height of 0.1'. Unused curb cuts on any lot shall be restored to standard curb height prior to final inspection of permanent building(s) on the lot. 56. 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 (Primary Arterial; 1 10' R/W option A): r� PAReports - PC\6-22-2004\PC COA TTM 32201.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32201 - CHOICE ENTERPRISE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED JUNE 22, 2004 a) Widen the west side of the street along all frontage adjacent to the Tentative Map boundary to its ultimate width on the west side as specified in the General Plan and the requirements of these conditions. Rehabilitate and/or reconstruct existing roadway pavement as necessary to augment and convert it from a rural county -road design standard to La Quinta's urban arterial design standard. The west curb face shall be located forty three feet (43') west of the centerline. 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 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) Avenue 60 (Local Road, 60' R/W): a) Widen the north side of the street along all frontage adjacent to the Tentative Map boundary to its ultimate width on the north side as 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 north curb face shall be located twenty (20') north of the centerline. Other required improvements in the Avenue 60 right or way and/or adjacent landscape setback area include: IJ PAReports - PC\6-22-2004\PC COA TTM 32201.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32201 - CHOICE ENTERPRISE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED JUNE 22, 2004 b) All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to: curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs. c► 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') south of the centerline to accommodate east bound traffic. 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) Private Residential Street - Construct full 36-foot wide travel width improvements measured gutter flow line to gutter flow line where the residential streets are double loaded as shown on the approved tentative tract map. 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. 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. 57. 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. P:\Reports - PC\6-22-2004\PC COA TTM 32201.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32201 - CHOICE ENTERPRISE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED JUNE 22, 2004 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. 58. 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. Primary Arterial 4.5" a.c./6.0" c.a.b. or the approved equivalents of alternate materials. 59. 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. 60. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: Primary Entry (Avenue 60): All turn movements are permitted. 61. 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\6-22-2004\PC COA TTM 32201.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32201 - CHOICE ENTERPRISE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED JUNE 22, 2004 62. 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. 63. Standard knuckles and corner cut -backs shall conform to Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805, respectively, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. CONSTRUCTION 64. 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 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 the required setbacks, retention basins, common lots and park areas. 67. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. 68. 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. PAReports - PC\6-22-2004\PC COA TTM 32201.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32201 - CHOICE ENTERPRISE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED JUNE 22, 2004 NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. 69. 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 70. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by SunLine Transit Agency and approved by the City Engineer. QUALITY ASSURANCE 71. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 72. 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. 73. 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. 74. 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 PAReports - PC\6-22-2004\PC COA TTM 32201.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32201 - CHOICE ENTERPRISE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED JUNE 22, 2004 75. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance), LQMC. 76. 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 77. 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. 78. 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 DEPARTMENT 79. The applicant shall comply with all the mitigation measures in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan attached to the Environmental Assessment for this project. ra .i PAReports - PC\6-22-2004\PC COA TTM 32201.doc ATTACHMENT SITE LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE r, 0 PH #C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: JUNE 22, 2004 CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT 32453 APPLICANT: ND LA QUINTA PARTNERS, INC., LLC ENGINEER: TETRA TECH, INC. LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF JEFFERSON STREET, NORTH OF AVENUE 54 WITHIN THE HIDEAWAY REQUEST: APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION OF 27 f ACRES INTO 29 RESIDENTIAL LOTS, ONE CLUBHOUSE LOT AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS LOTS ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-380 (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE #1999061 109) WAS CERTIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON NOVEMBER 24, 2000, FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29894, SPECIFIC PLAN 99-035 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2000-053 IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED. THIS REQUEST IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THAT APPROVAL AND NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS EXIST WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. ZONING: RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: LDR (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL UP TO 4 D.U./AC) SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USES: NORTH: FP (FLOOD PLAIN) / COACHELLA CANAL; RVL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH A RURAL RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY / RESIDENTIAL AND WHOLESALE PLANT NURSERY; p:\stan\the hideaway\tt 32453 pc rpt.doc SOUTH: RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) / PGA WEST EAST: FUTURE PHASE OF THIS PROJECT WEST: RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) / VACANT LAND (SILVERROCK RESORT - OWNED BY THE CITY OF LA QUINTA) BACKGROUND The property in question is within The Hideaway residential development on the east side of Jefferson, and bounded by Avenue 54 on the south, the extension of Madison Street on the east, and Avenue 52 on the north. To date, an 18-hole golf course has been installed and several common use buildings and a number of residences have been built. The area in question is in the northwest portion of the project adjacent to the east side of Hideaway Club Drive (previously Village Club Drive), south of Via Savona (Attachment 1). Project Request The proposed project consists of creating 28 residential lots for the 23 "Bungalow" units that were approved by the Planning Commission on April 27, 2004. Additional lots will be created for the permanent clubhouse, its parking lot, driving range, range house, tennis courts, and several common areas. The detached one or two story Bungalow units are clustered, primarily in groups of three around a courtyard with detached garages. Where possible, the unit and garage are on the same lot. However, because of their detached configuration, five garages will on their own lot and separated from the residential lot. The lots are irregular in shape due to the random layout of the residential units and garages. Residential lot sizes vary from approximately 9,400 to 14,900 square feet, with the five garage lots approximately 3,300 square feet in size. The lots are adjacent to each other and include some common -use areas. Easements will be recorded to ensure that all residents have access to and use of common areas. The Tentative Tract map includes two new streets to provide access to the clubhouse, its parking lot, and some of the Bungalow units north of the clubhouse. Public Notice This request was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on June 12, 2004, and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the project boundaries. To date, no responses have been received. pAstan\the hideaway\tt 32453 pc rpt.doc Public Agency Review The request was sent out for comment, with any pertinent comments received incorporated into the Conditions of Approval. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS Findings necessary to recommend approval of this Tentative Tract map to the City Council can be made as noted in the attached Resolution. RECOMMENDATION Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004- , recommending approval of Tentative Tract 32453 to the City Council, subject to the attached conditions. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Tentative Tract 32453 exhibit Prepared by: Stan Sawa, Principal Planner pAstan\the hideaway\tt 32453 pc rpt.doc 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION OF 27 + ACRES INTO 28 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND GOLF COURSE FACILITY RELATED AND MISCELLANEOUS LOTS CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT 32453 ND LA QUINTA PARTNERS LLC WHEREAS, The Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 22N' day of June, 2004, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of ND LA QUINTA PARTNERS, LLC for the subdivision of 27 + acres into 28 residential lots and other miscellaneous lots, located at on the east side of Hideaway Club Drive (with The Hideaway) described as: Lots 141, and W, Tract 29894-2 and Portion of Tract 29894-3 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 an Environmental Impact Report for Environmental Assessment 99-380 (State Clearinghouse #1999061109) was certified by the City Council on November 24, 2000, for Tentative Tract Map 29894, Specific Plan 99-035 and Conditional Use Permit 2000-053 in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended. This request is in conformance with that approval and no changed circumstances or conditions exist which would trigger the preparation of subsequent environmental review; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings of Approval to justify a recommendation for approval of said Tentative Tract 32453: 1. The Tentative Tract Map's design is consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan 99-035 in that its street design and lots are in conformance with applicable goals, policies, and development standards, in terms of providing an appropriate density, lot size and configuration as well as infrastructure and public utilities. P:\the hideaway\tt 32453 pc res.doc J Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Tentative Tract 32453 — ND La Quinta Partners LLC Adopted: 2. The design of the subdivision, or its proposed improvements, is not likely to create environmental damage, or substantially and avoidably injure wildlife, or their habitat, because mitigation measures and conditions have been implemented as required. 3. The design of the subdivision and the proposed types of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems because urban improvements are existing or will be installed based on applicable local, State, and federal requirements. 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 because it is private and the development is only open to residents and invited guests. 5. 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). 6. 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, 92253. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does recommend approval of Tentative Tract Map 32453 to the City Council for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PAReports - PC\6-22-2004\tt 32453 pc res.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Tentative Tract 32453 — ND La Quinta Partners LLC Adopted: PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Panning Commission, held on this 22ND day of June, 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California P:\Reports - PC\6-22-2004\tt 32453 pc res.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Tentative Tract Map 32453 — ND La Quinta Partners Conditions of Approval - Recommended Adopted: 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 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. 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),,,.i LQMC; Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Resources- P:\stan\the hideaway\tt 32453 pc coa.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Tentative Tract 32453 — ND La Quinta Partners, LLC Conditions of Approval — Recommended Adopted: 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 his/her designer 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:\stan\the hideaway\tt 32453 pc coa.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Tentative -ract 32453 — ND La Quinta Partners, LLC Conditions of Approval — Recommended Adopted: 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 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. 8. The private street right-of-ways to be retained for private use required for this development include: A. PRIVATE STREETS Private Residential Streets measured at the gutter flow line to gutter flow line shall be 28 feet with on -street parking prohibited, 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, and common areas on the Final Map. 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. ON P:\stan\the hideaway\tt 32453 pc coa.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Tentative Tract 32453 - ND La Quinta Partners, LLC Conditions of Approval - Recommended Adopted: 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 Tentative Tract Map and the date of recording of any Final Map, unless such easement is approved by the City Engineer. FINAL MAPS 14. 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. 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. 15. 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. 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 Street Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical B. On -Site Rough Grading Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal C. On -Site Precise Grading Plan: 1 " = 30' Horizontal D. Site Development Plan 1 " = 30' Horizontal P:\stan\the hideaway\tt 32453 pc coa.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Tentative Tract 32453 — ND La Quinta Partners, LLC Conditions of Approval — Recommended Adopted: 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. "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 "Site Development" plan and a "Site Utility" plan are 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 & 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 on the Public Works Online Engineering Library at http://www.la-guinta.org/publicworks/tractl/z onlinelibrary/0 intropage.htm. 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. P:\stan\the hideaway\tt 32453 pc coa.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Tentative Tract 32453 — ND La Quinta Partners, LLC Conditions of Approval — Recommended Adopted: IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS 19. 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. 20. 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. 21. 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," or an administrative approval (e.g., Site Development Permits), all 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. 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. .3 A_ P:\stan\the hideaway\tt 32453 pc coa.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Tentative Tract 32453 — ND La Quinta Partners, LLC Conditions of Approval — Recommended Adopted: 22. 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. 23. 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 24. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements), LQMC. 25. 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. 26. 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 i. P:\stan\the hideaway\tt 32453 pc coa.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Tentative Tract 32453 — ND La Quinta Partners, LLC Conditions of Approval — Recommended Adopted: 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. 27. 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. 28. 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. 29. Building pad elevations of perimeter lots shall not differ by more that one foot from the building pads in adjacent developments. 30. 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. 31. 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. 32. 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:\stan\the hideaway\tt 32453 pc coa.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Tentative Tract 32453 — ND La Quinta Partners, LLC Conditions of Approval — Recommended Adopted: 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 "Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage report for Tract No. 29894-2 for the Hideaway Resort. Nuisance water shall be disposed of in an approved manner." UTILITIES 33. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.110 (Utilities), LQMC. 34. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within any right-of-way, and all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electric vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 35. 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 36. 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. A. PRIVATE STREETS 1) Lot A, B and D - Construct full improvements full 28-foot wide travel width improvements measured gutter flow line to gutter flow line. On -street parking shall be prohibited and the applicant shall make { P:\stan\the hideaway\tt 32453 pc coa.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Tentative Tract 32453 — ND La Quinta Partners, LLC Conditions of Approval — Recommended Adopted: provisions for perpetual enforcement of the No Parking restrictions. B. 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 or hammer head design similar to the layout shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map as approved by the Fire Marshal. C. COURTYARD DRIVEWAYS 1) The courtyard driveway area throat widths and layouts shall conform to the shape shown on the approved tentative map and be a minimum 20-foot accessway. 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. D. PARKING LOTS AND ACCESS DRIVEWAYS 1) Parking facilities shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150 (Parking) and the latest ADA standards and policies. 37. 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/Parking Lot Area 3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b. or the approved equivalents of alternate materials. 38. 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. 39. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: , B_ P:\stan\the hideaway\tt 32453 pc coa.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Tentative Tract 32453 — ND La Quinta Partners, LLC Conditions of Approval — Recommended Adopted: Direct access from lots abutting Village Club Drive is prohibited except at the Private Street Lots A and B as shown on the approved tentative tract map. 40. 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. 41. 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 42. 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 43. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC. 44. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, common lots and park areas. 45. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. 46. 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 approval and 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. i P:\stan\the hideaway\tt 32453 pc coa.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Tentative Tract 32453 — ND La Quinta Partners, LLC Conditions of Approval — Recommended Adopted: 47. 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 48. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 49. 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. 50. 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. 51. 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 52. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance), LQMC. 53. 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 54. 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 A_ for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall be P:\stan\the hideaway\tt 32453 pc coa.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Tentative Tract 32453 — ND La Quinta Partners, LLC Conditions of Approval — Recommended Adopted: those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan check and permits. 55. 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 56. The applicant shall show that all required building setbacks are provided prior to the final map being approved. Minor changes to the map shall be allowed to ensure that the setbacks are provided. 57. Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC and R's) shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to recordation of the Final Map. Provisions shall include all necessary easements to ensure use of all common areas by all residents and guests. P:\stan\the hideaway\tt 32453 pc coa.doc [as] F PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: JUNE 22, 2004 CASE NO.: STREET NAME CHANGE 2004-018 APPLICANT: ND LA QUINTA PARTNERS, LLC REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF INTENT SETTING JULY 27, 2004, AS A PUBLIC HEARING DATE TO CONSIDER STREET NAME CHANGES FROM VIA CC TO VIA MONTECITO AND VIA DD TO VIA MALLORCA LOCATION: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: BACKGROUND: ON THE EAST SIDE OF JEFFERSON STREET NORTH OF AVENUE 54 (WITHIN THE HIDEAWAY) THIS STREET NAME CHANGE REQUEST HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE EXEMPT FROM CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15301, CLASS 1. THEREFORE, NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS DEEMED NECESSARY. Site Background and Request The applicant requests (Attachment 1) street name changes within the Hideaway project that is located on the east side of Jefferson Street, north of Avenue 54. Via CC is in Tract 29894-4 with Via DD in Tract 29894-3. These tract phases were recorded without approval of street names. Requested is a change from Via CC to Via Mallorca with Via Talavera as an alternative and Via DD to Via Montecito with Via Marbella as an alternative. Applicable Code Provisions The Municipal Code Chapter 14.08 permits an individual to request a street name change. The Planning Commission must adopt a Resolution of Intent setting a meeting p:\stan\the hideaway\snc 2004-018 pc rpt 1.doc date to review the request, no less than 30 days from the date of the adoption of the Resolution of Intent for a public hearing. The Planning Commission recommendation is then forwarded to the City Council for final action. The Resolution of Intent will be published in the newspaper and posted along the street. Findings The proposed street name change is a reasonable and acceptable name change and over 60% of the affected property owners have agreed with the change as required by Section 14.08.020 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. The applicant owns all property fronting the affected streets. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004- , setting July 27, 2004, as the public hearing date to consider Street Name Change 2004-018. Attachment: Letter with map dated May 18, 2004 Prepared by: Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner pAstan\the hideaway\snc 2004-018 pc rpt 1.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENT TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON JULY 27, 2004, TO CONSIDER A STREET NAME CHANGE FOR VIA CC AND VIA DD IN THE HIDEAWAY CASE NO.: STREET NAME CHANGE 2004-018 ND LA QUINTA PARTNERS, LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 22"d day of June, 2004, consider the request of ND La Quinta, Partners, LLC, to set a date for a public hearing to review a street name from Via CC and Via DD to Via Montecito and Via Mallorca, respectively, located east of Jefferson Street, north of Avenue 54 within "The Hideaway" residential development, more particularly described as: Portion of Tentative Tract 29894-3 and 29894-4 WHEREAS, at the Planning Commission meeting, upon hearing and considering all available information, said Planning Commission did make the following finding to justify their intent to hold a public hearing regarding said street name change per Section 14.08.050 of the La Quinta Municipal Code: 1. Determination of Sufficiency: The proposed street name change is a reasonable and acceptable name change and over 60% of the affected property owners have agreed with the change, as required by Section 14.08.020 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. 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 the above described Resolution of Intent to hold a public hearing on the proposed street name changes on JULY 27, 2004, AT 7 P.M. IN THE LA QUINTA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, LOCATED AT 78- 495 CALLE TAMPICO, LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission, held on the 22"d day of June, 2004, by the following vote, to wit: pAstan\the hideaway\snc 2004-018 pc res 1.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Street Name Change 2004-018 — ND La Quinta Partners LLC Adopted: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California p:\stan\the hideaway\snc 2004-018 pc res 1.doc ATTACHMENT 1 TETRA TECH, INC. Infrastructure Services Group May 18, 2004 Mr. Stan Sawa Community Development Department City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Reference: The Hideaway — Tract 29894-3 & Tract 29894-4 Street Name Change Dear Mr. Sawa: Since the above referenced tract maps have been recorded with lettered street names, the owners of the project are hereby requesting approval for use of the following street names: TRACT 29894-3 Via DD The preferred street name for this street is Via Mallorca and an alternate name is Via Talavera. TRACT 29894-4 Via CC The preferred street name for this street is Via Montecito and an alternate name is Via Marbella. Please review the requested street names for approval. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully su itted, Robert G. Eisenbeisz, P.E. Project Manager RGE:rlg I:UOBFILE3\2913\Street Natnes05 18 04.doc c John Gamlin 42-580 Caroline Court, Suite B, Palm Desert, CA 9221 I Tel 760.674.0629 Fax 760.674.0639 www.tecratech.com AV 2 N u N GA ........... 1 7 1-1, Fln, 47 7,1 j_i i�ll,__JCIDIA -'A # CURRENT NAME PROPOSED NAME ALTERNATE NAME 1 VIA "CC" VIA MONTECITO VIA MAR13ELLA 2 1 VIA "DD" I VIA MALLORCA I VIA TALAVERA THE HIDEAWAY "TREET NAME CHANGE EXHIBIT DETAILED PLAN SCALE: 1 "= 1000' TETRA TECH, INC. 03/24/04 111 50th AVE z w o � _N z -� 52nd AVE LA QLWA Q PROJECT ' AREA 2 AIRPORT AVE THE HIDEAWAY STREET NAME CHANGE EXHIBIT LOCALITY PLAN N.T.S. TETRA TECH, INC. 03/24/04