2004 09 14 PCTjht 4 4
ission Agendas are now
a*a &aieon 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
SEPTEMBER 14, 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 2004-061
Beginning Minute Motion 2004-014
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call
II. PUBLIC COMMENT
This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled
for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your
comments to three minutes.
III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of the Minutes for the Regular Meeting of August 10, 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 auinta Planning Commission
before a public hearing, may appear and be heard in support of, or in opposition to,
the approval of the project(s) at the time of the hearing. If you challenge any
project(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone
else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City
at, or prior to the public hearing.
A. Item ................
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-511,
SPECIFIC PLAN 2004-073, AND TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP 31874
Applicant..........
Stonefield Development, Inc.
Location...........
Northwest corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 53
Request............
Consideration of establishing development
principles, guidelines and programs to allow the
subdivision of 40 acres into 102 residential lots.
Action ..............
Continue to September 28, 2004
B. Item ................
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32371
Applicant..........
Ehline Company
Location...........
South of Miles Avenue, on the east side of Seeley
Drive (proposed extension of Seeley Drive from the
north).
Request............
Consideration of the subdivision of 8.99 acres into
54 single-family lots.
Action ..............
Application withdraw - no action necessary
C. Item ................ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-502 AND
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32225
Applicant.......... Vince D'Ambra
Location........... Northwest corner of Madison Street and Avenue
58
Request............ Consideration of adopting a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of environmental impact and the
subdivision of 8.08 acres into 33 residential lots
and other common lots.
Action .............. Resolution 2004- and Resolution 2004-
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PCAgendaW.doc
D. Item ................ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2004-085
Applicant.......... Nextel Communication
Location........... Southwest corner of Avenue 54 and Madison
Street - Riverside County Fire Department Station
#70
Request............ Consideration of an approval to construct a 60 foot
high telecommunications monopole and 230 square
foot equipment shelter
Action .............. Resolution 2004-
E. Item ................ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-513,
SPECIFIC PLAN 2004-072 AND TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP 32398
Applicant.......... Rob Schumacher
Location........... Northeast corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 60
Request............ Consideration of adopting a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of environmental impact and the
subdivision of 1 10.9 ± acres into 392 single-family
lots, a ten acre commercial lot, and other
miscellaneous lots.
Action .............. Resolution 2004- Resolution 2004- and
Resolution 2004-
F. Item ................ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-516 AND
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-811
Applicant.......... Rich Boureston
Location........... Southeast corner of Washington Street and Lake La
Quinta Drive
Request............ Consideration of adopting a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of environmental impact and
development plans to construct a 42,000 square
foot medical office building on 3.44 acres.
Action .............. Resolution 2004- and Resolution 2004-
G. Item ................ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-515, ZONE
CHANGE 2004-121, AND TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP 32742
Applicant.......... Village Builders 98, LP
Location........... 55-101 Monroe Street
Request............ Consideration of adopting a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of environmental impact and the
subdivision of 15.54 ± acres into 40 single-family
lots and miscellaneous lots.
Action .............. Resolution 2004- Resolution 2004- and
Resolution 2004-
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PCAgendaW.doc
VI. BUSINESS ITEM: None
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None
VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Discussion regarding the Joint Meeting with the City Council - topics
for discussion.
B. Review of City Council meeting
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular
Meeting to be held on September 28, 2004, at 7:00 p.m.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PCAgendaW.doc
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, August 10, 2004, was posted on the outside entry to the Council
Chamber, 78-495 Calle Tampico, the bulletin board at the La Quinta Post Office,
Chamber of Commerce, and Stater Bros. 78-630 Highway 1 1 1, on Friday,
September 10, 2004.
DATED: September 10, 2004
BETTY J. SAWYER, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
Public Notices
The La Quinta City Council Chamber is handicapped accessible. If special
equipment is needed for the hearing impaired, please call the City Clerk's office at
777-7025, twenty-four (24) hours in advance of the meeting and accommodations
will be made.
If special electronic equipment is needed to make presentations to the Planning
Commission, arrangements should be made in advance by contacting the City
Clerk's office at 777-7025. A one (1) week notice is required.
If background material is to be presented to the Planning Commission during a
Planning Commission meeting, please be advised that eight (8) copies of all
documents, exhibits, etc., must be supplied to the Executive Secretary for
distribution. It is requested that this take place prior to the beginning of the 7:00
p.m. meeting.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PCAgendaMdoc
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
August 10, 2004
I. CALL TO ORDER
7:00 P.M.
A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00
p.m. by Chairman Kirk who asked Community Development Director
Jerry Herman to lead the flag salute.
B. Present: Commissioners Rick Daniels, Ken Krieger, Kay Ladner, and
Chairman Tom Kirk. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Daniels/Ladner to excuse Commissioner Quill.
C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, Planning
Manager Oscar Orci, Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston, Assistant
City Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planners Stan Sawa and Fred Baker,
Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT:
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 July 27. 2004. There being no corrections, it was
moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Ladner to approve the
minutes as submitted.
B. Department Report. Community Development Director Jerry Herman
informed the Commission this was his last meeting as he would be
retiring. He thanked the Commission for their help and expressed his
enjoyment serving with them.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Environmental Assessment 2004-51 1, Specific Plan 2004-073, and
Tentative Tract Map 31874; a request of Stonefield Development, Inc.
for consideration of establishing development principles, guidelines and
programs to allow the subdivision of 40 acres into 102 residential lots for
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\8-10-04.doc
Planning Commission Minutes
August 10, 2004
the property located at the northwest corner of Monroe Street and
Avenue 53.
1. Planning Manager Oscar Orci informed the Commission that this
case needed to complete its environmental review and staff was
therefore requesting a continuance.
2. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Ladner to
continue the project to September 14, 2004. Unanimously
approved.
B. Tentative Tract Map 32371; a request of Ehline Company for
consideration of the subdivision of 8.99 acres into 54 single-family lots
and other miscellaneous lots for the property located south of Miles
Avenue, on the east side of Seeley Drive.
1. Chairman Kirk excused himself due to a potential conflict of
interest and left the dais.
2. Commissioner Daniels opened the public hearing and asked for the
staff report. Planning Manager Oscar Orci informed the
Commission that the applicant was requesting a continuance.
2. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Krieger/Ladner to
continue the project to September 14, 2004. Unanimously
approved.
Chairman Kirk rejoined the Commission.
C. Conditional Use Permit 2004-084; a request Verizon Wireless for
approval to construct a 184 square foot one story unmanned
telecommunication building and 60-foot high monopalm antenna located
on the south side of Avenue 48, approximately 190 feet west of
Jefferson Street.
1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and 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 Daniels asked staff to clarify whether the setback
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\8-10-04.doc 2
Planning Commission Minutes
August 10, 2004
was short. Staff explained the applicant did not meet the setback
requirement and that an easement would requires there will be no
structure in this area in -lieu of the setback.
3. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Kirk asked if
the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Pete
Shubin, representing Verizon Wireless, stated he was available to
answer any questions.
4. Commissioner Daniels asked what Verizon's policy was regarding
joint use, do they have joint use at other locations, is there a
sharing of cost, and how is that implemented. Mr. Shubin stated
they contractual arrangements with all other carriers who operate
networks in this region to co -locate on towers and share lease
space as allowed by zoning codes and the underlying lease
agreements on the property; it is commonly done.
5. Chairman Kirk asked about the functional operating of other
networks; how much co -locating can you do on a monopalm. Mr.
Shubin explained how the structures are constructed to allow
other carriers. They would suggest that whenever another carrier
proposes to co -locate, their plans be reviewed by the Commission
for modifications and aesthetics. This proposed structure will hold
one additional carrier.
6. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant had any concerns with the
conditions. Mr. Shubin asked that Conditions #8, #9, #20 be
combined. Collectively that relate to paving of the driveway and
the parking stalls. The parking area is part of a larger decomposed
granite area and paving two parking stalls in the middle of this for
one maintenance visit would be a hardship. They would request
they only be required to post a parking sign. Condition #19 they
would like to add a sentence at the end of the condition which
states, "If an easement cannot be obtained, the site can be
relocated as long as it is within the substation and meets the
requirements." Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated that in
regard to Condition #8 they would require the access to paved
from the street up to the access gate. Planning Manager Oscar
Orci stated staff does not object to the change to Condition #19,
but the condition should also include that the Community
Development Director shall be allowed to review and approve the
location. In regard to Condition #20, the Code does require two
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\8-10-04.doc 3
Planning Commission Minutes
August 10, 2004
parking spaces be provided. Staff would like for the applicant to
identfy the location of the vehicles. As long as they are
designated, staff would agree to removing the paving requirement
from the condition.
7. Chairman Kirk asked if there was any other public comment. Mr.
Kent Coronel, 80-821 Vista Lazo, asked why the tower equipment
could not be put on an esixting tower instead of constructing a
new tower. Mr. Shubin stated they are aware of the other towers
but they were unable to secure a lease on any other tower.
8. Commissioner Daniels asked the applicant to explain the
distribution of towers that is generally required in terms of
distance. Mr. Shubin explained how this it done.
9. Commissioner Krieger asked if the Rancho La Quinta Homeowners'
Association was given an opportunity to review the site plan.
Staff indicated they had not.
10. There being no other public comment, Chairman Kirk closed the
public participation portion of the hearing.
11. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Ladner to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-061, approving
Conditional Use Permit 2004-084, as recommended:
a. Condition #19: add: If an easement cannot be obtained,
the site can be relocated as long as it is within the
substation and meets City requirements and is approved by
the Community Development Director and/or Public Works
Director.
b. Condition #20. A minimum of two parking spaces shall be
provided in close proximity to the equipment building.
Appropriate signage shall be approved by the Community
Development Department and installed to indicate the
parking spaces.
C. Condition added: The applicant shall allow other service
providers the opportunity to locate on the monopalm. Any
additional providers are required to apply for a conditional
use permit to be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Commission.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\8-10-04.doc 4
Planning Commission Minutes
August 10, 2004
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Krieger Ladner, and
Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner
Quill. ABSTAIN: None.
Commissioners Daniels and Krieger rejoined the Commission.
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS:
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None.
Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston stated legal counsel will prepare
a memo to clarify when a Commissioner should excuse himself for a
potential conflict of interest regarding homeowner association issues.
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Daniels/Ladner to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on September 14, 2004, at 7:00 p.m.
This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned 8:08 p.m., on August 10,
2004.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\8-10-04.doc 5
PH #A
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 2004
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-51 1, SPECIFIC PLAN
2004-073 AND TENTATIVE TRACT 31874
APPLICANT: STONEFIELD DEVELOPMENT, INC.
ENGINEER: THE KEITH COMPANIES
LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF MONROE STREET AND AVENUE 53
REQUEST: SPECIFIC PLAN TO ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS,
PRINCIPLES, GUIDELINES AND PROGRAMS TO ALLOW THE
SUBDIVISION OF 40 ACRES INTO 102 RESIDENTIAL LOTS FOR
PROPERTY TO BE ANNEXED INTO THE CITY OF LA QUINTA
CONTINUATION OF HEARING
This item was continued from the August 10, 2004 meeting to allow completion of
the environmental review and submission of a revised specific plan document. As of
this writing, the environmental review has not been completed. Therefore, it is
necessary to continue this item to the meeting of September 28, 2004
RECOMMENDATION
By Minute Motion continue this item to the meeting of September 28, 2004.
Attachment:
1 . Location Map
Prepared by:
Stan Sawa, Principal Planner
P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Stonefie1d\tt 31874 pc rpt2.doc
PH #B
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 2004
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT 32371
APPLICANT: EHLINE COMPANY
ENGINEER: MAINIERO, SMITH AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
LOCATION: SOUTH OF MILES AVENUE, ON THE EAST SIDE OF SEELEY
DRIVE (FUTURE EXTENSION OF SEELEY DRIVE FROM THE
NORTH)
REQUEST: SUBDIVISION OF 8.99 ACRES INTO 54 SINGLE-FAMILY AND
OTHER MISCELLANEOUS LOTS IN THE RM (MEDIUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT
BACKGROUND
This request was originally scheduled for review on August 10, 2004. Prior to the
meeting the applicant requested that this request be continued to this meeting. Now,
we have received a request from the applicant's engineer withdrawing the application.
RECOMMENDATION
No action is necessary since the request has been withdrawn.
Attachment:
1. Letter dated August 30, 2004
Prepared by:
Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner
P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Ehline 32371\tt 32371 pc rpt2.doc
Aug-30-2004 04:20pm From-MSA Consulting Inc
760 8237893 T-047 P.002/002 F-073
ATTACHMENT 1
IDMSA CONSULTING, INC.
PLANNING ■ CIVIL ENGINEERING ■ LAND SURVCYING
August 30, 2004
Mr. Stan Sawa, Principal Planner
CITY OF LA QUINTA
78-495 Calle Tampico
P.O. Box 1504
La Quinta, California 92247
Via Facsimile and Regular Mail
RE: Tentative Tract No. 32371 located within the Centre Pointe project, southeast
corner of Miles and Washington Streets
Dear Stan:
I am sending this letter regarding the above referenced application on behalf of the
Ehline Co, applicant, and the Master Developer, California Intelligent Communities CIC,
of the Centre Pointe Site project. The Ehline Company and the Master Developer have
requested that the application be withdrawn from consideration. A new application will
be filed at a future date.
Thank you for your assistance with this request.
Very truly yours,
o 1�31
Margo Micotto T ibeault, AICP�
Director of Planning Services
MMT:eI
cc: Francis Wong, CIC
Dick Oliphant, CIC
Paul Ehline, Ehline Co.
34200 BOB HOPE DRIvr, ■ RANCHO MIRAGE A CALIFORNIA ■ 92270
760,320-9811 ■ 760.323-7893 fax 0 www.MSACoN.sULTINGINC.COM
PH #C
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 2004
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-502
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32225
REQUEST: 1) CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT;AND
2) SUBDIVISION OF 8.08 ACRES INTO 33
RESIDENTIAL LOTS
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY OWNER: VINCE D' AMBRA
LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF MADISON STREET AND
AVENUE 58
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-502 WAS
PREPARED FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 32225 IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970,
AS AMENDED. BASED UPON THIS ASSESSMENT, WITH
MITIGATION MEASURES THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A
SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT;
THEREFORE, THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
HAS RECOMMENDED THAT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BE
CERTIFIED IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONSIDERATION
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR)
ZONING: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL)
SURROUNDING
LAND USES: NORTH:
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RM)
SOUTH:
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (CN)
EAST:
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL)
WEST:
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL)
BACKGROUND:
This case was continued at the August 101h Planning Commission public hearing to this
September 14th public hearing. The site is located at the northwest corner of Madison
Street and Avenue 58 (Attachment 1). Madison Street is the east boundary and
Avenue 58 the southern boundary. The site is a 1,324 foot deep lot from Avenue 58
and 590 feet deep from Madison Street; immediately south of Puerta Azul which is
under construction, and east of Lion's Gate. The site is covered with desert shrubs.
Applicant Request
Tentative Tract 32225
The applicant is proposing to subdivide the 8.08 acre site into 33 single-family
residential lots (Attachment 2). Several miscellaneous lots would be created, including
storm water retention, landscaping and the private street lots. The existing RL zoning
on the property requires a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet. All lots are
consistent with this requirement. Access into the property is proposed at the mid-
point of the property on Madison Street with right -in and right -out turning movements.
The project will have a single 36-foot wide curvilinear street with a card security gate
near Madison Street. The street "bows" out at approximately the entry/mid point to
provide a turnaround and traffic calming device. Cul-de-sac turnarounds are provided
at the north and south ends of the street.
Madison Street is designated an Agrarian Image Corridor in the General Plan. The
Zoning Code restricts the maximum structure height to 22 feet for all buildings within
150 feet of any General Plan designated Image Corridor.
A homeowners' association will be formed to maintain retention basins, common
landscape areas, private roads, and perimeter landscaping.
Public Notice
The case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on July 30, 2004. All property
owners within 500 feet of the entire development were mailed a copy of the public
notice. Lion's Gate Homeowner's Association letter is attached. (Attachment 3).
Public Agency Review
The project was sent out for comment to City Departments and affected public
agencies on May 26, 2004. Agency comments received have been made a part of the
Conditions of Approval.
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
The applicant's request to subdivide 8.08 acres of land into 33 residential lots is
consistent with the General Plan and the Subdivision Ordinance provided the
recommended Conditions of Approval are met. Findings necessary to approve this
request 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 of environmental impact
for Environmental Assessment 2004-502; and,
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004- , recommending to the City
Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 32225, subject to attached Findings
and Conditions of Approval.
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Tentative Tract 32225
3. Lion's Gate Homeowners Association Letter
Prepared by:
red Baker, CP
Principal Planner
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 32225
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-502
APPLICANT: VINCE D'AMBRA
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did
on the 10' day of August, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing and
continued said Public Hearing to the 14' day of September, 2004 to consider
the request of Vince D'Ambra for approval of Tentative Tract Map (TTM)
32225, referred to as the "Project" for the subdivision of 8.08 acres into 33
residential lots, generally, located at the northeast corner of Avenue 58 and
Madison Street and more particularly described as:
A.P.N: 62-240-015 and,
WHEREAS, the City has prepared the Initial Study and Mitigated
Negative Declaration in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title
14, Section 15000 et. seq., (CEQA Guidelines); and
WHEREAS, the City mailed a Notice of Intent to adopt the
Mitigated Negative Declaration in compliance with Pubic Resources Code
Section 21092 on the 27th day of July, 2004 to the Riverside County Clerk; and
WHEREAS, the City published a Public Hearing Notice to adopt the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Initial Study in the Desert Sun
newspaper on July 30, 2004, such notice was also mailed to all landowners
within 500 feet of the Project Site, and all public entities entitled to such notice;
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 recommending to the City Council
certification of said Environmental Assessment:
1. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and processed
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\D'Ambra\PC RESO EA 2004-502 Reso.doc
el
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Environmental Assessment 2004-502 - Vince D'Ambra
Adopted: September 14, 2004
Page 2
in compliance with the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's
implementation procedures. The Planning Commission has independently
reviewed and considered the information contained in the Mitigated
Negative Declaration, and finds that it adequately describes and
addresses the environmental effects of the Project, and based upon the
Initial Study, the comments received thereon, and the entire record of
proceeding for this Project, that there could be a significant
environmental effect resulting from this project; however, the mitigation
measures will reduce the impacts to less than significant. The mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration have been
incorporated into the Project and or made part of the approval of the
project and these measures will mitigate any potential significant effect.
2. The Project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general
welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no
significant unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental
Assessment 2004-502.
3. The Project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number, or restrict the range of,
rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history, or prehistory.
4. There is no evidence before the City that the Project will have the
potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on
which the wildlife depends.
5. The Project does not have the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental
goals, as no significant effects on environmental factors have been
identified by the Environmental Assessment.
6. The Project will not result in impacts which are individually limited or
cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed
development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the
area will not be significantly affected by the Project.
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\UAmbra\PC RESO EA 2004-502 Reso.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Environmental Assessment 2004-502 - Vince D'Ambra
Adopted: September 14, 2004
Page 3
7. The Project will not have the environmental effects that will adversely
affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant
impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk
potential or public services.
8. The Planning Commission has fully considered the proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration and the comments, if any, received thereon.
9. The Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment
and analysis of the Planning Commission.
10. The location of the documents which constitute the record of
proceedings upon which the Planning Commission decision is based upon
is in the La Quinta City Hall, Community Development Department, 78-
495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California 92253.
11. A Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP), a copy of which is attached
hereto as Exhibit A, is hereby adopted pursuant to Public Resources Code
§ 21081.6 in order to assure compliance with the mitigation measures
during Project implementation.
12. Based upon the Initial Study and the entire record of proceedings, the
Project has no potential for adverse effects on wildlife as that term is
defined in Fish and Game Code § 711.2.
13. The Planning Commission has on the basis of substantial evidence,
rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 California Code
of Regulations 753.5(d).
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct, and constitute the
findings of the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment.
2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental
Assessment 2004-502 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as
stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendum, on file
P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\D'Ambra\PC RESO EA 2004-502 Reso.doc
i�
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Environmental Assessment 2004-502 - Vince D'Ambra
Adopted: September 14, 2004
Page 4
in the Community Development Department and attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 14th day of September, 2004, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
OSCAR ORCI, Interim
Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\D'Ambra\PC RESO EA 2004-502 Reso.doc is
N
3
4
5
G'l
Environmental Checklist Form
Project title: Tentative Tract Map 32225
Lead agency name and address:
Contact person and phone number:
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Fred Baker
760-777-7125
Project location: Northwest corner of Avenue 58 and Madison Street. APN: 762-240-015
Project sponsor's name and address: Santa Rosa Development LLC
P.O. Box 11335
Palm Desert, CA 92255
General plan designation: Low Density 7. Zoning: 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.)
Subdivision of 8.08 acres into 33 single family lots around a central spine road, with access
on Madison Street. Also included is a retention basin along the southern property line. Lots
are proposed to be a minimum of 7,200 square feet. Overall parcel dimensions are 330 feet by
1,325 feet.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
North: Attached single family residential (Medium Density Residential)
South: Avenue 58, single family residential and golf course (Low Density Residential and
Golf Course Open Space)
West: Single family residential (Low Density Residential)
East: Madison Street, Single family residential and golf course (Low Density Residential
and Golf Course Open Space)
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District
-1-
101
1.
2.
3.
4.
Environmental Checklist Form
Project title: Tentative Tract Map 32225
Lead agency name and address:
Contact person and phone number:
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Fred Baker
760-777-7125
Project location: Northwest corner of Avenue 58 and Madison Street. APN: 762-240-015
5. Project sponsor's name and address: Santa Rosa Development LLC
P.O. Box 11335
Palm Desert, CA 92255
6. General plan designation: Low Density 7. Zoning: 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.)
Subdivision of 8.08 acres into 33 single family lots around a central spine road, with access
on Madison Street. Also included is a retention basin along the southern property line. Lots
are proposed to be a minimum of 7,200 square feet. Overall parcel dimensions are 330 feet by
1,325 feet.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
North: Attached single family residential (Medium Density Residential)
South: Avenue 58, single family residential and golf course (Low Density Residential and
Golf Course Open Space)
West: Single family residential (Low Density Residential)
East: Madison Street, Single family residential and golf course (Low Density Residential
and Golf Course Open Space)
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District
-1-
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Biological Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Mineral Resources
Public Services
Utilities / Service
Systems
Agriculture Resources
Cultural Resources
Hydrology / Water
Quality
Noise
Recreation
Air Quality
Geology /Soils
Land Use / Planning
Population / Housing
Transportation/Traffic
Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
X environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
August 4, 2004
Date
-2- 'J
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 XVH, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures
based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from
the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the
proj ect.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources
for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared
or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where
the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
-3-
B
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead
agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's
environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
X
scenic vista? (General Plan Exhibit 3.6)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
X
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway? (Aerial
photograph)
c) Substantially degrade the existing
X
visual character or quality of the site and
its surroundings? (Application materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial
X
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
(Application materials)
I. a)-d) Madison Street is designated an Agrarian Image Corridor in the General Plan. This
corridor is required to include landscaped parkways which reflect the agriculture which
historically occurred in this area. The project will be required to comply with these
requirements The site does not include, nor is it near, a scenic resource. The site is
surrounded on two sides by existing residential development, and on the other two sides
by roadways. The proposed single family homes will be regulated in terms of height by
the City's Zoning Ordinance. No significant impacts to scenic resources are expected to
result from the proposed development.
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.
-4-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
11. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:
Would theproject:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
X
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. 1I1-21
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)
H. a)-c) The site has, at some time in the past, been in agriculture, but is not currently farmed, and
has not been for some time. There are no Williamson Act contracts on the property. The
site is a long narrow parcel which is surrounded by development. The site does not
represent a valuable or significant agricultural parcel, given its isolation in a suburban
setting. Impacts to agricultural resources are expected to be insignificant.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
X
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
b) Violate any air quality standard or
X
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD
CEQA Handbook)
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable
X
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non -
attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook,
2002 PM 10 Plan for the Coachella Valley)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
X
substantial pollutant concentrations?
(Project Description, Aerial Photo, site
inspection)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
X
substantial number of people? (Project
Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection)
III. a), b) & c) The Tentative Tract Map proposes 33 single family lots, which could generate up to 316
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'b Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, Single Family Detached category 210.
-6-
Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout
(hounds Der dav)
Ave. Trip Total
Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Length (miles) miles/day
316 x 10 = 3,160
PMI0 PMio PMIo
Pollutant ROC CO NOX Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wear
Grams at 50 mph 284.40 7,394.40 1,516.80 - 31.60 31.60
Pounds at 50 mph 0.63 16.32 3.35 - 0.07 0.07
SCAQMD Threshold
(lbs./day) 75 550 100 150
Assumes 316 ADT. Based on California Air Resources Board's EMFAC7G Emissions Model. Assumes Year 2005
summertime running conditions at 75°F, light duty autos, catalytic.
As demonstrated above, the proposed project will not exceed any of SCAQMD's
recommended daily thresholds. The project's potential impacts to air quality from moving
emissions are therefore expected to be less than significant.
The City and Coachella Valley are a severe non -attainment area for PM 10 (Particulates of
10 microns or less). The Valley's 2002 PM 10 Plan adopted much stricter measures for the
control of dust both during the construction process and during project operations. These
include the following, to be included in conditions of approval for the proposed project:
CONTROL
MEASURE
TITLE & CONTROL METHOD
BCM-1
Further Control of Emissions from Construction Activities: Watering,
chemical stabilization, wind fencing, revegetation, track -out control
BCM-2
Disturbed Vacant Lands: Chemical stabilization, wind fencing, access
restriction, revegetation
BCM-3
Unpaved Roads and Unpaved Parking Lots: Paving, chemical
stabilization, access restriction, revegetation
BCM-4
Paved Road Dust: Minimal track -out, stabilization of unpaved road
shoulders, clean streets maintenance
The proposed project will generate dust during construction. Under mass grading
conditions, this could result in the generation of 213.32 pounds per day, for a limited
period while grading operations are active. The contractor will be required to submit a
PM 10 Management Plan prior to initiation of any earth moving activity. In addition, the
potential impacts associated with PM 10 can be mitigated by the measures below.
1. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize
exhaust emissions.
-7-
2. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary power
poles to avoid on -site power generation.
3. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit opportunities.
4. Imported fall shall be adequately watered prior to transport, covered during
transport, and watered prior to unloading on the project site.
5. Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of three feet
prior to the onset of grading activities.
6. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed on an on-
going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the site. Portions of the
site that are actively being graded shall be watered regularly to ensure that a crust
is formed on the ground surface, and shall be watered at the end of each work day.
7. Any area which remains undeveloped for a period of more than 30 days shall be
stabilized using either chemical stabilizers or a desert wildflower mix hydroseed
on the affected portion of the site.
8. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for
wind erosion. Landscape parkways on Madison Street, the project's perimeter
wall, and the retention basin on Avenue 58 shall be installed immediately
following precise grading.
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.
-8-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --
Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse affect,
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?
('Biological Assessment...," James Cornett, May
2004)
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?
('Biological Assessment...," James Cornett, May
2004)
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? ('Biological
Assessment...," James Cornett, May 2004)
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? ('Biological
Assessment...," James Cornett, May 2004)
e) Conflict with any local policies or
X
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance? ('Biological
Assessment...," James Cornett, May 2004)
-9-
0 Conflict with the provisions of an
X
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan? (General Plan
Exhibit 6.3)
IV. a)-f) A biological impact analysis was completed for the project site The survey found that
the site is disturbed saltbush habitat, impacted by agricultural activity and recent adjacent
roadwork. The animal species found during the survey did not identify any species of
concern. The site is disturbed and surrounded by developed areas, and its loss as
biological habitat will not be significant.
The proposed project site is located outside the mitigation fee area for the Coachella
Valley Fringe -toed Lizard.
2 "Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis of the proposed La Quinta 9-Acre Site," prepared by James Cornett,
May 2004.
-10-
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 15 ("Historical/
Archaeological Resources Survey..." CRM Tech,
May 2004)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to '15 064.5 ("Historical/
Archaeological Resources Survey..." CRM Tech,
May 2004)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
X
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? ("Paleontological
Resources Assessment," CRM Tech, May 2004)
d) Disturb any human remains, including
X
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? ("Historical/ Archaeological
Resources Survey..." CRM Tech, May 2004)
V. a)-c), e) A Phase I archaeological survey was conducted on the subject property3. The survey
included both records searches and on site investigation. The records searches identified a
number of studies and associated records of both cultural and historic resources in the
area of the project site. The remains of a house, date grove and standpipe were identified
on the project site. Extensive research into the property did not yield any historical
significance for the property or the structures on the property. The structures were
determined to have no significant historical context. The report concludes that no further
analysis or investigation of the subject property is required, but that should resources be
uncovered during earth moving activities, work should be diverted or stopped until a
qualified archaeologist can properly analyze the find.
1. The site shall be monitored during on and off -site trenching and rough grading by
qualified archaeological monitors. Proof of retention of monitors shall be given to the
Community Development Department prior to issuance of first earth -moving or clearing
permit.
3 "Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report Assessor's Parcel No. 762-240-015," prepared by CRM Tech,
May 2004.
-11-
;J
2. The final report on the monitoring shall be submitted to the Community
Development Department prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for
the project.
3. Collected archaeological resources shall be properly packaged for long term
curation, in polyethylene self -seal bags, vials, or film cans as appropriate, all within acid -
free, standard size, comprehensively labeled archive boxes and delivered to the City prior
to issuance of first Certificate of Occupancy for the property. Materials shall be
accompanied by descriptive catalogue, field notes and records, primary research data, and
the original graphics.
V. d) A paleontologic assessment was conducted for the project site4. The study found that the
project site is within the historic lakebed of ancient Lake Cahuilla. The study further
found that disturbance of the site could result in a significant impact to paleontological
resources. In order to assure that these impacts are mitigated to a less than significant
level, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented.
1. A paleontologist shall be present on site during all grubbing and earth moving
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.
Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts to a less than
significant level.
4 "Paleontological Resources Survey Report Assessor's Parcel No. 762-240-015," prepared by CRM Tech, May 2004.
-12-
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?
X
("Geotechnical Engineering Report...," Earth
Systems Southwest, February 2004)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure,
X
including liquefaction? ("Geotechnical
Engineering Report...," Earth Systems
Southwest, February 2004)
iv) Landslides? ("Geotechnical Engineering
X
Report...," Earth Systems Southwest, February
2004)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
X
the loss of topsoil? ("Geotechnical
Engineering Report...," Earth Systems
Southwest, February 2004)
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
("Geotechnical Engineering Report...," Earth
Systems Southwest, February 2004
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
X
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water? (MEA Exhibit 8.1)
-13-
VI. a)-e) A geotechnical investigation was conducted for the proposed projects Although the site is
not located in an Alquist-Priolo Study Zone, it will be subject to groundshaking during an
earthquake. The City implements the latest versions of the Uniform Building Code, which
include provisions and requirements for the construction of housing in seismically active
areas. The proposed project will be subject to these requirements. The proposed project
occurs in an area subject to liquefaction. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of
about 50 feet during the site investigation. The study finds, however, that although the
site has historically experienced higher water levels in the past, it is unlikely that this
condition will again occur during the life of the project. The study found that the site is
not susceptible to ground subsidence or slope instability. The site is susceptible to wind
and water erosion. The project proponent will, however, be required to conform to both
PMIO Management and water erosion requirements of the City, which have been
implemented to reduce these impacts. Impacts associated with geological conditions at
the site are expected to be less than significant.
The project site will be connected to sanitary sewer service, and soils will not be
impacted by septic tanks. Impacts associated with soils and geology are expected to be
less than significant.
"Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Residential Development NWC Avenue 58 and Madison Street," Earth
Systems Southwest, February 2004
-14-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS --Would theproject:
a) Create a significant hazard to the
X
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials? (Application materials)
b) Create a significant hazard to the
X
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the
environment? (Application materials)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
X
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (Application materials)
d) Be located on a site which is included
X
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment? (Riverside County
Hazardous Materials Listing)
e) For a project located within an airport
X
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in
the project area? (General Plan land use map)
0 For a project within the vicinity of a
X
private airstrip, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area? (General Plan
land use map)
g) Impair implementation of or
X
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
-15-
evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff)
h) Expose people or structures to a
X
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas
or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands? (General Plan land use map)
VH. a)-h) A Phase I environmental site assessment report was prepared for the subject property.
The study found no evidence of surficial contamination on the site. The survey did find,
however, that because of the site's historic use in farming, it is possible that underground
storage tank(s) occur on the site. An underground tank could result in contamination of
the soils and groundwater in the area. This would represent a potential significant impact
without mitigation. In order to assure that this impact is adequately mitigated, the
following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
Prior to the issuance of any earth moving permit on the project site, a geophysical
survey shall be conducted in areas nears buildings or other suspect features occur
on the site, to evaluate whether a UST is still present at the site. Should a UST be
identified, it shall be removed and disposed of in a manner consistent with local
and state standards prior to the issuance of grading permits.
The development of single family homes will not result in a risk associated with
hazardous materials. The City implements, through its solid waste provider, a household
hazardous waste program, which will allow residents to dispose of materials safely.
The site is not in an area subject to wildland fires.
"Report of Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 8.89 Acre Parcel NWC Avenue 58 and Madison Street,"
prepared by Earth Systems Southwest, January 2004.
-16-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
UALITY -- Would theproject:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
X
waste discharge requirements? (General
Plan EIR p. II1-187 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? ("Retention
Basin Design Calculations, Tract No. 32279,"
P&D Consultants, Inc., April 2004)
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?
("Retention Basin Design Calculations, Tract No.
32225," P&D Consultants, Inc., March 2004)
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? ("Retention
Basin Design Calculations, Tract No. 32225,"
-17-
P&D Consultants, Inc., March 2004)
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood
X
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance
Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation 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 single family homes. 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. A preliminary analysis
of the retention requirements for the site was prepared to address this requirement. The
analysis found that a 0.25 acre retention basin, as planned for the frontage of the site
along Avenue 58, will adequately retain storm flows from the siite. The City Engineer
will review and approve the final 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.
7 "Retention Basin Design Calculations, Tract No. 32225," prepared by P&D Consultants, Inc., March 2004..
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 land use category in which it is
located. Development to the west and north are similar in style and scope to the proposed
project. Residences on the site will be subject to the standards of the Zoning Ordinance.
The site is not within the boundaries of the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat
Conservation Plan fee area.
-19- '"
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would
the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
X
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
the state? (Master Environmental Assessment
p. 71 ff.)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
X
locally -important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment
p. 71 ff.)
X. a) & b) The proposed project site is within the MRZ-1 Zone, and is therefore not considered to
have potential for mineral resources.
-20-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XI. NOISE Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation
X
of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies? ("Noise Impact Analysis
Report...," P.A. Penardi & Associates, May
2004)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
X
of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? ("Noise Impact
Analysis Report...," P.A. Penardi & Associates,
May 2004)
c) A substantial permanent increase in
X
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the
project? ("Noise Impact Analysis Report...,"
P.A. Penardi & Associates, May 2004)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
X
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? ("Noise Impact Analysis
Report...," P.A. Penardi & Associates, May
2004)
e) For a project located within an airport
X
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? (General Plan land
use map)
0 For a project within the vicinity of a
X
private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels? (General
Plan land use map)
-21-
XI. a)-O A noise impact study was conducted for the proposed project$. The study found that with
the inclusion of the proposed 6 foot wall surrounding the property, the noise impacts for
exterior yards and interior ground floor spaces would meet the City's standards of 65 dBA
and 45 dBA, respectively. Second story spaces, should two story houses be proposed on
lots 18 through 33, would experience interior noise levels of 45.7 to 47.7 dBA, without
mitigation. Since this standard exceeds the City's standard, mitigation is proposed to
reduce the potential impacts associated with interior noise levels for lots 18 through 33,
as follows:
1. Should two story homes be proposed on lots 18 through 33, any window facing or
at an angle to Madison Street shall have a minimum STC rating of 27, as
determined by laboratory tests.
The construction of homes on the site will also generate noise. The site is located adjacent
to residential land uses, which may experience temporary and short term increases in
noise levels during site construction. However, since the proposed project has been
conditioned to construct its perimeter wall prior to the initiation of construction, and the
adjacent projects also have existing perimeter walls, it is expected that these impacts will
be less than significant.
The site is not located in the vicinity of an air strip or airport.
8 "Noise Impact Analysis Report for Single Family Residential Development, Tract No. 32225 in La Quinta,"
prepared by P. A. Penardi & Associates, May 2004.
-22-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING —
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth
X
in an area, either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses)
or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? (General Plan, p. 9 ff.,
application materials)
b) Displace substantial numbers of
X
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application
materials)
c) Displace substantial numbers of
X
people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? (General
Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials)
XII. a)-c) The proposed project is currently vacant land, and construction of the project will not
displace an existing community. The development of 33 single family homes is consistent
with the General Plan and Zoning designations on the project site, and will not generate a
substantial population growth in the area. Impacts are expected to be negligible.
-23-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:
Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
X
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
X
Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.)
X
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks
X
Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA,
X
p. 46 ff.)
XIII. a) Buildout of the site will have a less than significant impact on public services. The
proposed project will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, under City
contract. Buildout of the proposed project will generate 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.
-24-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XIV. RECREATION --
a) Would the project increase the use of
X
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
(Application materials)
b) Does the project include recreational
X
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment? (Application materials)
XIV. a) & b) The construction of 33 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.
-25-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC --
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
X
substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street
system (i.e., result in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicle
trips, the volume to capacity ratio on
roads, or congestion at intersections)?
(General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.)
b) Exceed, either individually or
X
cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads
or highways? General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.)
c) Result in a change in air traffic
X
patterns, including either an increase in
traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks? (No air
traffic involved in project)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
X
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Tentative
Tract Map 32225)
e) Result in inadequate emergency
X
access? (Tentative Tract Map 32225)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
X
(Tentative Tract Map 32225)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,
X
or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? (Project description)
XV. a)-g) The construction of 33 homes will not have a significant impact on the City's circulation
system. The density proposed for the site is consistent with the General Plan designation
for the property, and was therefore analysed in the General Plan EIR. Avenue 58 and
M41
Madison Street are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service at buildout of the
General Plan. The 316 trips expected to be generated by this site daily will not
significantly impact the circulation system.
The project proponent will be required to provide on -site parking for the homes in the
form of garages. The design of the tract does not include any roadway hazards. The site is
within the service area of SunLine, and may eventually be provided bus service as
development occurs.
-27-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
X
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board? (General
Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
b) Require or result in the construction of
X
new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
c) Require or result in the construction of
X
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
d) Have sufficient water supplies
X
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements
needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
e) Result in a determination by the
X
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project=s
projected demand in addition to the
provider=s existing commitments?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
X
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project=s solid waste disposal needs?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
X
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
-28-
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 CVVWD has
indicated its ability to serve the project's water and sewer needs. The construction of the
proposed project is expected to have less than significant impacts on utility providers.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE --
a) Does the project have the potential to
X
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to
X
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage
of long-term environmental goals?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
X
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental
X
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
XVII. a) The site has been identified as having the potential for paleontological resources.
However, mitigation measures proposed above will reduce these potential impacts to a
less than significant level.
-29-
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 33 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
and noise 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. Noise impacts can be mitigated
through the implementation of mitigation measures as well.
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.
-30-
w
d
A
C
U
a
a
E'■
0zzz
zap
U W
i
F
Q
A
d�W
WA
ax
av
v�
Q
un
a
o
d
W
Ud
Q"
P+
u
o v,
g
.,,
o
�
�
•..
...
4CA
�za
y
U
U
Ur4'A
d
Q
a
a�aac��n
A
Q
A
®�
a
zto
to
to
bo
is
U
J
9Q
U Q
GoG
a�
®
r
co
U0.0
Nam"
V�
FG+
o
U
N
�'' o
�' y
U
coo
a
tom,
�;
Fr
Y
i1' •�
N
i-''
,�
R
Mw
0
F
d
A
�A
A
a�x
av
UU
W
c
0
o
F�
o
•�
U
CL
y
C
z
�
to
=a
Cad
f0
�
Q)
0
bA
0
A
a
c
m
z z
a
a
a
o
to
W
rn
�
cm
pq
to
to
Ccd
o
d
V
o
CA
U
Cr-d
Q
0
to r..
;G
a�
F
A
dA
A
a�
UWWT
UV
o
F
O
bA
F
U
O �
O �
a �b
a
0
�o
Q
Cd
UQ
o
E+
�
F
cd
rA
O
o"o
U �
F
d
A
dAW
WA
�X
wv
U�
o
cd
W
o o
U �
U
� �
'C
MZ�1
U
CO U
o y
O`n
o
�
a
Cd
0o
Q
w
�
oa
o
0
3
�
3
0
�
Vi
WD
N Cd N
a
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
APPROXIMATELY 8.08 ACRES INTO A 33 LOT
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT 32225
APPLICANT: VINCE D'AMBRA
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 10th day of August, 2004, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing and continued
said Public Hearing to the 141h day of September, 2004 to consider the request of
Vince D'Ambra for the subdivision of 8.08 acres site into 33 single-family lots plus
amenity and street lots, generally located at the northeast corner of Avenue 58 and
Madison Street and more particularly described as:
A.P.N.:762-240-015
WHEREAS, The La Quinta Community Development Department has
completed Environmental Assessment 2004- 502 in accordance with the requirements
of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as
amended (Resolution 83-63). Based upon this Assessment, there may be a significant
adverse effect on the environment; however, mitigation measures have been imposed
on the project that will reduce the impacts to less than a significant level; therefore, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended for approval; and
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
Commission did - make the following Mandatory Findings of approval to justify
recommending approval of said Tentative Tract Map 32225:
A. The proposed map is consistent with the City of La Quinta General Plan.
The project is within a Low Density Residential (LDR) District per the provisions of the
amended 2002 General Plan Update. Tentative Tract Map 32225 is consistent with
the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan provided conditions
contained herein are met to ensure consistency with the General Plan, and mitigation
measures are also met pursuant to Environmental Assessment 2004-502.
B. The design, or improvement, of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the
La Quinta General Plan and the Subdivision Ordinance.
P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\D'Ambra\PC RESO RESO TT32225.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Tentative Tract Map 32225 - Vince D 'Ambra
Adopted September 14, 2004
All streets, lot density and designs and other related improvements in the project
conform to City standards. All on -site streets will be private. Access for the single-
family lots will be provided from internal streets planned under the Tentative Tract
Map.
C. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is not likely to
cause substantial environmental damage, or substantially injure fish or wildlife,
or their habitat.
An environmental analysis concluded that this project will not cause substantial
environmental damage or injury to fish or wildlife, or their habitat because the site is
disturbed saltbush habitat, impacted by agricultural activity and recent adjacent
roadwork. The animal species found during the survey did not identify any species of
concern. The site is disturbed and surrounded by developed areas, and its loss as
biological habitat will not be significant.
D. The design of the subdivision, or type of improvements, is not likely to cause
serious public health problems.
The design of the subdivision, as conditionally approved, will not cause serious public
health problems because they will install urban improvements based on City, State,
and Federal requirements.
E. The design of the lot, 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 the proposed internal streets will be privately
owned and maintained, and that there will be no publicly -owned improvements
within the Tentative Tract Map.
The proposed streets are planned to provide direct access to each single-family lot. All
required public easements will provide access to the site or support necessary
infrastructure improvements.
F. The design of the lot, or type of improvements are not likely to cause serious
public health problems in that the Fire Marshal, Sheriff's Department, and the
City's Building and Safety Department have reviewed the proposal for public
health conditions and the project is appropriately conditioned.
G. The design of the lots and grading improvements, including the pad elevation
differentials within the tract bare an acceptable minimum in that the tract design
preserves community acceptance and buyer satisfaction.
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\D'Ambra\PC RESO RESO TT32225.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Tentative Tract Map 32225 - Vince D 'Ambra
Adopted September 14, 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 constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case.
2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract
Map 32225 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the
attached conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta City Planning Commission, held on this the 14th day of September, 2004 by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
OSCAR ORCI, Interim
Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\D'Ambra\PC RESO RESO TT32225.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 32117 - VINCE D'AMBRA
SEPTEMBER 14, 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 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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 32117 - VINCE D'AMBRA
SEPTEMBER 14, 2004
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.
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.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 32117 - VINCE D'AMBRA
SEPTEMBER 14, 2004
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
Madison Street — The right of way dedication shall be to the ultimate
developed right of way per the General Plan roadway classification of
Madison Street in effect at the time of Final Map as specified by the
City Engineer.
Provide a 48 foot right-of-way from the centerline of Avenue 58 along
the Tentative Tract Map boundaries.
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
1) Private Residential Streets measured at gutter flow line shall have a 36-
foot travel width as shown on the Tentative Tract Map.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 32117 - VINCE D'AMBRA
SEPTEMBER 14, 2004
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
1) The cul de sac shall conform to the shape shown on the tentative map
with a 38-foot curb radius at the bulb or larger as shown on the
tentative map.
11. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left
turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction
plans.
Pursuant to this requirement, the applicant shall include in the submittal packet
containing the draft final map submitted for map checking, an offsite street geometric
layout, drawn at 1 " equals 40 feet, detailing the following design aspects: median
curb line, outside curb line, lane line alignment including lane widths, left turn lanes,
deceleration lane(s) and bus stop turnout(s). The geometric layout shall be
accompanied with sufficient professional engineering studies to confirm the
appropriate length of all proposed turn pockets and auxiliary lanes that may impact
the right of way dedication required of the project and the associated landscape
setback requirement.
12. When the City Engineer determines that access rights to the proposed street right-of-
ways shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map are necessary prior to approval of
the Final Map dedicating such right-of-ways, the applicant shall grant the necessary
right-of-ways within 60 days of a written request by the City.
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 (Major Arterial) - 20-foot from the R/W-P/L.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 32117 - VINCE D'AMBRA
SEPTEMBER 14, 2004
B. Avenue 58 (Secondary Arterial) - 10-foot from the R/W-P/L.
The setback requirements shall apply to all frontages including, but not limited to,
remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes.
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. Direct vehicular
access to Avenue 58 is restricted. The vehicular access restriction shall be shown on
the recorded final tract map.
17. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as appropriate,
from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall
construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments will occur.
18. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any portion of
the subject property between the date of approval of the Tentative Tract Map and the
date of recording of any Final Map, unless such easement is approved by the City
Engineer.
FINAL MAPS
19. Prior to the City's approval of a Final Map, the applicant shall furnish accurate
AutoCAD files of the Final Map that was approved by the City's map checker on a
storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. Such files shall be in a standard
AutoCAD format so as to be fully retrievable into a basic AutoCAD program.
Where a Final Map was not produced in an AutoCAD format, or produced in a file
that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will accept a raster -
image file of such Final Map.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 32117 - VINCE D'AMBRA
SEPTEMBER 14, 2004
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.
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:
1 "
= 40'
Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical
C.
On -Site Rough Grading Plan
1 "
= 40'
Horizontal
D. On -Site Precise Grading Plan: 1 " = 30' Horizontal
Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed
above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to
commencing plan preparation.
All Off -Site Plan & Profile Street Plans and Signing & Striping Plans shall show all
existing improvements for a distance of at least 200-feet beyond the project limits, or
a distance sufficient to show any required design transitions.
"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 are
required to be submitted for approval by the Building Official and the City Engineer.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 32117 - VINCE D'AMBRA
SEPTEMBER 14, 2004
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.
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.
27. Should the applicant fail to construct the improvements for the development, or fail
to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, the City shall have
the right to halt issuance of building permits, and/or final building inspections,
withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon the
surety to complete the improvements.
GRADING
IJ
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 32117 - VINCE D'AMBRA
SEPTEMBER 14, 2004
28. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading
Improvements), LQMC.
29. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes, the
applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer.
30. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval
of all of the following:
A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer,
B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified engineer,
C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16,
(Fugitive Dust Control), LQMC, and
D. A Best Management Practices report prepared in accordance with Sections
8.70.010 and 13.24.170 (NPDES stormwater discharge permit and Storm
Management and Discharge Controls), LQMC.
All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Soils
Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by an
engineering geologist.
A statement shall appear on the Final Map that a soils report has been prepared in
accordance with the California Health & Safety Code § 17953.
The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an
amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control
Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit.
31. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land in order to prevent
wind and/or water erosion of such land. All open graded, undeveloped land shall
either be planted with interim landscaping, or stabilized with such other erosion
control measures, as were approved in the Fugitive Dust Control Plan.
32. Grading within the perimeter setback and parkway areas shall have undulating terrain
and shall conform with the requirements of LQMC Section 9.60.240(F) except as
otherwise modified by this condition requirement. The maximum slope shall not
exceed 3:1 anywhere in the landscape setback area, except for the backslope (i.e.
the slope at the back of the landscape lot) which shall not exceed 2:1 if fully planted
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 32117 - VINCE D'AMBRA
SEPTEMBER 14, 2004
with ground cover. The maximum slope in the first six (6) feet adjacent to the curb
shall not exceed 4:1 when the nearest edge of sidewalk is within six (6) of the curb,
otherwise the maximum slope within the right of way shall not exceed 3:1. All
unpaved parkway areas adjacent to the curb shall be depressed one and one-half
inches (1.5") in the first eighteen inches (18") behind the curb.
33. Building pad elevations on the rough grading plan submitted for City Engineer's
approval shall conform with pad elevations shown on the tentative map, unless the
pad elevations have other requirements imposed elsewhere in these Conditions of
Approval.
34. Building pad elevations of perimeter lots shall not differ by more that one foot from
the building pads in adjacent developments.
Where compliance within the above stated limits is impractical, the City may consider
alternatives that are shown to minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties and
neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential.
35. Prior to any proposed site grading or regrading that will raise or lower any portion of
the site by more than plus or minus three tenths of a foot from the elevations shown
on the approved Tentative Tract Map, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading
changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance finding review.
36. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building lot, the applicant shall
provide a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or surveyor.
Each pad certification shall list the pad elevation as shown on the approved grading
plan, the actual pad elevation and the difference between the two, if any. Such pad
certification shall also list the relative compaction of the pad soil. The data shall be
organized by lot number, and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times.
DRAINAGF
37. 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.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 32117 - VINCE D'AMBRA
SEPTEMBER 14, 2004
38. In design of retention facilities, the maximum percolation rate shall be two inches per
hour. The percolation rate will be considered to be zero unless the applicant provides
site specific data indicating otherwise.
Nuisance water shall be retained on site. In residential developments, nuisance water
shall be disposed of in a trickling sand filter and leach field or equivalent system
approved by the City Engineer. The sand filter and leach field shall be designed to
contain surges of up to 3 gph/1,000 sq. ft. of landscape area, and infiltrate 5
gpd/1,000 sq. ft. The nuisance water percolation system shall be designed/sized to
accommodate nuisance water produced by residential uses and any domestic well
sites located within the project area.
39. The project shall be designed to accommodate purging and blowoff water (through
underground piping and/or retention facilities) from any on -site or adjacent well sites
granted or dedicated to the local water utility authority as a requirement for
development of this property.
40. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless approved by
the Community Development Director and the City Engineer.
41. 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.
42. 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.
43. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries,
levels or frequencies in any area outside the development.
44. 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.
45. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and
retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route.
I111I191B19W
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 32117 - VINCE D'AMBRA
SEPTEMBER 14, 2004
46. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.110 (Utilities),
LQMC.
47. 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.
48. 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.
49. 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
50. 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.
51. 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
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 in effect at the time of Final Map
approval and the requirements of these conditions as specified by
the City Engineer. The west curb face shall be located to the ultimate
street width per the General Plan in effect at the time of Final Map
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 32117 - VINCE D'AMBRA
SEPTEMBER 14, 2004
approval, except at locations where additional street width is needed
to accommodate:
(Major Arterial; 120'' RNV):
a) Bus turnout (if required by Sunline Transit)
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.
d) Establish a benchmark in the Madison Street right of way and file
a record of the benchmark with the County of Riverside.
2) Avenue 58
Provide a 48 foot right-of-way from the centerline of Avenue 58 along
the Tentative Tract Map boundaries. 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 thirty six feet
(36') north of the centerline.
Other required improvements in the Avenue 58 right or way and/or
adjacent landscape setback area include:
a) All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to: curb,
gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs.
b) 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk. The meandering sidewalk shall
I
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 32117 - VINCE D'AMBRA
SEPTEMBER 14, 2004
have an arrhythmic horizontal layout that utilizes concave and
convex curves with respect to the curb line that touches the
back of curb at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. The sidewalk
curvature radii should vary between 50 and 300 feet, and at
each point of reverse curvature, the radius should change to
assist in creating the arrhythmic layout. The sidewalk shall
meander into the landscape setback lot and approach within 5
feet of the perimeter wall at intervals not to exceed 250 feet.
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 Streets measured at gutter flow line shall have a 36-
foot travel width as shown on the Tentative Tract Map.
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.
2) Private Cul-de-sacs shall be constructed according to the lay -out shown
on the tentative map with 38-foot curb radius or greater at the similar
to the layout shown on the rough grading plan.
52. All gated entries shall provide for a three -car minimum stacking capacity for inbound
traffic; and shall provide for a full turn -around outlet for non -accepted vehicles.
Where a gated entry is proposed, the applicant shall submit a detailed exhibit at a
scale of 1 " = 10', demonstrating that those passenger vehicles that do not gain
entry into the development can safely make a full turn -around out onto the main
street from the gated entry.
Two lanes of traffic shall be provided on the entry side of each gated entry, one lane
shall be dedicated for residents and one lane for visitors.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 32117 - VINCE D'AMBRA
SEPTEMBER 14, 2004
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.
53. 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
Secondary Arterial
Major Arterial
3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b.
4.0" a.c./6.0" c.a.b.
5.5" a.c./6.5" c.a.b.
or the approved equivalents of alternate materials.
54. 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.
55. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following:
Primary Entry (Madison Street): Right turn in and out and Left turn in movements are
permitted. Left turn out movement is prohibited.
56. 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.
57. 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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 32117 - VINCE D'AMBRA
SEPTEMBER 14, 2004
58. 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
59. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) &
13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC.
60. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins,
common lots and park areas.
61. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention
basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect.
62. The applicant shall submit the landscape plans for approval by the Community
Development Department (CDD), prior to plan checking by the Public Works
Department. When plan checking has been completed by CDD, the applicant shall
.obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner,
prior to submittal for signature by the City Engineer.
NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer.
63. 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
64. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by SunLine
Transit Agency and approved by the City Engineer.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
65. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with
the approval of the City Engineer.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 32117 - VINCE D'AMBRA
SEPTEMBER 14, 2004
66. 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.
67. 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.
68. 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
69. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance),
LQMC.
70. 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
71. 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.
72. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the
Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time
of issuance of building permit(s).
FIRE MARSHALL
73. For residential areas, approved standard fire hydrants, located at each intersection
and spaced 330 feet apart with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 32117 - VINCE D'AMBRA
SEPTEMBER 14, 2004
from a hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 GPM for a 2-hour duration at 20
PSI. Fire hydrants are also required every 660 feet on the outside of the perimeter
walls.
74. Blue dot retro-reflectors shall be placed in the street 8 inches from centerline to the
side that the fire hydrant is on, to identify fire hydrant locations.
75. Any turn or turn -around requires a minimum 38-foot outside turning radius.
76. All structures shall be accessible from an approved roadway to within 150 feet of all
portions of the exterior of the first floor.
77. The minimum dimension for access roads and gates is 20 feet clear and unobstructed
width and a minimum vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches in height.
78. Any gate providing access from a public roadway to a private entry roadway shall be
located at least 35 feet setback from the roadway and shall open to allow a vehicle
to stop without obstructing traffic on the road. Where a one-way road with a single
traffic lane provides access to a gate entrance, a 38-foot turning radius shall be used.
79. Gates shall be automatic, minimum 20 feet in width and shall be equipped with a
rapid entry system (KNOX). Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for
approval prior to installation. Automatic gate pins shall be rated with a shear pin
force, not to exceed 30 pounds. Gates activated by the rapid entry system shall
remain open until closed by the rapid entry system.
80. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by
the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed
on an individual lot. Two sets of water plans are to be submitted to the Fire
Department for approval.
81. The applicant or developer shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for
approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane painting
and/or signs.
MISCELLANEOUS
82. Perimeter wall designs including height, color, material, design shall be reviewed by
the Architecture and Landscape Committee and the Planning Commission.
83. Proposed street name, with a minimum of two alternative names per street, shall be
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 32117 - VINCE D'AMBRA
SEPTEMBER 14, 2004
submitted to the Community Development Department for approval. The street name
shall be approved prior to recordation of the map.
84. All mitigation measures contained in Environmental Assessment 2004-502 shall be
met.
85. Prior to final map approval, the developer shall submit to the Community
Development Department for review, a copy of the proposed Covenants, Conditions,
and Restrictions (CC&R's) for the project.
86. This tentative tract map shall expire two years after City Council approval, unless
recorded or granted a time extension pursuant to the requirements of Division 13 of
the La Quinta Municipal Code.
88. Minor lot configuration modifications required to comply with these conditions and
Fire Marshal requirements shall be reviewed and approved by the Community
Development Department and Public Works Department.
89. Approval of production home designs and landscaping requires approval of a Site
Development permit application by the Planning Commission.
90. Within 24 hours of approval of the tentative tract map by the City Council, the
developer shall submit to the Community Development Department, a check made
out to the County of Riverside for $64.00 to allow filing of a Notice of Determination
for Environmental Assessment 2004-502 as required by State law.
91. Prior to final map approval by the City Council, the developer shall meet the Parkland
Dedication requirements by payment of in -lieu fees as set forth in Section 13.48 of
the La Quinta Municipal Code.
92. All dwelling units shall be single story and shall not exceed 22 feet in height.
0
ATTACHMENT L
LION'S GATE
Homeowner's Association
August 10, 2004
City of La Quinta
Planning Commission
RE: Tentative Tract Map 32225
Applicant: Vince D'Ambra
Location: Northwest corner of Madison Street & Avenue 58
We, the property owners at Lion's Gate, respectfully request that the City
of La Quinta restrict the above named subdivision to single story
residences.
As you are aware, the lot sizes at Lion's Gate are considerably larger than
the proposed development. To allow the proposed subdivision to build two
story homes would result in a loss of privacy for all property owners on (at
least) the eastern side of our development.
Further, it has been our understanding that the Planning Commission
adheres to a "First Come" rule when allowing two story construction
adjacent to existing or "approved" construction. That being the case, there
is both existing construction and, to my knowledge, approved or "in -
process" construction along the eastern boundary of Lion's Gate.
Additionally, we feel that to allow two story construction on the Madison
Avenue side of the proposed subdivision would be a significant detraction
and departure from surrounding luxury properties; Lion's Gate, The
Summit, Andalusia, and Coral Mountain Estates.
In closing, we ask that you maintain the prestigious "feel" that currently
exists in the southeastern section of La Quinta.
Sincerely,
XM: E. Cornell,
Vice President, Lion's Gate Homeowners Association
On behalf of:
De Bonis & Faubion Construction(2)
Robert & Terri Cross
Dominic Doria
Daniel & Susan Garcia (2)
James & Lois Langford (1)
Joseph McCowan
Pete & Tootsie Waters
Norman & Jeanne Mc Laughlin
Frank Fraeyman
Horace & MaryAnn Hall
Jay Youngman
Kent & Mary Cornell
John Diaz
Lewis & Cathy Green
Frank Marolda
Pierre & Kathryn Letellier (3)
Charles W. Smith
Lee & Dianne Stirrett
Robert & Tami Stowe
Robert S. Catlin
Doug & Monica Geyer
PH #D
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 2004
CASE NO: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2004-085
APPLICANT: NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A 230 SQUARE FOOT UNMANNED
TELECOMMUNICATION BUILDING AND 60-FOOT HIGH
ANTENNA
LOCATION:
PROPERTY
OWNER:
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION:
GENERAL PLAN/
ZONING
DESIGNATIONS:
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
54-001 MADISON STREET (RCFD STATION 70)
CITY OF LA QUINTA
THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS
DETERMINED THAT THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY
EXEMPT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO
SECTION 15332 (CLASS 32) IN THAT THIS IS AN IN -
FILL PROJECT SURROUNDED BY URBAN SERVICES AND
EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS.
MAJOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES
NORTH:
ACROSS AVENUE 54, HIDEAWAY DEVELOPMENT
SOUTH:
PGA WEST GOLF COURSE MAINTENANCE AREAS
EAST:
ACROSS MADISON STREET, VACANT RESIDENTIAL
WEST:
PGA WEST RESIDENTIAL AND GOLF COURSE
BACKGROUND:
The project site, located at the southwest corner of Avenue 54 and Madison Street
(Attachment 1), is improved as the Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD)
facility, Station 70. The station was constructed in 1986.
PROJECT REQUEST:
Nextel Communications is requesting to install a 60-foot high digital cellular
telephone antenna within the 1.95-acre site, southeast of the fire station and
adjacent to its parking lot (Attachment 2). The site has no perimeter wall adjacent
to the streets, and sits outside the PGA West development. The monopole antenna
is designed to replicate a palm tree (e.g., flexible green resin palm fronds), thus the
support pole will simulate the round, textured trunk of a typical fan palm. The
height of the antenna does not require guy wires. The monopole will incorporate a
total of 12 radial antennae mounted on three arrays. Existing mature date palm
trees are located in close proximity to the new "monopalm" which will help
camouflage its presence when viewed from off -site locations.
The applicant also proposes installing a small equipment shelter of about 230
square feet. This structure is clad in stucco to match existing on -site walls and will
be 10'-1 " high. The equipment building will be surrounded by a six-foot high
masonry wall, stuccoed and painted to match the existing walls at the fire station.
The area between the new wall and the equipment building will be covered in pea
gravel or similar material. No other landscaping improvements are proposed.
Applicable Zoning Code Provisions:
Under Chapters 9.130 and 9.170 of the Zoning Code, small equipment buildings
are required to be located 20 feet from the property boundaries while this
monopalm base requires an 85-foot setback (i.e., tower height (60') + 25 feet =
85'-0"). A minimum of two parking stalls shall also be provided.
Public Utility Commission (PUC) Authority
Under Appendix A (Section li) of General Order 159 of the Public Utilities
Commission of the State of California, the "Commission delegates its authority to
regulate the location and design of cellular facilities to local agencies, except in
those instances when there is a clear conflict with State-wide interests. In those
instances, the Commission will review the need to preempt local jurisdiction,
allowing local agencies and citizens an opportunity to present their positions. The
cellular utility will have the burden of proof to demonstrate that accommodating to
local agency requirements for any specific site would frustrate the Commission's
objectives. If the cellular utility is able to prove this point, the Commission will
preempt local jurisdiction pursuant to its authority under Article IX, Section 8 of the
California Constitution."
Existing Monopalm Sites
Currently, there are other monopalm antennas within the City (e.g., La Quinta
Resort and Club, Frances Hack Park, 111 La Quinta Shopping Center, Avenue 48
and Jefferson Street, PGA West Fire Station, Storage USA, etc.) which have been
approved by the Planning Commission. In August of this year, the Planning
Commission approved a similar monopalm design for Verizon at the IID substation,
southwest corner of Avenue 48 and Jefferson Street (CUP 2004-084).
Public Notice
The case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on September 4, 2004, and
mailed to surrounding property owners and residents within 500 feet as required
under Section 9.210.020 of the Zoning Code. To date, no written correspondence
has been received; any correspondence received will be forwarded to the
Commission prior to the meeting.
Public Agency Review
A copy of this request was sent to all applicable public agencies and City
Departments on August 5, 2004. All written comments received are on file with
the Community Development Department. Applicable comments received have
been included in the recommended Conditions of Approval.
FINnINrS-
This project is being proposed to enhance service coverage needs for voice, e-mail,
Internet and other wireless access requirements for Coachella Valley customers.
This facility will be unmanned and will not require any water, waste treatment, or
management of hazardous materials.
The visual impact of the monopalm is considered less than significant for PGA West
homeowners, as existing trees scattered throughout the fire station property range
between 15 and 40 feet tall. Several existing palm trees will help to camouflage
the monopalm's appearance, which is consistent in design to other approved
monopalm sites in the City
CONCLUSION:
The proposed building and Monopalm antenna meet all the required setbacks set
forth by Chapter 9.170 (Communication Towers and Equipment). The closest
residential structures are in PGA West along the southwesterly side of Southern
Hills, and are approximately 150 feet from the monopalm base mount, while the
fire station itself is about 90 feet away at its closest point. There is existing
J
parking adjacent to the proposed equipment building and outside the gated access
into the fire station, from which the two required parking stalls can be reserved for
Nextel's use.
ISSUES:
The applicant has not proposed any landscape plan as part of the project, as
required by Section 9.170.070.B. Staff has proposed a condition to require a
landscape plan for the area around the wall to be reviewed and approved by the
Community Development Director. The landscape plan should include eight to ten
foot high plantings in the gravel area, behind the proposed equipment building wall,
along with two to four foot high plantings in front of the wall, subject to staff
review at plan check.
The Planning Commission may want to require Nextel to allow another service
provider the opportunity to locate on the proposed monopalm. Should the
Commission desire to require this determination, a condition is required; however,
the number of users is limited with a monopalm design.
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
Findings necessary to approve this project can be made and are contained in the
attached Resolution.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_ approving Conditional Use Permit
2004-085, subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval.
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Site Plan
3. Elevations
4. Photo simulations (3)
Transmitted by:
Wallace Nesbit
Associate Planner
M
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE USE
OF A 60-FOOT HIGH MONOPALM COMMUNICATION
ANTENNA AND UNMANNED EQUIPMENT BUILDING ON A
PORTION OF A 1.95-ACRE FIRE STATION SITE, SUBJECT
TO CONDITIONS
CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2004-085
APPLICANT: NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California, did on the 14th day of September, 2004, hold a duly noticed Public
Hearing to consider the request of Verizon Wireless to install a 60-foot high
monopalm communication antenna and unmanned one story equipment building of
230 sq. ft., located on the southwest corner of Avenue 54 and Madison Street in
the MC (Major Community Facility) district, more particularly described as:
PER DEED RECORDED JULY 9, 1985 AS DOCUMENT # 149778
RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY
WHEREAS, on the 5th day of August 2004, the Community
Development Department mailed case file materials to all affected agencies for their
review and comment, with all written comments received on file with the
Community Development Department; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department published the
public hearing notice in the Desert Sun newspaper on the 4th day of September,
2004, for the 14th day of September, 2004 Planning Commission meeting as
prescribed by Section 9.200.1 10 (Public Notice Procedure) of the Zoning Code, and
by mailing a copy of said public hearing notice to all property owners and residents
within 500 feet of the site; and
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify approval of
said Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Section 9.210.020 of the Zoning Code:
1. Consistency with General Plan. The design and improvements of the
proposed monopalm are consistent with La Quinta General Plan (Chapter 7)
that requires utilities and communication facilities to blend in with the
surrounding improvements and insures residents have access to reliable
services such as wireless telephones. This communication antenna is
designed to replicate a palm tree to be compatible with existing mature
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Nextel\resoCUP085.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_
Conditional Use Permit 2004-085 - Nextel Communications
September 14, 2004
Page 2
landscaping thereby limiting its visibility from surrounding public
thoroughfares and land uses. The proposed antenna is located over 150-feet
from existing PGA West residential units, ensuring adequate space separation
between both land uses.
2. Consistency with Zoning Code. The proposed monopalm antenna and
equipment building are consistent with current standards of the Zoning Code
(Chapters 9.130 and 9.170) in that potential adverse visual effects have
been mitigated by design of the structures through the integration of palm
trees, fencing, and other man-made structures.
3. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The monopalm antenna and
equipment building have been determined to be exempt from CEQA, under
Guidelines Section 15332 (Infill Development), in that the site is fully
developed as a public service land use (fire station) that is surrounded by
urban infrastructure improvements (e.g., water, sanitation, etc.).
4. Compatibility with Surrounding Uses. The proposed improvements are
located over 150-feet from the closest existing PGA West residential units,
ensuring adequate space separation between both land uses and compliance
with the requirements of Chapter 9.170. The monopalm will be camouflaged
by multiple stands of existing palm trees.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case; and,
2. That the in -fill project, as designed, is consistent with the guidelines of
Section 15322 (Class 32) of the California Environmental Quality Act; and,
3. That it does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit 2004-085 for the
reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the Conditions attached
hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta City Planning Commission, held on the 14th day of September, 2004, by the
following vote, to wit:
P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Nextel\resoCUP085.doc '0
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_
Conditional Use Permit 2004-085 — Nextel Communications
September 14, 2004
Page 3
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
OSCAR ORCI, Interim
Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Nextel\resoCUP085.doc j
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2004-085
NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
SEPTEMBER 14, 2004
GENERAL
1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La
Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action
or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Site
Development Permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its
defense counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding
and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
2. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the
applicant shall obtain applicable permits and/or clearances from the following
agencies, if applicable or required:
• Fire Marshal
• Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit)
• Community Development Department (CDD)
• Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department (RCEHD)
• Coachella Valley Unified School District (CVUSD)
• Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
• Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
• California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB)
• Waste Management of the Desert
• Public Utilities Commission (PUC)
• Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
• Federal Aviation Agency (FAA)
The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits or clearances
from the above listed agencies and departments. If the requirements include
approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals
prior to obtaining City approval of the plans.
The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES
stormwater discharge permit.
GRADING
3. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading
Improvements), LQMC.
P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Nextel\coaCUP085.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Conditional Use Permit 2004-085
September 14, 2004
Page 2
4. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes,
the applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer.
5. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain
approval of all of the following:
A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer,
B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified
engineer,
C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter
6.16 (Fugitive Dust Control), LQMC, and
D. A Best Management Practices report prepared in accordance with
Sections 8.70.010 and 13.24.170 (NPDES stormwater discharge
permit and Storm Management and Discharge Controls), LQMC.
All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the
Preliminary Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils
engineer, or by an engineering geologist.
A statement shall appear on the grading plan that a soils report has been
prepared in accordance with the California Health & Safety Code § 17953.
The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in
an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive
Dust Control Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading
permit.
6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a
building pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or
surveyor.
UTILITIES
7. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of
all utility lines within the right of way and all above -ground utility structures
including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electrical vaults, water
valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and
aesthetic purposes.
P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Nextel\coaCUP085.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Conditional Use Permit 2004-085
September 14, 2004
Page 3
PARKING/ACCESS POINTS
8. The applicant shall protect existing hardscape along the proposed
Communication Facility Building and Monopole construction area to include
but not limited to garden walls, landscaping, irrigation systems, curb and
gutter, sidewalk and pavement. Restoration to any damaged hardscape shall
be to the satisfaction of the City of La Quinta.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
9. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which
meet the approval of the City Engineer.
10. The applicant shall employ or retain qualified civil engineers, geotechnical
engineers, surveyors, or other appropriate professionals to provide sufficient
construction supervision to be able to furnish and sign accurate record
drawings.
11. The applicant shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and
testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program but required
by the City as evidence that construction materials and methods comply with
plans, specifications and applicable regulations.
12. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City
reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were signed by
the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawings," "As -Built"
or "As -Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or
surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall
revise the CAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City to
reflect as -constructed conditions.
MAINTENANCE
13. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of
all on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and
sidewalks. The applicant shall maintain required public improvements until
expressly released from this responsibility by the appropriate public agency.
P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Nextel\coaCUP085.doc 1
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Conditional Use Permit 2004-085
September 14, 2004
Page 4
FEES AND DEPOSITS
14. The applicant shall pay the City's established fees for plan checking and
construction inspection. Fee amounts shall be those in effect when the
applicant makes application for plan checking and permits.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
15. A minimum 2A-10BC fire extinguisher shall be mounted on the inside of the
equipment building.
16. A KNOX padlock shall be installed on the gate and a KNOX key box installed
on the building. In lieu of the KNOX padlock, a key storage box may be
mounted at the gate entrance with both gate and building keys. Please
contact the Fire Department Planning & Engineering staff (c/o Dale Evenson,
Fire Safety Specialist) at (760) 863-8886 if you have any questions.
MISCELLANEOUS
17. The applicant shall protect all existing landscaping and irrigation to include
the existing palm trees. A landscaping plan, to include any necessary
restoration of existing landscaping and irrigation systems, shall be submitted
for review and approval by the Community Development Department at the
time of submittal for building permit plan check. The plan shall include
provision of 8 to 10 foot high plantings in the gravel area, behind the
proposed equipment building wall, along with 2 to 4 foot high plantings in
front of the wall, along all four sides
18. The 4-foot wide access gate into the equipment building area shall be
opaque, and shall be painted to match the proposed wall areas.
19. This permit shall expire on September 14, 2005, unless a one-year time
extension is applied for and granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to
Section 9.200.080 of the Zoning Code. A request for a time extension shall
be filed with the Community Development Department on, or before, August
14, 2005.
20. Building and monopalm setbacks shall comply with the rules and regulations
of Chapters 9.130 and 9.170 of the Zoning Code. A minimum of two of the
existing paved parking spaces shall be reserved for maintenance personnel, in
close proximity to the equipment building.
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Nextel\coaCUP085.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Conditional Use Permit 2004-085
September 14, 2004
Page 5
21. The synthetic palm fronds shall extend a minimum of three feet beyond the
communication antennas. Placement of the palm fronds shall be heaviest
around the antenna assembly to guarantee that off -site locations (e.g., 200
feet and beyond) do not see the telecommunication equipment. A visual
inspection by the Community Development Department shall be required
before a Certificate of Occupancy permit is issued by the Building and Safety
Department.
P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Nextel\coaCUP085.doc
ATTACHMENT 1
VICINITY MAP
10 54001 MADISON AVENUE
LA GIUINTA,. CA 47153
N
� 52nd AVENUE
Lu
N
5" AVENUE
W E
S
3
ATTACHMENT
0
ATTACHMENT 2
4
ATTACHMENT 3
11
Photo Simulation. # 1 ATTACHMENT 4
Before
PDXTE L I' Project: CA 8586 PGA West Address: 54-001 Madison St.
Photo Simulation #2
Before
After
NDMEL Project: CA 8586 PGA West Address: 54-001 Madison St.
0
Photo Simulation #3
� r �� 'ra�F � a�� ��.•a `� ' _ a � �-� 'tom � fi�-�2`�: � �x,� � E� _ -
"�Rr.s3e�.y�s #',�,,,ai• y ................�
� vie
3
r t: -
t k
Y'
�a
:rs
�a .,;�,z�r {* �""`�""�br •. -' "�d.a'''�c •�v�,�� ya+�,`t'��`�`�w�.�c"yt�r�s�.,� - -'.' ��
t
Before
,ram �L
a
Vk
r After
NOa-EL 1 Project: CA-8586 PGA West Address: 54-001 Madison St.
/ #1
SITE PLAN
RMDMEM SCALI
i° 4 V 10 to
ao
PH #E
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 2004
CASE NO: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-513
SPECIFIC PLAN 2004-072
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32398
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY
OWNER: ROBERT SCHUMACHER
REQUEST: ESTABLISH DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT PRINICIPLES AND
SUBDIVIDE ± 110.9 ACRES INTO 392 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS, A
TEN ACRE COMMERCIAL LOT AND MISCELLANEOUS LOTS
LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF MONROE STREET AND AVENUE 60
ENGINEER: MDS CONSULTING
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HAS COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-513;
BASED UPON THIS ASSESSMENT THE PROJECT MAY HAVE A
SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT;
HOWEVER, MITIGATION MEASURES HAVE BEEN PROPOSED TO
REDUCE IMPACTS TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVELS;
THEREFORE, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS
RECOMMENDED FOR CERTIFICATION.
GENERAL PLAN/
ZONING
DESIGNATIONS: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR); NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL (NC) / MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RM);
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (CN)
qu—;u; oitl 171� [L7
LAND USES: NORTH: VACANT LAND / COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
SOUTH: VACANT LAND (APPROVED TRACTS 31732 & 31733)
EAST: AG LAND / COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
WEST: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL / GOLF COURSE
(ANDALUSIA AT CORAL MOUNTAIN)
P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Schumacher\TTM 32398 PC StfRpt .doc
BACKGROUND:
The site is ± 110.90 acres in size and located at the northeast corner of Monroe Street
and Avenue 60 (Attachment 1). This site was located within the original Coral
Mountain Specific Plan Area and the applicant has submitted a separate Specific Plan
that will guide development of this site. This Specific Plan will disassociate itself from
the Coral Mountain Specific Plan and be a stand-alone document that provides
development standards for the project. The Specific Plan is required because the
applicant is proposing deviations from the Zoning Code and existing Specific Plan.
These are discussed in more detail below.
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
Residential Component
The applicant proposes to subdivide ± 100.90 acres into a private -gated community
consisting of 392 single-family lots, a separate ten acre commercial lot, and
miscellaneous lots (Attachment 2).
The residential lots range in size from 5,853 to 10,356 square feet in size. The
proposed lots meet the minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet as required in the
Medium Density Residential zone. The residential units will vary from one to two
stories, with two to three bedrooms and range from 2,100 to 2,700 square feet in size
(Attachment 3).
Open space and retention areas will provide recreational opportunities for residents.
Approximately 12 acres are dedicated to open space to promote active recreation in
the forms of volleyball and basketball while informal turf areas will provide for passive
recreational uses.
The applicant also proposes approval of a Specific Plan to allow deviations from the
development standards in the Zoning Code. The table below presents the requested
deviations of the Zoning Code for the residential component:
Residential Development Standards
Existing
Medium Density
Residential
(MDR) Zone
Proposed
Specific Plan
Maximum Building Height
28 ft.
28 ft.
Maximum Number of Stories
2
2
Minimum Lot Size
5,000 sq. ft.
5,000 sq. ft.
Minimum Living Area Per Unit
1,500 sq. ft.
2,100 sq. ft.
Minimum Lot Frontage
50 ft.
60 ft.
Minimum Front Setback to Garage
20 ft.
20 ft.
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Schumacher\TTM 32398 PC StfRpt Am
Minimum Front Setback to Living Area
20 ft.
12 ft.
Minimum Front Setback to Patio Areas
None
4 ft.
Minimum Side Yard Setback - Interior Lots
5/5 ft.
5/5 ft.
Minimum Side Yard Setback - Corner Lots
5/10 ft.
5/10 ft.
Minimum Rear Yard Setback - Standard
20 ft.
15 ft.
Minimum Rear Yard Setback - to Garage
w/Rear Lane Access
0
4 ft.
Minimum Height of Garden P/L Walls
6 ft.
6 ft.
Minimum Rear Lane Access Width
28 ft.
20 ft.
Minimum Front Access Street Width w/Parallel
Parking on Both Sides
36 ft.
32 ft.
paved * (35 feet
including curbs)
* Parking on
one side only
The Specific Plan demonstrates the layout of the project and the proposed
development standards. The applicant will be required to submit a separate Site
Development Permit application for the residential units.
The applicant proposes a "Neo-Traditional" village design concept in the Specific Plan
that includes streets and accessways that vary in width from 20 to 35 feet, restricted
on -street parking, varying front and rear setbacks (from 4 to 20 feet), enclosed front
courtyards, with front and rear loaded garage access which provides visual relief to the
streetscape. Some garages will have the required minimum code required front yard
setback of 20 feet, with enclosed courtyards and front garage access via a 35 foot
wide roadway with parking on one side only (Exhibits 6 & 8 of Specific Plan). In
certain cases, some rear yards will allow room for swimming pools.
Units with rear garage access will have rear yard setbacks of four feet minimum with
access from a 20 foot wide brick paved accessway (Exhibit 7 & 9 of Specific Plan).
No parking will be allowed on these accessways. The rear yards to these units will
have six foot high garden walls with the possibility of also having swimming pools if
the owner so desires. Exhibits 10 through 15 demonstrate the conceptual front
elevations of the units.
The architectural design will emulate the Early California style. Design materials
include stucco walls with soft rounded corners, classic ledger stone veneer, exposed
wooden beams, French doors and windows, Spanish tile roofs, with accents of ornate
wrought iron gates and trim.
Sidewalks will provide pedestrian circulation and connect the neighborhood to a future
commercial component. Street parking on the wider streets (32 feet) is proposed on
one side only. The Zoning Code requires one enclosed two -car garage for every single-
family home plus, 0.5 spaces per unit if no on -street parking is available. The
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Schumacher\TTM 32398 PC StfRpt Am
't
applicant proposes an enclosed two -car garage for every unit. Those units that have a
20 foot front yard setback for the garage can also use the driveway to provide for two
additional spaces for a total of four spaces. The units that have rear garage access
would utilize the street parking. The Zoning Code requires parallel parking (on -street
parking) to be a minimum of nine feet by 24 feet. The 32 foot wide streets would
provide sufficient space to accommodate parallel parking on one side of the street.
With 392 units proposed, the additional parking demand would be 196 spaces. Based
upon approximately 13,000 linear feet of available curb side parking area,
approximately 540 spaces can be provided for street parking.
Vehicular access is provided via Monroe Street and Avenue 60. Monroe Street runs
along the western boundary and Avenue 60 along the southern boundary of the project
site. Primary vehicular access to the residential area is provided via Monroe Street,
approximately 1,150 feet north of Avenue 60 and secondary access via Avenue 60
near the southeast corner of the property. All interior streets are proposed to be
private.
Commercial Component
The applicant is also requesting the following deviations from the Zoning Code for the
commercial component.
Commercial Development Standards
Existing
Proposed
Neighborhood
Specific Plan
Commercial (NC)
Zone
Maximum Building Height
35 ft.
35 ft.
Maximum Number of Stories
2
2
Minimum Perimeter Building/Landscape
30/20 ft.
10 ft.
Setbacks*
Minimum Parking
1 /250 sq. ft.
1 /250 sq. ft.
Gross Floor Area
Gross Floor
Area
Maximum Lot Coverage
.25
.25
Minimum Interior Side Yard Setbacks
0 ft.
5/10 ft.
Maximum Wall Height
6 ft.
10 '.
* - From residential districts, PR and OS districts, setbacKs shall be ju/ i o.
The Specific Plan sets forth development standards for the future commercial center.
The major building masses are to be broken up into a series of more intimate village
scaled buildings, mixed with free standing buildings. Variations in roof heights and
building facade depths will provide an undulating building profile. The architectural
design will be compatible with the residential component emulating the Early California
style and use similar materials. It is envisioned that the commercial property will be
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Schumacher\TTM 32398 PC StfRpt Am
developed by another applicant at a future date. The current applicant shows
conceptual building massing and elevations, but this will require additional analysis
based on the actual project layout (See Exhibits 17 & 18 of the Specific Plan).
Vehicular access to the commercial site is provided via one driveway on Monroe Street
and two driveways on Avenue 60. These locations may change as the commercial
shopping center is developed.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission require the applicant to maintain the
minimum perimeter building/landscape setback of 30 feet and 20 feet, and the wall
height be limited to six feet. This would make the development standards consistent
with the Zoning Code. Staff determined that a ten foot perimeter building/landscape
setback is insufficient to provide a buffer between the commercial and the residential
components. Staff also determined that without an actual commercial project to
review in relation to walls, the potential ten foot high walls would not be appropriate.
Staff requests the commercial component meet the minimum standards of the Zoning
Code, but allow the architectural standards to remain as guidelines. A separate
application will be processed for the shopping center under the Zoning Code
requirements.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
This project was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on September 2, 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 approve this request can be made and are contained in the attached
Resolutions.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_, recommending to the City
Council certification of Environmental Assessment 2004-515, subject to
Findings and the attached Mitigation Measures.
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_, recommending to the City
Council approval of Specific Plan 2004-072, subject to Findings and the
attached Conditions of Approval.
3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_, recommending to the City
Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 32398, subject to findings and the
attached Conditions of Approval.
P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Schumacher\TTM 32398 PC StfRpt Am
Attachments:
1. Site Location Map
2. Tentative Tract Map (Planning Commission only)
3. Specific Plan (Planning Commission only)
Prepared by:
Martin Magana
Associate Planner
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Schumacher\TTM 32398 PC StfRpt .doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QU1NTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE
CITY COUNCIL, CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED FOR
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32398.
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-513
APPLICANT: ROBERT SCHUMACHER
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California, did, on the 141h day of September, 2004, hold a duly noticed Public
Hearing to consider a request by Robert Schumacher for certification of
Environmental Assessment 2004-513 for Tentative Tract Map 32398 to subdivide
± 110.90 acres into 392 single-family lots, a ten acre commercial lot and
miscellaneous lots, generally located at the northeast corner of Monroe Street and
Avenue 60, more particularly described as follows:
APNs: 764-240-002, 003, 004 & 005
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act
of 1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in
that the Community Development Department has prepared an Environmental
Assessment 2004-513, and has determined that although the proposed project
could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, mitigation measures
have been imposed on the project that would reduce impacts to less than
significant levels, and therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental
impact is recommended for certification; 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 recommending to the City Council certification of said
Environmental Assessment:
1. The proposed project has the potential to be adversely effect the human
population due to air quality, noise and traffic impacts. Mitigation measures
are sufficient to 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
9
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Environmental Assessment 2004-513 - Robert Schumacher
September 14, 2004
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 potential impacts associated with
cultural and paleontologic resources have been studied, and mitigation
measures are sufficient to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
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 Habitat Assessments were prepared for the site for
the Burrowing Owl and Coachella Valley Round -Tailed Ground Squirrel, the
two species of concern identified as having potential to occur on the site.
Both surveys were negative. The disturbed nature of the property, as well as
the agricultural activity on surrounding parcels, and the two roadways on two
sides of the project site, make the site unsuitable for these species.
The project site is located outside the boundary of the Coachella Valley Fringe -
toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan.
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 as the proposed project will add to
the housing types offered to the City's residents, a goal of the General Plan.
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 the proposed project is consistent with the
General Plan vision for this area. Construction of the project will have no
significant cumulative impacts.
6. 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
have been imposed on the project that will reduce impacts to a less than
significant level.
7. The Planning Commission has considered Environmental Assessment 2004-
513 and said Assessment reflects the independent judgment of the City.
8. 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).
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Schumacher\PC RESO EA 04 513.doc
�J
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Environmental Assessment 2004-513 - Robert Schumacher
September 14, 2004
9. 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 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 2004-513 for the reasons set forth in this
Resolution and, as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist on file
in the Community Development Department and attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 14th day of September, 2004, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
OSCAR ORCI, Interim
Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Schumacher\PC RESO EA 04 513.doc
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project title: Specific Plan 04-072, Tentative Tract Map 32398
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: Northeast corner of Avenue 60 and Monroe Street APN: 764-240-002, -003,
-004, &-005
5. Project sponsor's name and address: Robert Schumacher
2995 Woodside Road, #400
Woodside, CA 94062
6. General Plan Designation: 10 acres 7. Zoning: 10 acres Neighborhood
Neighborhood Commercial, 100 acres Medium Commercial, 100 acres Medium
Density Residential Density Residential
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later
phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
Specific Plan to establish the development standards and guidelines for a 10 acre
neighborhood commercial shopping center at the northeastern corner of Monroe Street and
Avenue 60, as well as a total of 392 single family homes and open space on the remaining
100 acres. The Specific Plan includes narrow private streets, back yard lanes with garage
access, a 1.2 acre private park, and a series of central retention basin/common area open space
areas. Building heights are proposed to average at 22 feet, with a maximum of 28 feet. The
neighborhood commercial component of the project would allow up to 108,900 square feet of
commercial retail space within the 10 acre site.
A Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 110 acres into the 10 acre commercial lot, 392 single-
family lots, and miscellaneous lots. Minimum lot size is proposed to be 6,000 square feet
with an average lot size of 6,600 square feet.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
North: Vacant (Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Neighborhood
Commercial)
South: Avenue 60, Vacant Desert, Agriculture (Low Density Residential
w/Agriculture/Equestrian Overlay, Medium High Density Residential, Golf Course)
West: Monroe Street, (Low Density Residential, Golf Course)
East: Vacant Desert (Low Density Residential w/ Agriculture/Equestrian Overlay)
-1-
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following
pages.
Aesthetics
Biological Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Mineral Resources
Public Services
Utilities / Service
Agriculture Resources
Cultural Resources
Hydrology / Water
Quality
Noise
Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Air Quality
Geology /Soils
Land Use / Planning
Population / Housing
Transportation/Traffic
Systems
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation:
6ignature
effect on the
red.
t effect on the
cause revisions in the
A MITIGATED
a the environment, and
-ant impact" or
nent, but at least one
irsuant to applicable
res based on the earlier
�L IMPACT REPORT
addressed.
t effect on the
been analyzed
ursuant to applicable
Lat earlier EIR or
n measures that are
August 27, 2004
Date
-3-
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each
question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project
falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based
on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site,
cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as
operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than
significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is
appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one 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 XVH, '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.
-4-
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead
agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's
environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
X
scenic vista? (General Plan Exhibit 3.6)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
X
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway? (Aerial
photograph)
c) Substantially degrade the existing
X
visual character or quality of the site and
its surroundings? (Application materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial
X
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
(Application materials)
I. a)-d) Neither Monroe Street nor Avenue 60 are designated Image Corridors in the General
Plan. The site is relatively flat, and does not contain any significant landforms. The site
is some distance from both the surrounding mountains, and proposes structures which
will not exceed 28 feet. The project will not have a significant impact on scenic vistas.
The primary source of light and glare at the site will be automobile headlights. The
residential portion of the project will have limited lighting in landscaping. The
commercial corner will have parking lot lighting. The City regulates lighting levels
through the Dark Sky Ordinance and does not allow lighting to spill over onto adjacent
property. Impacts will not be significant.
-6-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:
Would theproject:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
X
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. III-21
ff.)
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract? (Zoning Map)
c) Involve other changes in the existing
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) Agricultural activity has occurred both on and around the site. A nursery occurs north of
the site. There are no known Williamson Act contracts on the property. The area is
designated in the General Plan for Medium Density Residential and Neighborhood
Commercial land uses, and is on the edge of the urbanized area of La Quinta. The area
is a mix of vacant desert lands and agriculture. Although the area has in the past been
active for agriculture, the land use designations on the site, its location within City
limits, and in the urbanizing portion of the City, make the site unsuitable for long term
cultivation. Impacts to agricultural resources are expected to be less than significant.
-7-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
X
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
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 largest contributors to air quality impacts in the City are vehicular emissions and
blowing particulate matter. The proposed project will generate up to 392 single family
homes, and a neighborhood commercial shopping center of up to 108,900 square feet.
The traffic report prepared for the proposed project estimated that the project site at
build -out would generate up to 10,769 trips per day (ADT)t. Based on this traffic
generation, and an average trip length of 15 miles, the following emissions can be
expected to be generated from the project site.
1 "Northeast Corner of Monroe Street at Avenue 60`h Focused Traffic Review," prepared by RK Engineering, March, 2004.
i
-8-
Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout
(hounds Der dav)
Ave. Trip
Total
Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day
Length (miles)
miles/day
10,769
x 15
=
161,535
PM10
PM10
PM10
Pollutant ROC
CO NOX Exhaust
Tire Wear
Brake Wear
Grams at 50 mph 14,538.15
377,991.90 77,536.80 -
1,615.35
1,615.35
Pounds at 50 mph 32.09
834.42 171.16 -
3.57
3.57
SCAQMD Threshold
(lbs /day) 75
550 100
150
Assumes 10,769 ADT. Based on California Air Resources Board's EMFAC7G Emissions Model. Assumes Year 2005
summertime running conditions at 75T, light duty
autos, catalytic.
The Table shows that the proposed project, at build -out, will exceed SCAQMD's
recommended daily thresholds for carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen. The project
is consistent with the land use designations placed on the site in the General Plan,
however. During the environmental analysis for the General Plan, the City found that the
impacts associated with air quality at build -out of the General Plan were offset by the
benefits associated with build -out of the Plan, and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations was prepared. The EIR included a number of mitigation measures which
will be applied to this project. Impacts associated with air quality will also improve as
vehicle technology improves, and the impacts above are likely to be conservative.
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, re -vegetation, track -out control.
BCM-2
Disturbed Vacant Lands: Chemical stabilization, wind fencing, access
restriction, re -vegetation.
BCM-3
Unpaved Roads and Unpaved Parking Lots: Paving, chemical
stabilization, access restriction, re -vegetation.
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 2,904 pounds per day, for a limited
period while grading operations are active. This calculation assumes that the entire site is
-9-
to be graded at once. Given the varied land uses and the size of the residential
component of the site, it is likely that grading will be completed in phases. Impacts
associated with dust are therefore expected to be lower. 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 PM 10 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.
3. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit
opportunities.
4. Cut and fill shall be balanced on site.
5. Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of three feet
prior to the onset of grading activities.
6. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed on an
on -going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the site. Portions of
the site that are actively being graded shall be watered regularly to ensure that a
crust is formed on the ground surface, and shall be watered at the end of each
work day.
7. Any area which remains undeveloped for a period of more than 30 days shall be
stabilized using either chemical stabilizers or a desert wildflower mix hydroseed
on the affected portion of the site.
8. Landscaping on Monroe and Avenue 60 will be completed during the first phase
of earthmoving activities, as will the project's perimeter wall.
9. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean-up of construction -
related dirt on approach routes to the site.
10. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone
episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour
Implementation of these mitigation measures will ensure that impacts associated with
PM10 are mitigated to a less than significant level.
III. d) & e) The project will consist of residential units and smaller commercial businesses. It is not
expected that objectionable odors will result from any of these land uses.
-10-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --
Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
X
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Letters dated March 16 and June 9,
2004, LSA Associates)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
X
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game
or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Letters
dated March 16 and June 9, 2004, LSA Associates)
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? (Letters dated March 16 and
June 9, 2004, LSA Associates)
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? (Letters dated
March 16 and June 9, 2004, LSA Associates)
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.)
0 Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
X
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
-11-
other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan? (General Plan
Exhibit 6.3)
IV. a)-f) Habitat Assessments were prepared for the site for the Burrowing Owl and for Coachella
Valley Round -Tailed Ground Squirrel2, the two species of concern identified as having
potential to occur on the site. Both surveys were negative. The disturbed nature of the
property, as well as the agricultural activity on surrounding parcels, and the two
roadways on two sides of the project site, make the site unsuitable for these species.
The project site is located outside the boundary of the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed
Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan.
Impacts to biological resources are expected to be insignificant.
Letter dated March 16, 2004 for burrowing owl, and June 9, 2004 for Coachella Valley round -tailed ground
squirrel, signed Lisa Ann Philhower, LSA Associates.
-12-
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 Section 15064.5?
(Archaeological Mitigation and Data Recovery
Report ... CRM Tech, April 2004)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
(Archaeological Mitigation and Data Recovery
Report ... CRM Tech, April 2004)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
X
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? (Paleontologic Resources
Assessment ... CRM Tech, April 2004)
d) Disturb any human remains, including
X
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? (General Plan MEA p. 123 ff.)
V. a)-b) & d) Phase I and Phase 11 cultural resource investigations were completed for the proposed
project site3. The Phase I analysis, completed in 1998, identified and catalogued a
potentially significant site (CA-RIV-5158) on the southern half of the site. As a result, a
Phase H recovery was undertaken. The recovery was completed between 2/04 and 3/04.
The recovery yielded ceramic sherds, stone debitage and portions of tools, milling tools,
fire affected clay, charcoal, animal bone and manuport items. Artifacts were found at
depths of up to 80 centimeters.
Although a number of artifacts were recovered from the site, others may still occur
within the boundaries of CA-RIV-5158. The loss of artifacts would represent a
potentially significant impact. In order to mitigate this potential impact, the following
mitigation measure shall be implemented:
1. A qualified archaeological monitor shall be present during all earth moving and
grading activities. The monitor shall be empowered to stop or redirect activities
on the site should a resource be identified. A final report shall be filed with the
Community Development Department prior to issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for the first house on the project site.
3 Archaeological Mitigation and Data Recovery Report, prepared by CRM Tech, April 2004
-13-
V. c) A paleontologic survey was prepared for the proposed project site 4. 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 project site. Development of the site could 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 measures shall be implemented.
1. A surface collection of mollusks shall be completed prior to initiation of any
earth moving activity on the project site.
2. A paleontologist shall be present on site during all earth moving and trenching
activities in areas of undisturbed lakebed soils. 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.
4 "Paleontological Resources Assessment Report," prepared by CRM Tech, April 2004.
-14-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would
the project:
a) Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
X
as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of
a known fault? (Prelim. Geotechnical
Investigation, Medall, Aragon, May 2004)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
X
(Prelim. Geotechnical Investigation, Medall,
Aragon, May 2004)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure,
X
including liquefaction? (Prelim.
Geotechnical Investigation, Medall, Aragon, May
2004)
iv) Landslides? (Prelim. Geotechnical
X
Investigation, Medall, Aragon, May 2004)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
X
the loss of topsoil? (Prelim. Geotechnical
Investigation, Medall, Aragon, May 2004)
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
(Prelim. Geotechnical Investigation, Medall,
Aragon, May 2004)
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
X
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water? (General Plan
Exhibit 8.1)
-15-
VI. a)-e) A geotechnical study was completed for the proposed projects. The geotechnical analysis
found that the site is not subject to ground rupture, landslides, expansive soil or seiche.
The study did find, however, that the site is subject to strong ground acceleration during
seismic events. The City implements the Uniform Building Code standards for
seismically active areas, which will assure that all construction on the project site is able
to sustain a significant earthquake.
The geotechnical study found a high hazard for liquefaction on the site, due to high
groundwater and soil types on the site. The study found that without mitigation, soils on
the site would be likely to be subject to settlement and lateral spreading. In order to
mitigate this potential impact, the study requires the following mitigation measures:
1. The entire project site shall be considered a special foundation zone. Special
foundations may include deep pile foundations bearing on non -liquefiable
materials, or post -tensioned or other stiffened foundation -slab designs such as
rafts or mats.
2. All fill on the property shall consist of engineered fill. Undocumented fill and
backfill shall be removed.
3. Minimum anticipated soil stripping shall range from 4 to 7.5 feet, and shall occur
as recommended by the project geologist and approved by the City Engineer,
following the preparation of final geotechnical analyses.
4. Engineered fill is expected to be required to a depth of at least 5 feet. Final
determinations shall be made by the project geologist and approved by the City
Engineer, following the preparation of final geotechnical analyses.
With implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts associated with geology
are expected to be less than significant.
5 "Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Sandal Beach Project," prepared by Medall, Aragon Geotechnical, May
2004.
-16-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS --Would theproject:
a) Create a significant hazard to the
X
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials? (Application materials)
b) Create a significant hazard to the
X
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the
environment? (General Plan MEA, p. 95 ff.)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
X
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (General Plan MEA, p. 95
ff.)
d) Be located on a site which is included
X
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment? (General Plan MEA, p.
95 ff.)
e) For a project located within an airport
X
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in
the project area? (General Plan land use map)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
X
private airstrip, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area? (General Plan
land use map)
g) Impair implementation of or
X
physically interfere with an adopted
-17-
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff)
h) Expose people or structures to a
X
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas
or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands? (General Plan land use map)
VII. a)-h) The residential component of the project is not expected to result in any significant
impacts relating to hazardous materials. The City implements Household Hazardous
Waste programs through its trash hauler, which are designed to provide for safe disposal
of hazardous substances generated in the home. Impacts are expected to be negligible.
Any commercial enterprise which might locate in the neighborhood shopping center, and
which would use or store hazardous materials, would be regulated by county, state and
federal agencies, whose regulations are designed to mitigate for the potential impacts.
These regulations will assure that impacts are reduced to a less than significant level.
-18-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
UALITY -- Would theproject:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
X
waste discharge requirements? (General
Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
X
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume
or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)? (General Plan
EIR p. III-187 ff.
c) Substantially alter the existing
X
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner
which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off -site? (General Plan
EIR p. III-187 ff.)
d) Substantially alter the existing
X
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off -site?
(General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.)
e) Create or contribute runoff water
X
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff? (General Plan
EIR p. III-187 ff.)
If) Place housing within a 100-year flood
X
-19- '11<1
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance
Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map? (General Plan EIR p. III-
187 ff.)
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard
X
area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental
Assessment Exhibit 6.6)
VIII. a) & b) Domestic water is supplied to the project site by the Coachella Valley Water District
(CVWD). The development of the site will result in the need for domestic water service
use for domestic use, commercial uses, and for landscaping irrigation. The CVWD has
prepared a Water Management Plan which indicates that it has sufficient water sources
to accommodate growth in its service area. The CVWD has implemented or is
implementing water conservation, purchase and replenishment measures which will
result in a surplus of water in the long term. The project proponent will be required to
implement the City's water efficient landscaping and construction provisions, including
requirements for water efficient fixtures and appliances, which will ensure that the least
amount of water is utilized within the homes.
The applicant will also be required to comply with the City's NPDES standards,
requiring that potential pollutants not be allowed to enter surface waters. These City
standards will assure that impacts to water quality and quantity will be less than
significant.
VIII. c) & d) The City requires that all projects retain the 100 year storm on site. The proposed project
includes a series of retention areas which are proposed to carry storm flows through the
site. These retention areas will be required to be sufficient to accommodate the 100 year
flood flows. The City Engineer will also review and approve hydrology and hydraulic
analyses prior to the issuance of grading permits. Impacts associated with storm water
drainage are therefore not expected to be significant.
VIII. e)-g) The site is not located in a flood zone as designated by FEMA.
-20-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
X
community? (Aerial photo)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use
X
plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program,
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? (General Plan Land
Use Element)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
X
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan? (Master Environmental
Assessment p. 74 ff.)
IX. a)-c) The project site is designated Medium Density Residential and Neighborhood
Commercial in the General Plan. The proposed project is consistent with this
designation. The project will represent a logical extension of the urbanizing land pattern
in the City, and will provide a different type of housing and commercial uses to area
residents.
The project site is not within the boundary of the mitigation fee for the Coachella Valley
Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan.
There will be no impacts to land use and planning.
t�
-21-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would
the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
X
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
the state? (Master Environmental Assessment
p. 71 ff.)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
X
locally -important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment
p. 71 ff.)
X. a) & b) The proposed project site is within the MRZ-1 Zone, and is therefore not considered to
have potential for mineral resources.
-22-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XI. NOISE Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation
X
of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies? (Prelim. Acoustical Study,
RK Engineering, June 2004)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
X
of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? (Prelim.
Acoustical Study, RK Engineering, June 2004)
c) A substantial permanent increase in
X
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the
project? (Prelim. Acoustical Study, RK
Engineering, June 2004)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
X
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? (Prelim. Acoustical
Study, RK Engineering, June 2004)
e) For a project located within an airport
X
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? (General Plan land
use map)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
X
private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels? (General
Plan land use map)
XI. a)-f) A noise study was prepared for the proposed project6. The noise study found that long
term exterior noise levels would exceed City standards for lots located adjacent to both
6 "Tentative Tract 32398 Preliminary Acoustical Study," prepared by RK Engineering Group, June 2004.
-23-
Monroe Street and the north side of the commercial center site. The report also found
that these exceedances can be mitigated through the construction of walls. In order to
assure that noise levels at the site meet the City's standards, therefore, the following
mitigation measures shall be implemented:
1. A 6 foot block or similar decorative wall shall be installed along the entire
frontage of the project site on Monroe Street. The wall shall not have any breaks
or openings.
2. A 6 foot block or similar decorative wall shall be installed along the rear property
lines of lots 365 through 372, inclusive. The wall shall not have any breaks or
openings with the exception of a pedestrian path connecting the residential area
to the commercial site.
3. At a minimum, STC 25 windows shall be installed on the following units: Lots
1, 29, 30, 359-363 inclusive, 268-284 inclusive, and 365-372 inclusive. These
units shall also be provided a mechanical ventilation system which allows the
homes to maintain a "windows closed" condition.
Implementation of these mitigation measures will assure that the impacts associated with
long term noise levels at the site are mitigated to less than significant levels.
The construction of the proposed project will result in temporary and periodic noise
increases due to construction equipment. The site, however, is bounded by streets on two
sides and by vacant or agricultural lands on the other two sides. There are no sensitive
receptors located immediately adjacent to the site. It is therefore expected that impacts
from construction noise at the project site shall be less than significant.
If the residential project is constructed first, and the neighborhood commercial site is
constructed once homes are occupied, there is a potential for significant construction
noise impacts to these homes. Should this condition occur, the following mitigation
measure shall be implemented:
1. If the neighborhood commercial center is constructed after occupancy of any of
the residential units adjacent to the commercial property boundary, a noise
analysis and associated recommendations for construction noise mitigation shall
be prepared prior to issuance of grading permits on the site. The analysis shall
include specific mitigation to reduce potential impacts to adjacent residences to
less than significant levels.
The project site is not located in an airport land use plan area, or near an airstrip.
-24-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING —
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth
X
in an area, either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses)
or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? (General Plan, p. 9 ff.,
application materials)
b) Displace substantial numbers of
X
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application
materials)
c) Displace substantial numbers of
X
people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? (General
Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials)
XII. a)-c) The proposed project will create up to 392 single-family homes and up to 108,900
square feet of commercial retail space. The project is consistent with the General Plan
and Zoning designations for the property, and represents a logical extension of the
urbanizing pattern in the City. The site is currently vacant, and will not displace any
housing or people. Impacts associated with population and housing are expected to be
negligible.
-25-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:
Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
X
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
X
Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.)
X
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks
X
Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA,
X
p. 46 ff.)
XIII. a) Build -out of the site will have a less than significant impact on public services. The
proposed project will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, under City
contract. Build -out of the proposed project will generate sales and property tax 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.
-26-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XIV. RECREATION --
a) Would the project increase the use of
X
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
(Application materials)
b) Does the project include recreational
X
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment? (Application materials)
XIV. a) & b) The project proponent will be subject to park in lieu fees for the provision of recreation
facilities throughout the City. In addition, the project includes a park site, as well as open
space and retention areas for the open recreational use of residents. No impact is
expected as a result of the proposed project.
-27-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC --
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
X
substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street
system (i.e., result in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicle
trips, the volume to capacity ratio on
roads, or congestion at intersections)?
(Focused Traffic Review, RK Engineering,
March 2004)
b) Exceed, either individually or
X
cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads
or highways? (Focused Traffic Review, RK
Engineering, March 2004)
c) Result in a change in air traffic
X
patterns, including either an increase in
traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks? (No air
traffic involved in project)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
X
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Focused
Traffic Review, RK Engineering, March 2004)
e) Result in inadequate emergency
X
access? (Focused Traffic Review, RK
Engineering, March 2004)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
X
(TTM 32398)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,
X
or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? (Project description)
-28-
XV. a)-g) The residential component of the proposed project will take access from both Avenue 60
and Monroe Street. The commercial center is proposed to have two access points on
Avenue 60, and one on Monroe Street.
A traffic impact analysis was prepared for the proposed project. The analysis found that
the project site has the potential to generate up to 10,769 daily trips at build -out of both
the residential and commercial components. The study also recommends improvements
to the circulation system, based on the projected access configuration for the site. It was
assumed that the residential access on Monroe, and the central access to the commercial
site on Avenue 60 would have full -turn access points. The residential access on Avenue
60, and the commercial access on Monroe would have right -in -right -out access only.
In order to assess the safety of the access points, the analysis included review of the
City's policies for deceleration lanes. The analysis found that in order to accommodate
project traffic and turning movements, deceleration lanes would be required.
Finally, the analysis included a review of the project's impacts on the intersections of
Monroe with Avenue 54 and Avenue 58. The analysis concluded that the background
plus project traffic volumes at these intersections would warrant signalization.
In order to assure that traffic flow in the vicinity of the project site operates within
acceptable levels of service, therefore, the following mitigation measures will be
implemented:
1. The project proponent will participate in fair share contributions for signalization
of Monroe/Avenue 54 and Monroe/Avenue 58 when warranted.
2. Right turn deceleration lanes shall be installed at project driveways on Avenue
60.
3. A left turn deceleration lane shall be installed at the full access point on Avenue
60.
4. A left turn deceleration lane shall be installed at the full access point on Monroe
Street.
Implementation of these mitigation measures will assure that project traffic impacts are
reduced to less than significant levels.
The project does not include unsafe designs, and has sufficient emergency access. On
site parking will be regulated by the City's Zoning Ordinance and the provisions of the
Specific Plan.
7 "Monroe Street and 60t` Avenue Focused Traffic Review," prepared by RK Engineering Group, March 2004.
-29-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
X
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board? (General
Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
b) Require or result in the construction of
X
new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
c) Require or result in the construction of
X
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
d) Have sufficient water supplies
X
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements
needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
e) Result in a determination by the
X
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project=s
projected demand in addition to the
provider=s existing commitments?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
0 Be served by a landfill with sufficient
X
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project=s solid waste disposal needs?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
X
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
-30-
XVI. a)-g) Utilities are available at the project site. The service providers for water, sewer,
electricity and other utilities have facilities in the immediate vicinity of the site, and will
collect connection and usage fees to balance for the cost of providing services. The
construction of the proposed project is expected to have less than significant impacts on
utility providers.
-31-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE --
a) Does the project have the potential to
X
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to
X
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage
of long-term environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are
X
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
d) Does the project have environmental
X
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
XVII. a) Potential impacts associated with cultural and paleontologic resources have been studied,
and mitigation measures are sufficient to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
XVII. b) The proposed project will add to the housing types offered to the City's residents, a goal
of the General Plan.
XVII. c) The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan vision for this area.
Construction of the project will have no significant cumulative impacts.
-32-
XVU. d) The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect human beings, due to air
quality, noise and traffic impacts. Mitigation measures are sufficient to reduce impacts to
less than significant levels.
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on
attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for
review.
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.
-33-
a�
0
b
0
�n
o
Q
o
G
o
�
�
�+j
O
U
o
o
o
z
o
a
N
Gaza
�aU
�
rWi�U�O
dCIO
�a
aC�
O
N
O
�
U
N
O
I
a
M
U
00
cU010
0. N
O
F
O
�Va
�I
�.y
A
U
ra7
d'
a
i
F
Q
A
d�
A
av
UV
°
o
0
bA
bA
�+
tb
'
O
(y
°
O
O
U
O
O
�
U
U
Cd
Ql,+
�
cl
u•.-.
U
...i3Cd
° U) °
'
CA °
U
U
O
C
W
0'
o
0
ob
a
02
0.
a
as
cn
z
Q
a
C's
w
b
a
b
b
b
U
04
M
F
O U
Cdtoo
U
G O
U
Qcn
,L;
Cti
U
3
3
V1
Q
E'�
•y
U
O.
N
C �'
Q.
u
O cd
to ccd
O
°
0
b
¢
C
�N O
H
Q
A
d�
A
U
UU
o
0
L7
F
�
o
�
Q
Q
�
a
°
�O
Cd
W
to
to
PQ
UA
m
on
z
O
W
U
U
Cd
W�
W
to
to
o
to
c
d
H
c°i
¢ '
40�
�
Cd
H
Q
A
d�
A
a
U
UU
0
G7
ou
on
F
Cd
b
'd
o
to
to
Q
A
x
w c�
a�
�
•�
w
w
w
U
�
b
z
o
0-0
o
�
�
Eb
b
a�
o
o
2
O
1�+
W
•--�
•�+
C/�
U —Cd
N
C� w
V)
Q 0
C%
F
Q
A
U�
�A
a�
U
U�
0
0
�
pp
O
0
U
W
O
U
O
U
O
U
�
�i�•
O
w°
Ca
Ca
a
ti
�.
Ln
W
Q
i
3
> N
En Cd
2
W
CC/i_I
as
3
n
M
N
U ��
F., ch
cd
d,�°�, $
0
�
U
cc
Cd ,., . u
.
�
•p
�
m
as
a�E�
o
z.�o
F
A
A
a�
WWTUWW
Uv
Q
�
b
WW
�
o
0
E•
cl
•°
C.
.
F
co
cd
cl
3
U
U
U
a
oz
0
to
to
U
U
U
U
z
cd
a
cl
Cd
o
�
Cd
;
cn
cqj
'tj W)
c
a
o
O
�
N
a
. ��•! y
„b ai
O
cn
O
N
Uo
Cd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF
DEVELOPMENT PRINCIPLES AND DESIGN GUIDELINES
TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF 392 SINGLE-
FAMILY HOMES, A TEN ACRE COMMERCIAL LOT AND
MISCELLANEOUS LOTS ON A SITE LOCATED AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF MONROE STREET AND
AVENUE 60.
CASE NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 2004-072
APPLICANT: ROBERT SCHUMACHER
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California, did, on the 14" day of September, 2004 hold a duly noticed Public
Hearing to consider a request by Robert Schumacher for approval of development
principles and design guidelines for a Specific Plan to allow 392 single-family
homes, a ten acre commercial lot and miscellaneous lots, on a 110.90 acre site,
generally located at the northeast corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 60, more
particularly described as follows:
APNs: 764-240-002, 003, 004 & 005
WHEREAS, said Specific Plan application has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act
of 1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in
that the Community Development Department has prepared Environmental
Assessment 2004-513, and has determined that although the proposed project
could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, mitigation measures
have been imposed on the project that would reduce impacts to less than
significant levels, and therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
impact is recommended for certification; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said
Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings pursuant to
Section 9.240.010 of the Zoning Code to justify recommending to the City Council
approval of said Specific Plan:
1. Consistency with the General Plan: The proposed project is consistent with
the goals and policies of the General Plan in that the land use, density and
design of the project are compatible with the Medium Density Residential
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Specific Plan 2004-072 - Robert Schumacher
September 14, 2004
(MDR) Land Use designation. The Commercial portion of the project will be
processed under a separate permit and will be consistent with the
Neighborhood Commercial Land Use designation.
2. Public Welfare: Approval of the proposed project will not create conditions
materially detrimental to public health, safety and general welfare in that the
proposed project be required to comply with all the applicable building and
engineering code provisions, including the Specific Plan; and there are no
unmitigated impacts as identified by Environmental Assessment No. 2004-
513.
3. Land Use Compatibility: The proposed project is compatible in terms of land
uses, in that it is consistent with the type of development allowed under the
Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
designation of the City's General Plan.
4. Property Suitability: The proposed project is suitable and appropriate for the
subject property in that the site is zoned for residential and neighborhood
commercial uses in accordance with the Specific Plan, Zoning Code, and the
goals, objectives and policies of the City's General Plan.
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 Specific Plan;
2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of Specific Plan
2004-072 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the
Conditions of Approval attached hereto;
PASSED, APPROVED and
Quinta Planning Commission held on
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
this 14t" day of September, 2004, by the
P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Schumacher\PC RESO SP 2004-072.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Specific Plan 2004-072 - Robert Schumacher
September 14, 2004
ASSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
OSCAR ORCI, Interim
Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Schumacher\PC RESO SP 2004-072.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
SPECIFIC PLAN 2004-072 — ROBERT SCHUMACHER
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SEPTEMBER 14, 2004
rcTd111S Vill
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 Specific Plan. 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 Specific Plan shall comply with the requirements and standards of
Government Code § § 66410 through 66499.58 (the "Subdivision Map Act"), and
Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code ("LQMC").
The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed on the City's Web Site
at
www.la-quinta.org.
3. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City,
the applicant shall obtain any necessary clearances and/or permits from the
following agencies:
• Fire Marshal
• Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit)
• Community Development Department
• Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
• Coachella Valley Unified School District
• Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
• Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
• California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB)
• SunLine Transit Agency
• SCAQMD Coachella Valley
The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances
from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of
improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when
submitting those improvements plans for City approval.
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Schumacher\PC COA - SP 04 072.doc 1
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Specific Plan 2004-072 — Robert Schumacher
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 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.
a
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Schumacher\PC COA - SP 04 072.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Specific Plan 2004-072 — Robert Schumacher
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 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► Monroe Street (Primary Arterial, Option A 1 10' ROW) — The standard
55 feet from the centerline of Monroe Street for a total 110-foot
ultimate developed right of way except an additional variable right of
way dedication at the proposed primary residential project entry and
at the proposed Commercial Project Site access driveway measured
sixty one feet (61') east of the centerline of Monroe Street and
length to be determined by a traffic study prepared for the applicant
by a licensed traffic engineer per Engineering Bulletin # 03-08. As a
minimum, the required right of way shall be for a length of 100 feet
plus a variable dedication of an additional 50 feet to accommodate
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Schumacher\PC COA - SP 04 072.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Specific Plan 2004-072 — Robert Schumacher
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
improvements conditioned under STREET AND TRAFFIC
IMPROVEMENTS.
2) Avenue 60 (Primary Arterial, Option A 1 10' ROW) — The standard 55
feet from the centerline of Avenue 60 for a total 110-foot ultimate
developed right of way except for an additional variable right of way
dedication at the proposed secondary residential entry and at the
proposed primary Commercial Project Site access driveway measured
sixty one feet (61') north of the centerline of Avenue 52 and length
to be determined by a traffic study prepared for the applicant by a
licensed traffic engineer per Engineering Bulletin # 03-08. As a
minimum, the required right of way shall be for a length of 100 feet
plus a variable dedication of an additional 50 feet to accommodate
improvements conditioned under STREET AND TRAFFIC
IMPROVEMENTS.
9. The applicant shall retain for private use on the Final Map all private street right-
of-ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable
specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer.
10. The private street right-of-ways to be retained for private use required for this
development include:
A. PRIVATE STREETS
Private Residential Streets measured at gutter or curb flow line to gutter or
curb flow line shall be 32 feet with parking restricted to one side, and
provided there is adequate off-street parking for residents and visitors, and
the applicant establishes provisions for ongoing enforcement of the parking
restriction in the CC&R's. The CC&R's shall be reviewed by the
Engineering Department prior to recordation. Curb design to be approved by
the City Engineer.
B. ALLEYS REAR LANES
Alley rear lanes shall have a minimum travel width of 20 feet provided that:
1) parking is prohibited on both sides, 2) there is adequate off-street
parking for residents and visitors, and 3) provisions are established for
ongoing enforcement of the parking restriction in the CC&R's. The CC&R's
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Schumacher\PC COA - SP 04 072.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Specific Plan 2004-072 — Robert Schumacher
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
shall be reviewed by the Engineering Department prior to recordation. The
alley rear lane travel width and pavement structure shall also be approved
by the Fire Department.
11. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and
left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved
construction plans.
Pursuant to this requirement, the Applicant shall include in the submittal packet
containing the draft final map submitted for map checking, an offsite street
geometric layout, drawn at 1 " equals 40 feet, detailing the following design
aspects: median curb line, outside curb line, lane line alignment including lane
widths, left turn lanes, deceleration lane(s) and bus stop turnout(s). The
geometric layout shall be accompanied with sufficient professional engineering
studies to confirm the appropriate length of all proposed turn pockets and
auxiliary lanes that may impact the right of way dedication required of the project
and the associated landscape setback requirement
12. When the City Engineer determines that access rights to the proposed street right-
of-ways shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map are necessary prior to
approval of the Final Map dedicating such right-of-ways, the applicant shall grant
the necessary right-of-ways within 60 days of a written request by the City.
13. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Final Map when submitted, a ten -
foot wide public utility easement contiguous with, and along both sides of all
private streets. Such easement may be reduced to five feet in width with the
express written approval of IID.
14. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public right-of-
ways as follows:
A. Monroe Street (Primary Arterial) - 20-foot from the R/W-P/L.
B. Avenue 60 (Primary Arterial) - 20-foot from the R/W-P/L.
The setback requirements shall apply to all frontages including, but not limited to,
remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes.
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Schumacher\PC COA - SP 04 072.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Specific Plan 2004-072 — Robert Schumacher
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
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. Direct vehicular access to Monroe Street and Avenue 60 from lots with frontage
along Monroe Street and Avenue 60 is restricted, except for those access points
identified on Tentative Tract No. 32398 and Specific Plan 2004-072, or as
otherwise conditioned in these conditions of approval. The vehicular access
restriction shall be shown on the recorded final tract map.
16. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as
appropriate, from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading,
retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments will occur.
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.
17. 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.
18. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and
approval by the Public Works Department. A separate set of plans for each line
item specified below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale
specified, unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may
be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note,
the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here
pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors.
A.
On -Site Rough Grading Plan
1 "
= 40'
Horizontal
B.
PM 10 Plan
1 "
= 40'
Horizontal
C.
SWPPP
1 "
= 40'
Horizontal
P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Schumacher\PC COA - SP 04 072.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Specific Plan 2004-072 — Robert Schumacher
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
Storm Drain Plans
On -Site Commercial Precise Grading Plan
Off -Site Street Plan
Vertical
Off -Site Signing & Striping Plan
1 " = 40' Horizontal
1 " = 20' Horizontal
1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4'
1 " = 40' Horizontal
The Off -Site street improvement plans shall have separate plan sheet(s)
(drawn at 20 scale) that show the meandering sidewalk, mounding, and
berming design in the combined parkway and landscape setback area.
On -Site Street Plan
On -Site Signing & Striping Plan
1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical
1 " = 40' Horizontal
The following plans shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Department for
review and approval. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless
otherwise authorized by the Building and Safety Director in writing. Plans may be
prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the
applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here
pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors.
a. On -Site Residential Precise Grading Plan 1 " = 30' Horizontal
Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed
above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to
commencing plan preparation.
All Off -Site Plan & Profile Street Plans and Signing & Striping Plans shall show all
existing improvements for a distance of at least 200-feet beyond the project
limits, or a distance sufficient to show any required design transitions.
All On -Site Signing & Striping Plans shall show, at a minimum; Stop Signs, Limit
Lines and Legends, No Parking Signs, Raised Pavement Markers (including Blue
RPMs at fire hydrants) and Street Name Signs per Public Works Standard Plans
and/or as approved by the Engineering Department.
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Schumacher\PC COA - SP 04 072.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Specific Plan 2004-072 - Robert Schumacher
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
"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.
"On -Site Precise Grading/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.
19. 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.
20. 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
21. 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.
22. 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 Tentative Tract No. 32398 or Specific
Plan 2004-072, shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 13.28 (Improvement
Security), LQMC.
P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Schumacher\PC COA - SP 04 072.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Specific Plan 2004-072 — Robert Schumacher
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
23. 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 off -site improvements and common
on -site improvements (e.g., backbone utilities, retention basins, perimeter walls,
landscaping and gates) shall be constructed, or secured through a SIA, prior to
the issuance of any permits in the first phase of the development, or as otherwise
approved by the City Engineer.
Improvements and obligations required of each subsequent phase shall either be
completed, or secured through a SIA, prior to the completion of homes or the
occupancy of permanent buildings within such latter phase, or as otherwise
approved by the City Engineer.
In the event the applicant fails to construct the improvements for the
development, or fails to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely
manner, pursuant to the approved phasing plan, the City shall have the right to
halt issuance of all permits, and/or final inspections, withhold other approvals
related to the development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete the
improvements.
24. Depending on the timing of the development of Tentative Tract No. 32398 or
Specific Plan 2004-072, 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.
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Schumacher\PC COA - SP 04 072.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Specific Plan 2004-072 — Robert Schumacher
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
E. To agree to any combination of these means, as the City may require.
Off -Site Improvements should be completed on a first priority basis.
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.
25. 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.
GRADING
26. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading
Improvements), LQMC.
27. 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.
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Schumacher\PC COA - SP 04 072.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Specific Plan 2004-072 — Robert Schumacher
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
28. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain
approval of all of the following:
A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer,
B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified engineer,
C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16,
(Fugitive Dust Control), LQMC, and
D. A Best Management Practices report prepared in accordance with Sections
8.70.010 and 13.24.170 (NPDES stormwater discharge permit and Storm
Management and Discharge Controls), LQMC.
All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary
Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by an
engineering geologist.
A statement shall appear on the Final Map that a soils report has been prepared in
accordance with the California Health & Safety Code § 17953.
The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an
amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust
Control Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit.
29. 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.
30. 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
P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Schumacher\PC COA - SP 04 072.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Specific Plan 2004-072 — Robert Schumacher
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
depressed one and one-half inches (1.5") in the first eighteen inches (18") behind
the curb.
31. 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.
32. Building pad elevations of perimeter lots shall not differ by more that one foot
from the building pads in adjacent developments.
33. 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.
34. 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.
35. 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.
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Schumacher\PC COA - SP 04 072.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Specific Plan 2004-072 - Robert Schumacher
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
36. 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.
Additionally, the 100 year stormwater shall be retained within the interior street
right of way. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent
public streets. The design storm shall be either the 3 hour, 6 hour or 24 hour
event producing the greatest total run off.
37. 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.
38. 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 nuisance water surges totaling the following: 3.43
gph/2,000 sq. ft. of landscape area, 3.43 gph per residential unit, 416.7 gallons
per hour per well site and off -site street nuisance water. The sand filter design
shall be per La Quinta Standard 370 with the equivalent of 137.2 gph of water
feed per sand filter to accept the abovementioned nuisance water requirements.
Leach line requirements are 1.108 feet of leach line per gph of flow.
39. The project shall be designed to accommodate purging and blowoff water
(through underground piping and/or retention facilities) from any on -site or
adjacent well sites granted or dedicated to the local water utility authority as a
requirement for development of this property.
40. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless approved
by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer.
41. 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.
P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Schumacher\PC COA - SP 04 072.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Specific Plan 2004-072 — Robert Schumacher
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
42. 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.
43. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries,
levels or frequencies in any area outside the development.
44. 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.
45. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and
retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route.
UTILITIES
46. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.110 (Utilities),
LQMC.
47. 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.
48. 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.
49. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For
installation of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply with
trench restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer.
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Schumacher\PC COA - SP 04 072.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Specific Plan 2004-072 — Robert Schumacher
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for
approval by the City Engineer.
STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
50. 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.
51. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with
the General Plan with street type noted in parentheses.
A. OFF -SITE STREETS
1) Monroe Street (Primary Arterial, Option A; 1 10' R/W):
Widen the east side of the street along all frontage adjacent to the Specific
Plan boundary to its ultimate width on the east 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 east curb face shall be located forty three
feet (43') east of the centerline, except at locations where additional street
width is needed to accommodate:
a) Bus turnout (if required by Sunline Transit)
b) A deceleration/right turn only lane at Monroe Street Primary
Entry. The east curb face shall be located fifty five feet (55')
east of the centerline and length to be determined by a traffic
study prepared for the applicant by a licensed traffic engineer
per Engineering Bulletin # 03-08. As a minimum, the required
right of way shall be for a length of 100 feet plus a variable
dedication of an additional 50 feet.
Other required improvements in the Monroe Street right or way and/or
adjacent landscape setback area include:
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Schumacher\PC COA - SP 04 072.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Specific Plan 2004-072 - Robert Schumacher
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
a) All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to: curb,
gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs.
b) A 10-foot wide Multi -Purpose Trail. The applicant shall
construct a multi -use trail per La Quinta Standard 260 along
the Monroe Street frontage within the landscaped setback.
The location and design of the trail shall be approved by the
City. A split rail fence shall be constructed to separate the
multi -purpose trail from the pedestrian sidewalk in accordance
with Section 9.140.060 (Item E, 3a) of the Zoning Ordinance.
Bonding for the fence to be installed shall be posted prior to
final map approval. At grade intersection crossings shall be of
a medium and design and location as approved by the
Engineering Department on the street improvement plan
submittal.
c) Half width of an 18' - foot wide raised landscaped median
along the entire boundary of the Specific Plan plus variable
width as needed to accommodate a left turn deceleration lane
for the southbound Monroe Street traffic as well as full turn
movements at the Primary Residential Entry, and variable
width as needed on Monroe Street at the Avenue 60
intersection to accommodate a left turn deceleration lane for
southbound Monroe Street to eastbound Avenue 60.
d) Establish a benchmark in the Monroe Street right of way and
file a record of the benchmark with the County of Riverside.
2) Avenue 60 (Primary Arterial, Option A; 1 10' R/W):
Widen the east side of the street along all frontage adjacent to the Specific
Plan boundary to its ultimate width on the east 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 east curb face shall be located forty three
feet (43') east of the centerline, except at locations where additional street
width is needed to accommodate:
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Schumacher\PC COA - SP 04 072.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Specific Plan 2004-072 — Robert Schumacher
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
1. Bus turnout (if required by Sunline Transit).
2. A deceleration/right turn only lane at the Avenue 60
Residential Project Secondary Entry and the two Commercial
Project Site access driveways, if required by a Traffic Study
per Engineering Bulletin # 03-08. The east curb face shall be
located fifty five feet (55') east of the centerline and length to
be determined by a traffic study prepared for the applicant by
a licensed traffic engineer per Engineering Bulletin # 03-08. As
a minimum, the required right of way shall be for a length of
100 feet plus a variable dedication of an additional 50 feet.
Other required improvements in the Monroe Street right or way and/or
adjacent landscape setback area include:
c) All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to: curb,
gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs.
d) 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk. The meandering sidewalk
shall have an arrhythmic horizontal layout that utilizes concave
and convex curves with respect to the curb line that either
touches the back of curb or approaches within five feet of the
curb at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. The sidewalk
curvature radii should vary between 50 and 300 feet, and at
each point of reverse curvature, the radius should change to
assist in creating the arrhythmic layout. The sidewalk shall
meander into the landscape setback lot and approach within 5
feet of the perimeter wall at intervals not to exceed 250 feet.
e) Half width of an 18' - foot wide raised landscaped median
along the entire boundary of the Specific Plan plus variable
width as needed to accommodate a left turn deceleration lane
for the southbound traffic as well as full turn movements at
the Secondary Residential Entry, and variable width as needed
on Avenue 60 at the Monroe Street intersection to
accommodate a left turn deceleration lane for eastbound
Avenue 60 traffic to southbound Monroe Street.
N
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Schumacher\PC COA - SP 04 072.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Specific Plan 2004-072 — Robert Schumacher
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
The applicant shall extend improvements beyond the subdivision boundaries to
ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements (e.g., grading; traffic
control devices and transitions in alignment, elevation or dimensions of streets
and sidewalks).
B. PRIVATE STREETS
1► Construct full street improvements to provide for 32-foot wide travel
width measured gutter flow line to gutter flow line where the
residential streets where on -street parking is allowed on one side and
the applicant makes provisions for perpetual enforcement of the No
Parking restrictions.
C. REAR ALLEY LANES
C. Rear alley lanes shall have a travel width of 20 feet with parking
prohibited on both sides, there is adequate off-street parking for
residents and visitors, and provisions are established 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.
The alley rear lane travel width and pavement structure shall also be
approved by the Fire Department.
52. All gated entries shall provide for a three -car minimum stacking capacity for
inbound traffic to be a minimum length of 62 feet from call box to the street; and
shall provide for a full turn -around outlet for non -accepted vehicles.
Where a gated entry is proposed, the applicant shall submit a detailed exhibit at a
scale of 1 " = 10', demonstrating that those passenger vehicles that do not gain
entry into the development can safely make a full turn -around (minimum radius to
be 24 feet) out onto the main street from the gated entry.
Two lanes of traffic shall be provided on the entry side of each gated entry, one
lane shall be dedicated for residents, and one lane for visitors. The two travel
lanes shall be a minimum of 20 feet of total paved roadway surface or as
approved by the Fire Department.
P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Schumacher\PC COA - SP 04 072.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Specific Plan 2004-072 — Robert Schumacher
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
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.
53. 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 and Access Driveways 3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b.
Primary Arterial 4.5" a.c./6.0" c.a.b.
or the approved equivalents of alternate materials.
54. 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.
55. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the
following:
A. Monroe Street
1) Primary Residential Entry: Full turn movements are permitted.
2) Commercial Project Site access driveway: Right turn movements in
and out are permitted. Left turn movements in and out are restricted.
B. Avenue 60
1) Secondary Residential Entry: Full turn movements are permitted.
2) Commercial Project Site access driveway (450 feet east of Monroe
P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Schumacher\PC COA - SP 04 072.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Specific Plan 2004-072 — Robert Schumacher
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
Street): Right turn movements in and out are permitted. Left turn
movements out are restricted. Left turn movements in are permitted
if left turn lane(s) provided that left turn lane(s) at the Monroe
Street/Avenue 60 intersection are not affected.
3) Commercial Project Site access driveway (850 feet east of Monroe
Street): Right turn movements in and out are permitted. Left turn
movements in and out are restricted.
56. 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.
57. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City adopted
standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, or as approved by the City
Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be
stamped and signed by qualified engineers.
PARKING LOTS and ACCESS POINTS
58. The design of parking facilities shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150 (Parking).
Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts,
dedicated turn lanes, ADA accessibility route to public streets and other features
shown on the approved construction plans, may require additional street widths
and other improvements as may be determined by the City Engineer.
a. General access points and turning movements of traffic to off site public
streets are limited to the access locations approved in these conditions of
approval.
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
P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Schumacher\PC COA - SP 04 072.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Specific Plan 2004-072 — Robert Schumacher
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not schedule
construction operations until mix designs are approved.
CONSTRUCTION
59. 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
60. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) &
13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC.
61. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins,
common lots and park areas.
62. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians,
retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape
architect.
63. The applicant shall submit the landscape plans for approval by the Architecture
and Landscape Committee and the Planning Commission, prior to plan checking
by the Public Works Department. When plan checking has been completed by
CDD, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County
Agricultural Commissioner, prior to submittal for signature by the City Engineer.
NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer.
64. 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.
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Schumacher\PC COA - SP 04 072.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Specific Plan 2004-072 — Robert Schumacher
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
PUBLIC SERVICES
65. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by SunLine
Transit Agency and approved by the City Engineer.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
66. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet
with the approval of the City Engineer.
67. 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.
68. 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.
69. 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
70. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160
(Maintenance), LQMC.
71. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual maintenance
of all private on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and
sidewalks.
P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Schumacher\PC COA - SP 04 072.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Specific Plan 2004-072 — Robert Schumacher
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
FEES AND DEPOSITS
72. 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.
73. 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
74. The applicant shall meet the minimum development standards of the Zoning Code
for the commercial component of the project.
75. The applicant shall be required to comply with the architectural guidelines for the
commercial component as outlined in the Specific Plan. However, a separate
application shall be processed for the shopping center.
76. The applicant shall comply with all of the mitigation measures in the Mitigation
Monitoring Program for the project to reduce impacts to less than significant
levels.
P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Schumacher\PC COA - SP 04 072.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF
A SUBDIVISION OF ± 110.90 ACRES INTO 392 SINGLE-
FAMILY LOTS, A TEN ACRE COMMERCIAL LOT AND
MISCELLANEOUS LOTS
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32398
APPLICANT: ROBERT SCHUMACHER
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California, did, on the 141h day of September 2004, hold a duly noticed Public
Hearing to consider a request by Robert Schumacher for approval of Tentative Tract
Map 32398 to subdivide ± 110.90 acres into 392 single-family lots, a ten acre
commercial lot and miscellaneous lots, generally located at the northeast corner of
Monroe Street and Avenue 60, more particularly described as follows:
APNs: 764-240-002, 003, 004 & 005
WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map 32398 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 2004-513 was prepared and determined that although the project
could have a significant adverse effect on the environment, mitigation measures
have been 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 32398:
1. The proposed tract map will be consistent with the City of La Quinta General
Plan in that the property is designated Medium Density Residential (MDR)
which allows single-family residential uses, and Neighborhood Commercial
(NC) which allows Commercial 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 project will be provided from
existing streets in the immediate area. The density and design for the tract
will comply with the Land Use Element of the General Plan.
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Tentative Tract Map 32398 - Robert Schumacher
September 14, 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 subject site has been previously disturbed and is
physically suitable for the proposed land division.
4. The design of the subdivision and type of improvements are not likely to cause
serious public health problems in that the applicant there are no unmitigated
impacts as identified in Environmental Assessment 2004-513 prepared
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
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 are existing streets 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. All other private easements will be abandoned to
allow the subdivision of the property.
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 32398 to the
City Council for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City
of La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 14th day of September, 2004, by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
PC RESO TTM 32398
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Tentative Tract Map 32398 - Robert Schumacher
September 14, 2004
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
OSCAR ORCI, Interim
Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
PC RESO TTM 32398
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32398 - ROBERT SCHUMACHER
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SEPTEMBER 14, 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 necessary clearances and/or permits from the
following agencies:
• Fire Marshal
• Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit)
• Community Development Department
• Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
• Coachella Valley Unified School District
• Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
• Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
• California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB)
• SunLine Transit Agency
• SCAQMD Coachella Valley
The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances
from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of
improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when
submitting those improvements plans for City approval.
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Schumacher\PC COA - TM-32398.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Tentative Tract Map 32398 — Robert Schumacher
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 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.
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,
2 -- , .
ie
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Schumacher\PC COA - TM-32398.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Tentative Tract Map 32398 — Robert Schumacher
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
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) Monroe Street (Primary Arterial, Option A 1 10' ROW) — The
standard 55 feet from the centerline of Monroe Street for a total
110-foot ultimate developed right of way except an additional
variable right of way dedication at the proposed primary residential
project measured sixty one feet (61') east of the centerline of
Monroe Street and length to be determined by a traffic study
prepared for the applicant by a licensed traffic engineer per
Engineering Bulletin # 03-08. As a minimum, the required right of
way shall be for a length of 100 feet plus a variable dedication of
an additional 50 feet to accommodate improvements conditioned
under STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS.
3
P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Schumacher\PC COA - TM-32398.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Tentative Tract Map 32398 — Robert Schumacher
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
2) Avenue 60 (Primary Arterial, Option A 1 10' ROW) — The standard
55 feet from the centerline of Avenue 60 for a total 110-foot
ultimate developed right of way except for an additional variable
right of way dedication at the proposed secondary residential entry
measured sixty one feet (61') north of the centerline of Avenue 52
and length to be determined by a traffic study prepared for the
applicant by a licensed traffic engineer per Engineering Bulletin #
03-08. As a minimum, the required right of way shall be for a
length of 100 feet plus a variable dedication of an additional 50
feet to accommodate improvements conditioned under STREET
AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS.
9. The applicant shall retain for private use on the Final Map all private street right-
of-ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code,
applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer.
10. The private street right-of-ways to be retained for private use required for this
development include:
A. PRIVATE STREETS
Private Residential Streets measured at gutter or curb flow line to gutter
or curb flow line shall be 32 feet with parking restricted to one side, and
provided there is adequate off-street parking for residents and visitors,
and the applicant establishes provisions for ongoing enforcement of the
parking restriction in the CC&R's. The CC&R's shall be reviewed by the
Engineering Department prior to recordation.
B. ALLEYS REAR LANES
Alley rear lanes shall have a minimum travel width of 20 feet provided
that parking is prohibited on both sides, there is adequate off-street
parking for residents and visitors, and provisions are established 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. The alley rear lane travel width and pavement structure shall
also be approved by the Fire Department.
11. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and
+ 9
4
P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Schumacher\PC COA - TM-32398.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Tentative Tract Map 32398 — Robert Schumacher
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved
construction plans.
Pursuant to this requirement, the Applicant shall include in the submittal packet
containing the draft final map submitted for map checking, an offsite street
geometric layout, drawn at 1 " equals 40 feet, detailing the following design
aspects: median curb line, outside curb line, lane line alignment including lane
widths, left turn lanes, deceleration lane(s) and bus stop turnout(s). The
geometric layout shall be accompanied with sufficient professional engineering
studies to confirm the appropriate length of all proposed turn pockets and
auxiliary lanes that may impact the right of way dedication required of the
project and the associated landscape setback requirement
12. When the City Engineer determines that access rights to the proposed street
right-of-ways shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map are necessary prior
to approval of the Final Map dedicating such right-of-ways, the applicant shall
grant the necessary right-of-ways within 60 days of a written request by the
City.
13. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Final Map when submitted, a ten -
foot wide public utility easement contiguous with, and along both sides of all
private streets. Such easement may be reduced to five feet in width with the
express written approval of IID.
14. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public right-
of-ways as follows:
A. Monroe Street (Primary Arterial) - 20-foot from the R/W-P/L.
B. Avenue 60 (Primary Arterial) - 20-foot from the R/W-P/L.
The setback requirements shall apply to all frontages including, but not limited
to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes.
Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks,
the applicant shall offer for dedication blanket easements for those purposes on
the Final Map.
15. Direct vehicular access to Jefferson Street and Avenue 52 from lots with
frontage along Jefferson Street and Avenue 60 is restricted, except for those
5
P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Schumacher\PC COA - TM-32398.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Tentative Tract Map 32398 — Robert Schumacher
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
access points identified on Tentative Tract No. 32398, or as otherwise
conditioned in these conditions of approval. The vehicular access restriction
shall be shown on the recorded final tract map.
16. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as
appropriate, from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading,
retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments will
occur.
FINAL MAPS
17. Prior to the City's approval of a Final Map, the applicant shall furnish accurate
AutoCAD files of the Final Map that was approved by the City's map checker on
a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. Such files shall be in a
standard AutoCAD format so as to be fully retrievable into a basic AutoCAD
program.
Where a Final Map was not produced in an AutoCAD format, or produced in a
file that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will accept
a raster -image file of such Final Map. The Final Map shall be of a 1 " = 40'
scale.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as
"engineer," "surveyor," and "architect," refer to persons currently certified or licensed
to practice their respective professions in the State of California.
18. 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.
19. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review
and approval by the Public Works Department. A separate set of plans for
each line item specified below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the
minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in
writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan
clarity is desired. Note, the applicant may be required to prepare other
6
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Schumacher\PC COA - TM-32398.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Tentative Tract Map 32398 — Robert Schumacher
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other
agencies and utility purveyors.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
10
H.
On -Site Rough Grading Plan
PM 10 Plan
SWPPP
Storm Drain Plans
Off -Site Street Plan
4' Vertical
Off -Site Signing & Striping Plan
1 " = 40' Horizontal
1 " = 40' Horizontal
1 " = 40' Horizontal
1 " = 40' Horizontal
1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " =
1 " = 40' Horizontal
The Off -Site street improvement plans shall have separate plan sheet(s)
(drawn at 20 scale) that show the meandering sidewalk, mounding, and
berming design in the combined parkway and landscape setback area.
On -Site Street Plan
Vertical
On -Site Signing & Striping Plan
1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4'
1 " = 40' Horizontal
The following plans shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Department
for review and approval. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified,
unless otherwise authorized by the Building and Safety Director in writing.
Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is
desired. Note, the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement
plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and
utility purveyors.
A. On -Site Residential Precise Grading Plan 1 " = 30' Horizontal
Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not
listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to
commencing plan preparation.
7
P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Schumacher\PC COA - TM-32398.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Tentative Tract Map 32398 — Robert Schumacher
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
All Off -Site Plan & Profile Street Plans and Signing & Striping Plans shall show
all existing improvements for a distance of at least 200-feet beyond the project
limits, or a distance sufficient to show any required design transitions.
All On -Site Signing & Striping Plans shall show, at a minimum; Stop Signs, Limit
Lines and Legends, No Parking Signs, Raised Pavement Markers (including Blue
RPMs at fire hydrants) and Street Name Signs per Public Works Standard Plans
and/or as approved by the Engineering Department.
"Rough Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls with Top Of Wall
& Top Of Footing elevations shown. All footings shall have a minimum of 1-
foot of cover, or sufficient cover to clear any adjacent obstructions.
"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.
20. 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.
21. 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
22. 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
8 -
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Schumacher\PC COA - TM-32398.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Tentative Tract Map 32398 — Robert Schumacher
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
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.
23. 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 Tentative Tract No. 32398, shall
comply with the provisions of Chapter 13.28 (Improvement Security), LQMC.
24. 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 off -site improvements and
common on -site improvements (e.g., backbone utilities, retention basins,
perimeter walls, landscaping and gates) shall be constructed, or secured through
a SIA, prior to the issuance of any permits in the first phase of the
development, or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
Improvements and obligations required of each subsequent phase shall either be
completed, or secured through a SIA, prior to the completion of homes or the
occupancy of permanent buildings within such latter phase, or as otherwise
approved by the City Engineer.
In the event the applicant fails to construct the improvements for the
development, or fails to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely
manner, pursuant to the approved phasing plan, the City shall have the right to
halt issuance of all permits, and/or final inspections, withhold other approvals
related to the development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete
the improvements.
25. Depending on the timing of the development of Tentative Tract No. 32398, 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.
9
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Schumacher\PC COA - TM-32398.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Tentative Tract Map 32398 — Robert Schumacher
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
C. Reimburse others for those improvements previously constructed that are
considered to be an obligation of this tentative tract map.
D. Secure the costs for future improvements that are to be made by others.
E. To agree to any combination of these means, as the City may require.
Off -Site Improvements should be completed on a first priority basis.
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.
26. If the applicant elects to utilize the secured agreement alternative, the applicant
shall submit detailed construction cost estimates for all proposed on -site and
off -site improvements, including an estimate for the final survey
monumentation, for checking and approval by the City Engineer. Such
estimates shall conform to the unit cost schedule adopted by City resolution, or
ordinance.
For items not listed in the City's unit cost schedule, the proposed unit costs
shall be approved by the City Engineer.
At the time the applicant submits its detailed construction cost estimates for
conditional approval of the Final Map by the City Council, the applicant shall
also submit one copy each of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " reduction of each page of the
Final Map, along with a copy of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " Vicinity Map.
Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be
approved by those agencies and submitted to the City along with the applicant's
detailed cost estimates.
Security will not be required for telephone, natural gas, or Cable T.V.
improvements.
27. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading
10
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Schumacher\PC COA - TM-32398.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Tentative Tract Map 32398 — Robert Schumacher
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
Improvements), LQMC.
28. 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.
29. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain
approval of all of the following:
A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer,
B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified
engineer,
C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16,
(Fugitive Dust Control), LQMC, and
D. A Best Management Practices report prepared in accordance with
Sections 8.70.010 and 13.24.170 (NPDES stormwater discharge permit
and Storm Management and Discharge Controls), LQMC.
All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary
Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by
an engineering geologist.
A statement shall appear on the Final Map that a soils report has been prepared
in accordance with the California Health & Safety Code § 17953.
The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an
amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust
Control Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit.
30. 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.
31. 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
11
P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Schumacher\PC COA - TM-32398.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Tentative Tract Map 32398 — Robert Schumacher
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
slope shall not exceed 3:1 anywhere in the landscape setback area, except for
the backslope (i.e. the slope at the back of the landscape lot) which shall not
exceed 2:1 if fully planted with ground cover. The maximum slope in the first
six (6) feet adjacent to the curb shall not exceed 4:1 when the nearest edge of
sidewalk is within six (6) of the curb, otherwise the maximum slope within the
right of way shall not exceed 3:1. All unpaved parkway areas adjacent to the
curb shall be depressed one and one-half inches (1.5") in the first eighteen
inches 0 8") behind the curb.
32. 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.
33. Building pad elevations of perimeter lots shall not differ by more that one foot
from the building pads in adjacent developments.
34. 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.
35. 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.
36. 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
12
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Schumacher\PC COA - TM-32398.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Tentative Tract Map 32398 — Robert Schumacher
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
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.
DRAINAGE
37. 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. Additionally, the 100 year stormwater shall be retained within the
interior street right of way. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the
centerline of adjacent public streets. The design storm shall be either the 3
hour, 6 hour or 24 hour event producing the greatest total run off.
38. 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.
39. 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 nuisance water surges totaling the following: 3.43
gph/2,000 sq. ft. of landscape area, 3.43 gph per residential unit, 416.7 gallons
per hour per well site and off -site street nuisance water. The sand filter design
shall be per La Quinta Standard 370 with the equivalent of 137.2 gph of water
feed per sand filter to accept the abovementioned nuisance water requirements.
Leach line requirements are 1.108 feet of leach line per gph of flow.
40. The project shall be designed to accommodate purging and blowoff water
(through underground piping and/or retention facilities) from any on -site or
adjacent well sites granted or dedicated to the local water utility authority as a
requirement for development of this property.
41. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless
approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer.
42. 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
13
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Schumacher\PC COA - TM-32398.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Tentative Tract Map 32398 — Robert Schumacher
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
lots, retention depth shall not exceed two feet.
43. 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.
44. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries,
levels or frequencies in any area outside the development.
45. 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.
46. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received
and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief
route.
UTILITIES
47. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.1 10 (Utilities),
LQMC.
48. 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.
49. 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.
50. 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.
14
P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Schumacher\PC COA - TM-32398.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Tentative Tract Map 32398 — Robert Schumacher
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for
approval by the City Engineer.
STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
51. 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.
52. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with
the General Plan with street type noted in parentheses.
A. OFF -SITE STREETS
1) Monroe Street (Primary Arterial, Option A; 1 10' R/W):
Widen the east side of the street along all frontage adjacent to the
Specific Plan boundary to its ultimate width on the east 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 east curb face shall be located forty
three feet (43') east of the centerline, except at locations where
additional street width is needed to accommodate:
a) Bus turnout (if required by Sunline Transit)
b) A deceleration/right turn only lane at Monroe Street Primary
Entry. The east curb face shall be located fifty five feet
(55') east of the centerline and length to be determined by a
traffic study prepared for the applicant by a licensed traffic
engineer per Engineering Bulletin # 03-08. As a minimum,
the required right of way shall be for a length of 100 feet
plus a variable dedication of an additional 50 feet.
Other required improvements in the Monroe Street right or way and/or
15
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Schumacher\PC COA - TM-32398.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Tentative Tract Map 32398 — Robert Schumacher
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
adjacent landscape setback area include:
c) All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to:
curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs.
d► A 10-foot wide Multi -Purpose Trail. The applicant shall
construct a multi -use trail per La Quinta Standard 260 along
the Monroe Street frontage within the landscaped setback.
The location and design of the trail shall be approved by the
City. A split rail fence shall be constructed to separate the
multi -purpose trail from the pedestrian sidewalk in
accordance with Section 9.140.060 (Item E, 3a) of the
Zoning Ordinance. Bonding for the fence to be installed shall
be posted prior to final map approval. At grade intersection
crossings shall be of a medium and design and location as
approved by the Engineering Department on the street
improvement plan submittal.
e) Half width of an 18' - foot wide raised landscaped median
along the entire boundary of the Tentative Tract Map plus
variable width as needed to accommodate a left turn
deceleration lane for the southbound Monroe Street traffic
as well as full turn movements at the Primary Residential
Entry, and variable width as needed on Monroe Street at the
Avenue 60 intersection to accommodate a left turn
deceleration lane for southbound Monroe Street to
eastbound Avenue 60.
f) Establish a benchmark in the Monroe Street right of way
and file a record of the benchmark with the County of
Riverside.
2) Avenue 60 (Primary Arterial, Option A; 1 10' R/W):
Widen the east side of the street along all frontage adjacent to the
Specific Plan boundary to its ultimate width on the east side as specified
in the General Plan and the requirements of these conditions. Rehabilitate
and/or reconstruct existing roadway pavement as necessary to augment
16 +�
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Schumacher\PC COA - TM-32398.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Tentative Tract Map 32398 - Robert Schumacher
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
and convert it from a rural county -road design standard to La Quinta's
urban arterial design standard. The east curb face shall be located forty
three feet (43') east of the centerline, except at locations where
additional street width is needed to accommodate:
a) Bus turnout (if required by Sunline Transit).
b) A deceleration/right turn only lane at the Avenue 60
Residential Project Secondary Entry and the two
Commercial Project Site access driveways, if required by a
Traffic Study per Engineering Bulletin # 03-08. The east
curb face shall be located fifty five feet (55') east of the
centerline and length to be determined by a traffic study
prepared for the applicant by a licensed traffic engineer per
Engineering Bulletin # 03-08. As a minimum, the required
right of way shall be for a length of 100 feet plus a variable
dedication of an additional 50 feet.
Other required improvements in the Monroe Street right or way and/or
adjacent landscape setback area include:
c) All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to:
curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs.
d) 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk. The meandering sidewalk
shall have an arrhythmic horizontal layout that utilizes
concave and convex curves with respect to the curb line
that either touches the back of curb or approaches within
five feet of the curb at intervals not to exceed 250 feet.
The sidewalk curvature radii should vary between 50 and
300 feet, and at each point of reverse curvature, the radius
should change to assist in creating the arrhythmic layout.
The sidewalk shall meander into the landscape setback lot
and approach within 5 feet of the perimeter wall at intervals
not to exceed 250 feet.
e) Half width of an 18' - foot wide raised landscaped median
along the entire boundary of the Specific Plan plus variable
width as needed to accommodate a left turn deceleration
lane for the southbound traffic as well as full turn
17
P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Schumacher\PC COA - TM-32398.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Tentative Tract Map 32398 — Robert Schumacher
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
movements at the Secondary Residential Entry, and variable
width as needed on Avenue 60 at the Monroe Street
intersection to accommodate a left turn deceleration lane for
eastbound Avenue 60 traffic to southbound Monroe Street.
The applicant shall extend improvements beyond the subdivision boundaries to
ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements (e.g., grading; traffic
control devices and transitions in alignment, elevation or dimensions of streets
and sidewalks).
B. PRIVATE STREETS
11 Construct full street improvements to provide for 32-foot wide
travel width measured gutter flow line to gutter flow line where
the residential streets where on -street parking is allowed on one
side and the applicant makes provisions for perpetual enforcement
of the No Parking restrictions.
2) The location of driveways of corner lots shall not be located within
the curb return and away from the intersection when possible.
C. REAR ALLEY LANES
1) Rear alley lanes shall have a travel width of 20 feet with parking
prohibited on both sides, ?there is adequate off-street parking for
residents and visitors, and provisions are established 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. The alley rear lane travel width and pavement
structure shall also be approved by the Fire Department.
53. All gated entries shall provide for a three -car minimum stacking capacity for
inbound traffic to be a minimum length of 62 feet from call box to the street;
and shall provide for a full turn -around outlet for non -accepted vehicles.
Where a gated entry is proposed, the applicant shall submit a detailed exhibit at
a scale of 1 " = 10', demonstrating that those passenger vehicles that do not
18 -
P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Schumacher\PC COA - TM-32398.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Tentative Tract Map 32398 - Robert Schumacher
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
gain entry into the development can safely make a full turn -around (minimum
radius to be 24 feet) out onto the main street from the gated entry.
Two lanes of traffic shall be provided on the entry side of each gated entry, one
lane shall be dedicated for residents, and one lane for visitors The two travel
lanes shall be a minimum of 20 feet of total paved roadway surface or as
approved by the Fire Department.
Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, standard knuckles, corner
cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes and other features shown on the
approved construction plans, may require additional street widths as may be
determined by the City Engineer.
54. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design
procedure for 20-year life pavement, and the site -specific data for soil strength
and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum
structural sections shall be as follows:
Residential
Primary Arterial
3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b.
4.5" a.c./6.0" c.a.b.
or the approved equivalents of alternate materials.
55. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the
time of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete.
The submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design
procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include
recent (less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation
test results confirming that design gradations can be achieved in current
production. The applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix
designs are approved.
56. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the
following:
A. Primary Residential Entry (Monroe Street): Full turn movements are
permitted.
B. Secondary Residential Entry (Avenue 60): Full turn movements are
permitted.
19
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Schumacher\PC COA - TM-32398.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Tentative Tract Map 32398 — Robert Schumacher
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
57. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs,
markings and other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs and
sidewalks. Mid -block street lighting is not required.
58. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City
adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, or as approved by
the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking
areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers.
CONSTRUCTION
59. 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
60. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) &
13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC.
61. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention
basins, common lots and park areas.
62. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians,
retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape
architect.
63. The applicant shall submit the landscape plans for approval by the Architecture
and Landscape Committee and Planning Commission, prior to plan checking by
the Public Works Department. When plan checking has been completed, the
applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County
Agricultural Commissioner, prior to submittal for signature by the City Engineer.
NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer.
�s
20
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Schumacher\PC COA - TM-32398.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Tentative Tract Map 32398 — Robert Schumacher
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
64. 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
65. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by SunLine
Transit Agency and approved by the City Engineer.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
66. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet
with the approval of the City Engineer.
67. 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.
68. 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.
69. 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
70. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160
(Maintenance), LQMC.
21
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Schumacher\PC COA - TM-32398.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Tentative Tract Map 32398 — Robert Schumacher
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
71. 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
72. 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.
73. 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
74. The applicant shall comply with all of the mitigation measures in the Mitigation
Monitoring Program for the project to reduce impacts to less than significant
levels.
22
P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Schumacher\PC COA - TM-32398.doc
ATTACHMENT #1
SITE LOCATION MAP
PH #F
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 2004
CASE NO: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-516
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-81 1
APPLICANT/PROPERTY
OWNER: BOURESTON DEVELOPMENT
REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 42,000
SQUARE FOOT MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING ON A 3.44 ACRES.
LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND LAKE LA
QUINTA DRIVE
ENGINEER: WATSON & WATSON DSIGN DEVELOPMENT, INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HAS COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-516;
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 ADOPTION.
GENERAL PLAN/
ZONING
DESIGNATIONS: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC)/ COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
(CC)
SURROUNDING
LAND USES: NORTH: RESTAURANT (OMRI & BONI)
SOUTH: VACANT LAND
EAST: SINGLE-FAMILY RESDIDENTIAL (LAKE LA QUINTA)
WEST: LA QUINTA ARTS FOUNDATION/ST. FRANCIS OF
ASSISI CHURCH
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Boureston\SDP 04 811 PC StfRpt .doc
BACKGROUND:
The vacant site is ± 3.44 acres in size and located at the southeast corner of
Washington Street and Lake La Quinta Drive (Attachment 1). This property is part of a
previously approved and recorded Tract Map (TTM 24230). The entire tract site was
graded in the past. The existing Omri & Boni restaurant is located north of the site
across Lake La Quinta Drive. The existing Lake La Quinta residential development is
located to the east, across Caleo Bay. Vacant land exists immediately to the south
and further south is the new Walgreen's store. To the west across Washington Street
is the former La Quinta Arts Foundation site and St. Francis of Assisi Church.
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to construct a two-story, 42,000 square foot medical office
building (Attachment 2). The first floor consists of 25,600 square feet with 16,400
square foot second story. The building would provide lease space for medical office
uses with no surgeries or outpatient services provided at the facility. Two drop off
areas are proposed; one is near the southeast portion of the site and the other is the
main entry facing Washington Street.
Parking & Circulation
The Zoning Code requires one parking space for every 200 square feet of gross floor
area for the first 2,000 square feet with an additional space for every 175 square feet
of gross floor area over 2,000 square feet. At 42,000 square feet of gross floor area,
the total parking requirement would be 239 spaces, which the applicant has provided.
Seven of the spaces are dedicated as handicap spaces. The Zoning Code also requires
at least 30 percent (72 spaces) of the parking spaces be covered, which the applicant
has provided. Vehicular access to the site is provided at two locations both on Caleo
Bay, a local street with a 60 foot wide right-of-way (two-lane undivided). The
applicant will be required to stripe Caleo Bay to accommodate the turning movements
in and out of the project site.
Lighting
The applicant proposes a metal halide, shoe -box type fixture, twenty-five (25) feet in
height. The height of the standards exceeds the Zoning Code standards. The Zoning
Code requires that parking lot lighting standards be no more than 18 feet in height.
Staff requests that the Planning Commission approve the lighting standard design, but
the height be limited to the 18 feet maximum height allowed by the Zoning Code.
Staff also requests that the lighting standards have shields on any fixtures located
along Caleo Bay and Washington Street so as to reduce glare that could be potentially
projected onto the adjacent residential area.
P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Boureston\SDP 04 811 PC StfRpt Am
I
Architecture
The architecture for the flat roof building is a modern style with a combination of
concrete walls, bronze anodized window trim, glazed windows, parapet roof, a small
amount of accent stone veneer, and desert colored finishes. Exterior colors proposed
consist of a varying combination from beige to tan. The main and rear entries will be
accented with a walkway and a metal canopy supported by stone clad columns.
The maximum building height in the Community Commercial Zoning District is 40 feet,
with further restrictions for buildings located along Major Arterials. Buildings located
along Major Arterials (Washington Street) are restricted to a maximum height of 22
feet within 150 feet from the right-of-way. The first story will be 17 feet in height,
which is less than the maximum height of 22 feet within 150 feet from the right-of-
way. The second story, which lies outside the 22 foot height restriction, will be 33
feet in height. Therefore, the building is consistent with the Zoning Code in terms of
building height.
A painted metal mechanical enclosure is proposed on top of the second story that
would bring the building to a maximum of 40 feet in height. The applicant has
indicated that the enclosure will be reduced in height to improve the building's
symmetry, but as of this writing, no specific height dimension has been provided.
Staff requests that the mechanical equipment screening be reduced in height and that
the enclosure be finished with a material that looks similar to that of the building walls.
Carports
The Zoning Code requires all office and health care uses provide covered parking either
by a trellis or a carport structure for at least 30% of the parking. The applicant has
provided 72 covered parking stalls. The stalls are proposed to be covered by a metal
carport structure, approximately seven feet in height. Staff has added a condition to
have the applicant paint the metal carport structures to match the building colors.
Landscaping
The building is setback far enough to allow landscaping within the site's setback area.
Minimum building setback requirements include 30 feet from Washington Street, 20
feet from Lake La Quinta Drive and Caleo Bay, and zero feet from interior property
lines.
The building is setback 92 feet from the Washington Street right-of-way, 202 feet
from the Lake La Quinta Drive right-of-way and 20 feet from the Caleo Bay right-of-
way.
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Boureston\SDP 04 811 PC StfRpt A=
Landscape setbacks include 20 feet from Washington Street right-of-way and ten feet
from Lake La Quinta Drive and Caleo Bay rights -of -way. Although there is no setback
requirement from interior property lines, the applicant is proposing a seven foot
landscaped setback from the adjoining property to the south.
The conceptual landscape plan for the site consists of a wide variety of drought
tolerant trees, shrubs and ground covers. The western frontage along Washington
Street is partially landscaped with some palm trees, turf and a meandering walkway.
This will remain as part of the project. Additional landscaping will be installed along
the remaining site boundaries as well as within the parking lot and building entries.
Signs
Currently, there are no signs proposed. The applicant will be required to submit a
separate application to be processed under the appropriate Zoning Code regulations.
Architecture & Landscaping Review Committee
The Architecture & Landscaping Review Committee reviewed this project at the
September 1, 2004 meeting. At the meeting, the Commission adopted Minute Motion
2004-026 recommending approval to the Planning Commission with the following
recommendations:
1. Increase tree wells to 8' x 8' wherever possible.
2. Lower mechanical screen walls on roof as much as possible.
3. Substitute the stone veneer for some other material that is more of an
institutional style (i.e., brick).
4. Provide a stronger architectural enhancement on the Caleo Bay elevation.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
This project was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on September 2, 2004, and
mailed to all property owners within 500-feet of the site. To date, one letter has been
received and is attached. Any additional written comments received will be handed
out at the meeting.
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
Findings to approve this request can be made and are contained in the attached
Resolution.
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Boureston\SDP 04 811 PC StfRpt Am
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_, certifying Environmental
Assessment 2004-516.
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_, approving Site Development
Permit 2004-81 1, subject to findings and the attached Conditions of Approval.
Attachments:
1. Site Location Map
2. Site Development Plan exhibits (Planning Commission only)
3. Letter from Tim Barlett, dated September 8, 2004
Prepared by:
Martin Magana
Associate Planner
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Boureston\SDP 04 811 PC StfRpt .doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-516 PREPARED FOR
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-811.
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-516
APPLICANT: BOURESTON DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 141h day of September, 2004 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 2004-516 to allow a two-story, 42,000 square foot
medical office building, generally located at the southeast corner of Washington Street
and Lake La Quinta Drive, more particularly described as follows:
APN: 643-200-004
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" as amended (Resolution 83-68), in that the Community Development
Department has prepared Environmental Assessment 2004-516 for Site Development
Permit 2004-81 1, and based upon this Assessment determined that the project may
have 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 will be certified.
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 certifying 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 no significant
unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2004-516.
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 site has been previously disturbed by grading
activities and potential impacts associated with cultural resources have been
mitigated to a less than significant level.
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Boureston\EA 04-516 PC Reso.doc
t3
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Environmental Assessment 2004-516
September 14, 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 no unmitigated significant effects on wildlife resources
have been identified by the Environmental Assessment. The site is within the
boundary of the Coachella Valley Fringed -toed Lizard Habitat Plan fee area, and
will be required to pay the fees in place at the time building permits are
received.
4. The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as
no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the
Environmental Assessment. The proposed project will broaden the services
offered to residents of the City, consistent with General Plan goals and policies
pertaining to the provision of a full range of retail and office opportunities
5. The proposed project will not result in impacts which are individually limited or
cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in
the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be
significantly affected by the proposed project. The proposed project is
consistent with the General Plan vision for this area. Construction of the project
will have no significant cumulative impacts.
6. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely
affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no unmitigated
impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or
public services.
7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may
have a significant effect on the environment in that mitigation measures are
imposed on the project that will reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
8. The Planning Commission has considered Environmental Assessment 2004-516
and said Assessment reflects the independent judgement 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.
P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Boureston\EA 04-516 PC Reso.doc
l
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Environmental Assessment 2004-516
September 14, 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 certify Environmental Assessment 2004-516 for the
reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental
Assessment Checklist and Addendum on file in the Community
Development Department and attached hereto.
3. That Environmental Assessment 2004-516 reflects the independent
judgment of the City.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 14th day of September, 2004, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
OSCAR ORCI, Interim
Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Boureston\EA 04-516 PC Reso.doc
d
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project title: Site Development Permit 2004-811
2. Lead agency name and address:
3
4.
rel
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Contact person and phone number: Martin Magana
760-777-7125
Project location: Southeast corner of Lake La Quinta Drive and Washington Street.
APN: 643-200-004
Project sponsor's name and address: Boureston Development
5500 Trabuco Road, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92620
General Plan Designation: Community 7. Zoning Designation: Community
Commercial Commercial
8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later
phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
Site Development Permit to allow the construction of a 42,000 square foot, 2-story medical
office building, and associated parking and landscaping on 3.44 acres. The project includes
239 parking spaces, and will take access from Caleo Bay Drive. No access on Washington
Street is proposed.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
North: Lake La Quinta Dr., Restaurant (Omri & Boni)
South: Vacant
West: Washington Street, La Quinta Arts Foundation and St. Francis of Assisi Church
East: Caleo Bay, Bed & Breakfast (La Quinta Inn), Lake La Quinta residential development
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District
-1-
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Biological Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Mineral Resources
Public Services
Utilities / Service
Systems
Agriculture Resources
Cultural Resources
Hydrology / Water
Quality
Noise
Recreation
Air Quality
Geology /Soils
Land Use / Planning
Population / Housing
Transportation/Traffic
Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
X environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature
August 23, 2004
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 XVH, "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
-4-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
X
scenic vista? (General Plan Exhibit 3.6)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
X
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway? (Aerial
photograph)
c) Substantially degrade the existing
X
visual character or quality of the site and
its surroundings? (Application materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial
X
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
(Application materials)
I. a)-d) Washington Street is designated a Primary Image Corridor in the General Plan. The
proposed project, however, will be located easterly of an existing landscaped parkway, set
back 92 feet from Washington Street. Further, the two story component of the proposed
project will be 150 feet from Washington. In addition, the project is proposed for the east
side of Washington Street, and will not impact the mountain views on the west side of the
street. There are no rock outcroppings or other significant resources on the site. Impacts
associated with scenic resources are expected to be less than significant.
The construction of the office building will cause an increase in light generation,
primarily from parking lot lighting, car headlights and landscape lighting. The bulk of the
activity of the site, however, will be during daytime hours. The City regulates lighting
levels and does not allow lighting to spill over onto adjacent property. Impacts will not
be significant.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
H. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:
Would theproject:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
X
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. III-21
ff.)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
X
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 project site is not located in an area of the City where agriculture occurs. The site is
in the center of La Quinta's urban core. There are no Williamson Act contracts on the
property or on adjacent properties. There will be no impact on agricultural resources.
-6-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Ill. AIR QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
X
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
b) Violate any air quality standard or
X
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD
CEQA Handbook)
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable
X
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non -
attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook,
2002 PM 10 Plan for the Coachella Valley)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
X
substantial pollutant concentrations?
(Project Description, Aerial Photo, site
inspection)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
X
substantial number of people? (Project
Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection)
III. a), b) & c) Since automobile emissions are the largest contributor to air quality issues in the region,
vehicle trips will be the most significant generators of air pollutants as a result of the
project. The proposed project will result in 42,000 square feet of medial office space.
This land use has the potential to generate up to 1,518 trips per day'. Based on this traffic
generation, and an average trip length of 15 miles, the following emissions can be
expected to be generated from the project site.
"Trip Generation, 6 h Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, category 720, Medical/Dental Office Building.
-7-
Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout
(Dounds Der dav)
Ave. Trip Total
Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Length (miles) miles/day
1,518 x 15 = 22,770
PM10 PM10 PM10
Pollutant ROC CO NOX Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wear
Grams at 50 mph 2,049.30 53,281.8010,929.60 - 227.70 227.70
Pounds at 50 mph 4.52 117.62 24.13 - 0.50 0.50
SCAQMD Threshold
(lbs./day) 75 550 100 150
Assumes 1,055 ADT. Based on California Air Resources Board's EMFAC7G Emissions Model. Assumes Year 2005
summertime running conditions at 75°F light duty autos, catalytic.
As demonstrated above, the proposed project will not exceed any of SCAQMD's
recommended daily thresholds for chemical emissions. The project's potential impacts to
air quality resulting from vehicular emissions are therefore expected to be less than
significant.
The City and Coachella Valley are a severe non -attainment area for 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
13CM-1 Further Control of Emissions from Construction Activities: Watering,
chemical stabilization, wind fencing, re -vegetation, track -out control.
BCM-2 Disturbed Vacant Lands: Chemical stabilization, wind fencing, access
restriction, re -vegetation.
BCM-3 Unpaved Roads and Unpaved Parking Lots: Paving, chemical
stabilization, access restriction, re -vegetation.
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 90.82 pounds per day, for a limited
period while grading operations are active. The portion of the perimeter of the site has
been landscaped, which will aid in reducing the blowing sand impacts on adjacent
-8-
properties. 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
PM 10 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.
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.
8. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean-up of construction -
related dirt on approach routes to the site.
9. 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 offices which are not expected to generate 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 theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
X
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Servlce(General Plan MEA, p. 73 ff.)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
X
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game
or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (General
Plan MEA, p. 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
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
X
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state
-10-
'J
habitat conservation plan? (General Plan
Exhibit 6.3)
IV. a)-f) The site has previously been rough graded and grubbed. No significant vegetation occurs
on the site, making it unsuitable for habitat for indigenous species. The site is within the
boundary of the Coachella Valley Fringed -toed Lizard Habitat Plan fee area, and will be
required to pay the fees in place at the time building permits are received. Impacts to
biological resources are expected to be insignificant.
-11-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would
the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of a historical resource
as defined in Section 15064.5? (General
Plan MEA p. 123 ff.)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
(General Plan MEA p. 123 ff.)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
X
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? (General Plan Exhibit 6.8)
d) Disturb any human remains, including
X
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? (General Plan MEA p. 123 ff.)
V. a)-b) & d) The proposed project site has been previously graded. Surficial artifacts are therefore
unlikely. The potential does exist, however, for sub -surface artifacts. In order to mitigate
this potential impact, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
1. Should any earth moving activity on the site uncover a potential archaeological
resource, all activity on the site shall stop until such time as a qualified
archaeologist has evaluate the resource, and recommended mitigation measures.
The archaeologist shall also be required to submit to the Community
Development Department, for review and approval, a written report on all
activities on the site.
V. c) The proposed project site lies outside the General Plan's mapped boundary for ancient
lake Cahuilla. No paleotological resources are expected to occur on site, and therefore no
impacts to such resources will result from implementation of the proposed project.
-12-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would
the project:
a) Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
X
as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of
a known fault? (MEA Exhibit 6.2)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (MEA
X
Exhibit 6.2)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure,
X
including liquefaction? (MEA Exhibit 6.3)
iv) Landslides? (MEA Exhibit 6.4)
X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
X
the loss of topsoil? (MEA Exhibit 6.5)
c) Be located on expansive soil, as
X
defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property (MEA
Exhibit 6.1)
d) Have soils incapable of adequately
X
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water? (General Plan
Exhibit 8.1)
VI. a)-d) 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. The office building 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 City Engineer will require the preparation of site -specific
geotechnical analysis in conjunction with the submittal of grading plans. This
-13-
i
requirement will ensure that impacts from ground shaking are reduced to a less than
significant level.
The proposed project is not located in an area subject to liquefaction, rockfall or
landslides. The site does not have expansive soils. The proposed project will be required
to connect to the CVWD sanitary sewer system, and septic tanks will not be installed.
The site is located in an area of severe 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.
-14-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS --Would theproject:
a) Create a significant hazard to the
X
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials? (Application materials)
b) Create a significant hazard to the
X
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the
environment? (General Plan MEA, p. 95 ff.)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
X
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (General Plan MEA, p. 95
ff.)
d) Be located on a site which is included
X
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment? (General Plan MEA, p.
95 ff.)
e) For a project located within an airport
X
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in
the project area? (General Plan land use map)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
X
private airstrip, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area? (General Plan
land use map)
g) Impair implementation of or
X
physically interfere with an adopted
-15-
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff)
h) Expose people or structures to a
X
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas
or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands? (General Plan land use map)
VII. a)-h) The use of the site as a medical office building has the potential to generate on -site use
and storage of hazardous materials. The medical profession is, however, highly
regulated, and will be required to comply with Fire Department, County, State and federal
standards and requirements for the handling and disposal of hazardous materials. These
various agencies will inspect any on site facility which handles hazardous materials, and
assure that potential impacts associated with these materials are less than significant.
-16-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
V111. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
UALITY -- Would theproject:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
X
waste discharge requirements? (General
Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
X
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume
or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)? (General Plan
EIR p. III-187 ff
c) Substantially alter the existing
X
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner
which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off -site? (General Plan
EIR p. III-187 ff.)
d) Substantially alter the existing
X
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off -site?
(General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.)
e) Create or contribute runoff water
X
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff? (General Plan
EIR p. III-187 ff.)
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood
X
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance
-17-
Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map? (General Plan EIR p. III-
187 ff.)
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard
X
area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental
Assessment Exhibit 6.6)
VIII. a) & b) Domestic water is supplied to the project site by the Coachella Valley Water District
(CVWD). The development of the site will result in the need for domestic water service
use in the medical offices, and for landscaping irrigation. The CVWD has prepared a
Water Management Plan which indicates that it has sufficient water sources to
accommodate growth in its service area. The CVWD has implemented or is
implementing water conservation, purchase and replenishment measures which will result
in a surplus of water in the long term.
The project proponent will be required to implement the City's Water Efficient
Landscaping Ordinance and construction provisions, including requirements for water
efficient fixtures and appliances, which will ensure that the least amount of water is
utilized within the building.
The applicant will also be required to comply with the City's NPDES standards, requiring
that potential pollutants not be allowed to enter surface waters. These City standards will
assure that impacts to water quality and quantity will be less than significant.
VIII. c) & d) The City requires that all projects retain the 100 year storm on site. The applicant will be
required to prepare on site hydrology analysis which provides for on site retention of
these storm waters. The City Engineer will review the hydrology study for the proposed
project, and approve its findings prior to construction of the project. Impacts associated
with storm water drainage are therefore not expected to be significant.
VIII. e)-g) The site is not located in a flood zone as designated by FEMA.
-18-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
X
Community? (Aerial photo)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use
X
plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program,
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? (General Plan Land
Use Element)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
X
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan? (Master Environmental
Assessment p. 74 ff.)
IX. a)-c) The project site is designated Community Commercial, which allows a wide variety of
land uses tailored toward the region, rather than only City residents. The location of a
medical office building, which is likely to serve residents of both La Quinta and
surrounding cities, is appropriate for this site. The project will be required to comply
with the development standards of the Zoning Code for the Community Commercial
designation.
The project site is within the boundary of the mitigation fee for the Coachella Valley
Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan, and will be required to comply with its fee
provisions at the time building permits are issued.
There will be no impacts to land use and planning.
-19-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would
the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
X
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
the state? (Master Environmental Assessment
p. 71 ff.)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
X
locally -important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment
p. 71 ff.)
X. a) & b) The proposed project site is within the MRZ-1 Zone, and is therefore not considered to
have potential for mineral resources.
-20-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XI. NOISE Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation
X
of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies? (General Plan MEA p. 111
ff.)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
X
of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? (General Plan
MEA p. 111 ff.)
c) A substantial permanent increase in
X
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the
project? (General Plan MEA p. 111 ff.)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
X
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? (General Plan MEA p.
111 ff.)
e) For a project located within an airport
X
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? (General Plan land
use map)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
X
private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels? (General
Plan land use map)
XI. a)-f) The proposed construction of medical office space on the subject property will have
limited impacts on the noise environment. The site is surrounded on three sides by
roadways, one of which is Washington Street, which has relatively high noise levels. The
site will not include a residential component, and therefore will not have sensitive
receptors. Although noise levels are expected to rise during construction, these potential
-21-
impacts will be short term, and will still not increase CNEL noise levels to exceed the
City's standards. The offices will not generate ground -borne vibration. The site is not
located in the vicinity of an airport or airstrip. Impacts associated with noise at the site
are expected to be less than significant.
-22-
,.j
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING —
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population 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 construction of 42,000 square feet of medical office space will benefit the existing
population of the City. Jobs created by the offices will be limited, and are not expected to
be significant. The site is currently vacant, and the proposed project will not impact an
existing population. The project would provide an additional site for medical services to
the public.
-23-
a
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:
Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
X
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
X
Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.)
X
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks
X
Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA,
X
p. 46 ff.)
XIII. a) Build -out of the site will have a less than significant impact on public services. The
proposed project will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, under City
contract. Build -out of the proposed project will generate 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 development impact fees and the mandated school
fees in place at the time of issuance of building permits to reduce the impacts to those
services.
-24-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XIV. RECREATION --
a) Would the project increase the use of
X
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
(Application materials)
b) Does the project include recreational
X
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment? (Application materials)
XIV. a) & b) The development of medical office space will have no impact on the City's recreation
system.
-25-
,1
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC --
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
X
substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street
system (i.e., result in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicle
trips, the volume to capacity ratio on
roads, or congestion at intersections)?
(General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.)
b) Exceed, either individually or
X
cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads
or highways? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.)
c) Result in a change in air traffic
X
patterns, including either an increase in
traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks? (No air
traffic involved in project)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
X
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Site Plan)
e) Result in inadequate emergency
X
access? (Site Plan)
0 Result in inadequate parking capacity?
X
(Site Plan)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,
X
or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? (Project description)
XV. a)-g) The proposed project is consistent with the Community Commercial land use designation,
and is therefore expected to generate traffic volumes consistent with those studied in the
General Plan EIR. Traffic volumes and levels of service on Washington Street in this
-26-
area are predicted to operate at acceptable levels. Therefore, the proposed project will not
have a significant impact on the circulation system.
The project does not include inadequate parking or unsafe designs. The site is located
within the service area of SunLine Transit, and can be served by it. Overall impacts to
traffic are expected to be less than significant.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
X
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board? (General
Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
b) Require or result in the construction of
X
new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
c) Require or result in the construction of
X
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
d) Have sufficient water supplies
X
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements
needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
e) Result in a determination by the
X
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's
projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
X
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
X
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
-28-
ti
XVI. a)-g) Utilities are available at the project site. The service providers for water, sewer,
electricity and other utilities have facilities in the immediate vicinity of the site, and will
collect connection and usage fees to balance for the cost of providing services. The
construction of the proposed project is expected to have less than significant impacts on
utility providers.
-29-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE --
a) Does the project have the potential to
X
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to
X
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage
of long-term environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are
X
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
d) Does the project have environmental
X
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
XVII. a) The site has been previously graded, and potential impacts associated with cultural
resources have been mitigated to a less than significant level.
XVII. b) The proposed project will broaden the services offered to residents of the City, consistent
with General Plan goals and policies pertaining to the provision of a full range of retail
and office opportunities.
XVII. c) The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan vision for this area. Construction
of the project will have no significant cumulative impacts.
-30-
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.
-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.
-32- , J
a�
A
a
Cd
O
0
U
cd
a�
o
o
0
o
o
a
N
z
�
00
H
�
U �
�
I
i
I
I
'
o
o
rq
N
0
�
QO
o
CA
F
O
�V
z
x�
A
U
W
d
H
Q
A
Q�
A
a
w U
OV
o
a
o
0
0
a
Cd
b
F
r
(A
a
U
to
to
bA
�z
Cd
to
a
U
U
GQ
U Q
GG
O
e
a�
U N
O
®
Nto
0
en
o
GQS�
�°
o,
o
u
Cd
u
�
vb
CY
n ai
N 'b
H
d
A
U pq
�WAW
�UWW
OU
a
U
U
z
H
Q
x
�o
Cd
ao
Q
En
�
b
b
M�
W
U bA
vj
�r�
YO
0"C
d
� �
U
CJ
U
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
DEVELOPMENT PLANS TO ALLOW A TWO-STORY,
42,000 SQUARE FOOT MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING ON A
3.44 ACRE SITE
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-811
APPLICANT: BOURESTON DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 141h day of September, 2004 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
a request by Boureston Development for approval of a two-story, 42,000 square foot
medical office building, generally located at the southeast corner of Washington Street
and Lake La Quinta Drive, more particularly described as follows:
APN: 643-200-004,
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 83-68), in that the Community Development
Department has prepared Environmental Assessment 2004-516, and based upon this
Assessment, determined that the project may have 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.
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 pursuant to Section
9.210.010 of the Zoning Code to justify approval of said Site Development Permit:
1. Consistency with the General Plan: The proposed project as proposed is
consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan in that the land use,
design and density of the project is compatible with the Community Commercial
Land Use designation.
2. Consistency with the Zoning Code: The proposed project is consistent with the
development standards of the Community Commercial Zoning District, including
but not limited to, setbacks, architecture, building heights, building mass,
lighting, parking, circulation, and landscaping.
P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Boureston\SDP 04-811 PC Reso.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Site Development Permit 2004-811 — Boureston Development
September 14, 2004
3. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): The proposed
project is consistent with the requirements of CEQA, in that Environmental
Assessment 2004-516 was prepared and determined that although the project
may have significant adverse effects on the environment, mitigation measures
have been imposed on the project to reduce impacts to a less than significant
level; therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be certified.
4. Architectural Design: The architectural design of the proposed building,
including, but not limited to, architectural style, scale, building mass, materials,
colors, architectural details, roof style, and other architectural elements, is
suited for in this commercial area, which encourages a variety of architectural
variation.
5. Site Design: The site design of the proposed project, including, but not limited
to, project entries, interior circulation, pedestrian access, screening of
equipment, trash enclosures, exterior lighting, and other site design elements
such as scale, mass, appearance, and amount of landscaping are compatible
with surrounding development and quality of design prevalent in the City
consistent with the development standards of the City's Zoning Code.
6. Landscape Design: The landscaping plan for the proposed project, including but
not limited to, the location, type, size, and coverage of drought tolerant plant
materials, has been designed to provide visual relief, complement the building,
screen undesirable views and provide an overall unifying influence to enhance
the visual appearance of the project. The proposed landscaping is compatible
with the surrounding area in that the variety of drought tolerant trees, shrubs
and ground covers provide an aesthetically pleasing and well functioning use of
landscaping space.
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 Site Development Permit;
2. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 2004-81 1 for the reasons
set forth in this Resolution, subject to the Conditions of Approval attached
hereto;
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Boureston\SDP 04-811 PC Reso.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Site Development Permit 2004-81 1 - Boureston Development
September 14, 2004
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission held on this 141h day of September, 2004, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
OSCAR ORCI, Interim
Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Boureston\SDP 04-81 1 PC Reso.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-81 1-BOURESTON DEVELOPMENT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED
SEPTEMBER 14, 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. 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
• Caltrans
The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or
clearances from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include
approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such
approvals when submitting those improvements plans for City approval.
3. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES
stormwater discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater
Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean
Water), LQMC; Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water
Resources Control Board's Order No. 99-08-DWQ.
A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of
land that disturbs one (1) acre or more of land, or that disturbs less
than one (1) acre of land, but which is a part of a construction project
that encompasses more than one (1) acre of land, the Permitee shall
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
Site Development Permit 2004-81 1-Boureston Development
September 14, 2004
be required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan
("SWPPP").
B. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to
any on or off -site grading being done in relation to this project.
C. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for
inspection at the project site at all times through and including
acceptance of all improvements by the City.
D. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following
Best Management Practices ("BMPs") (8.70.020 (Definitions), LQMC):
1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control).
2) Temporary Sediment Control.
3) Wind Erosion Control.
4) Tracking Control.
5) Non -Storm Water Management.
6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control.
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 BMP's shall remain in effect for the entire
duration of project construction until all improvements are completed
and accepted by the City.
4. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the
Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at
the time of issuance of building permit(s).
PROPERTY RIGHTS
5. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer
easements and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper
functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Boureston\SDP 04-811 COA.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
Site Development Permit 2004-81 1-Boureston Development
September 14, 2004
irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for
emergency services and for maintenance, construction and reconstruction of
essential improvements.
6. The applicant shall offer for dedication all public street right-of-ways in
conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable
specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer.
7. The public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this
development include:
A. PUBLIC STREETS
1) Washington Street (Augmented Major Arterial, 132' ROW) -
The standard 66 feet from the centerline of Washington Street
for a total 132-foot ultimate developed right of way. The
existing 20-foot landscape setback owned by the Commercial
Property Owners Association shall be maintained along the Site
Development Permit boundary.
2) Lake La Quinta Drive (Collector, 72' ROW Option) - No
additional right of way dedication is required.
3) Caleo Bay (Local Street, 60' ROW) - No additional right of way
dedication is required.
8. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right
and left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the
approved construction plans.
9. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public
right-of-ways as follows:
A. Washington Street (Augmented Major Arterial, 132' ROW) - The
landscape setback shall be reconfigured as needed to reflect the new
right of way configuration.
B. Lake La Quinta Drive and Caleo Bay - 10-foot from the R/W-P/L.
The setback requirements shall apply to all frontages including, but not
limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes.
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Boureston\SDP 04-811 COA.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
Site Development Permit 2004-81 1-Boureston Development
September 14, 2004
Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned
setbacks, the applicant shall offer for dedication blanket easements for those
purposes.
10. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the
placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins,
mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas.
11. Direct vehicular access to Washington Street and Lake La Quinta Drive is
restricted. Direct vehicular access to Caleo Bay is restricted, except for those
access points identified on the approved Site Development Permit, or as
otherwise conditioned in these conditions of approval.
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.
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.
13. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of
qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with
the provisions of Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans), LQMC.
14. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review
and approval by the 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. 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
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Boureston\SDP 04-81 1 COA.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
Site Development Permit 2004-81 1-Boureston Development
September 14, 2004
sidewalk, mounding, and berming design in the combined parkway and
landscape setback area.
A. Precise Grading Plan: 1 " = 30' Horizontal
Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not
listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior
to commencing plan preparation.
All Off -Site Plan & Profile Street Plans shall show all existing improvements
for a distance of at least 200-feet beyond the project limits, or a distance
sufficient to show any required design transitions.
"Precise Grading" plans shall normally include all on -site surface
improvements including but not necessarily limited to finish grades for curbs
& gutters, building floor elevations, parking lot improvements and ADA
requirements, retaining and perimeter walls, etc. ADA accessibility to public
streets, adjacent buildings and existing handicap parking shall be shown on
the Precise Grading Plans at a scale to be determined by the Public Works
Department.
15. The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes
for elements of construction. For a fee, established by City Resolution, the
applicant may purchase such standard plans, detail sheets and/or
construction notes from the City.
16. 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.
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Boureston\SDP 04-811 COA.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
Site Development Permit 2004-81 1-Boureston Development
September 14, 2004
IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS
17. 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
18. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050
(Grading Improvements), LQMC.
19. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes,
the applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer.
20. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain
approval of all of the following:
A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer or architect,
B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified
engineer,
C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter
6.16, (Fugitive Dust Control), LQMC, and
D. A Best Management Practices report prepared in accordance with
Sections 8.70.010 and 13.24.170 (NPDES stormwater discharge
permit and Storm Management and Discharge Controls), LQMC.
All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the
Preliminary Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils
engineer, or by an engineering geologist.
The 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.
P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Boureston\SDP 04-811 COA.doc
h
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
Site Development Permit 2004-81 1-Boureston Development
September 14, 2004
21. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land in order to
prevent wind and/or water erosion of such land. All open graded,
undeveloped land shall either be planted with interim landscaping, or
stabilized with such other erosion control measures, as were approved in the
Fugitive Dust Control Plan.
22. Grading within the perimeter setback and parkway areas shall have
undulating terrain and shall conform with the requirements of LQMC Section
9.60.240(F) except as otherwise modified by this condition requirement.
The maximum slope shall not exceed 3:1 anywhere in the landscape setback
area, except for the backslope (i.e. the slope at the back of the landscape lot)
which shall not exceed 2:1 if fully planted with ground cover. The maximum
slope in the first six (6) feet adjacent to the curb shall not exceed 4:1 when
the nearest edge of sidewalk is within six (6) of the curb, otherwise the
maximum slope within the right of way shall not exceed 3:1. All unpaved
parkway areas adjacent to the curb shall be depressed one and one-half
inches (1.5") in the first eighteen inches (18") behind the curb.
23. Prior to any site grading or regrading that will raise or lower any portion of
the site by more than plus or minus three tenths of a foot from the elevations
shown on the Preliminary Grading Plan submitted with this Site Development
Permit, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading changes to the City
Staff for a substantial conformance finding review.
24. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building lot, the applicant
shall provide a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified
engineer or surveyor.
nRAINAr,F
"Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage
report for Lake La Quinta Drainage Report or as modified for this Site Development
Permit. Nuisance water shall be disposed of on site and in an approved manner.
25. Stormwater may not be retained in landscaped parkways or landscaped
setback lots Only incidental storm water (precipitation which directly falls
onto the setback) will be permitted to be retained in the landscape setback
areas. The perimeter setback and parkway areas in the street right-of-way
shall be shaped with berms and mounds, pursuant to Section
9.100.040(B)(7), LQMC.
P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Boureston\SDP 04-811 COA.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
Site Development Permit 2004-81 1-Boureston Development
September 14, 2004
26. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood
boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development.
UTILITIES
27. 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.
28. Existing overhead utility lines within, or adjacent to the proposed
development, and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground.
29. All existing utility lines attached to joint use 92 KV transmission power poles
are exempt from the requirement to be placed underground.
30. 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.
31. The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction
for approval by the City Engineer.
STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
32. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Sections 13.24.060 (Street
Improvements), 13.24.070 (Street Design - Generally) & 13.24.100 (Access
For Individual Properties And Development), LQMC for public streets; and
Section 13.24.080 (Street Design - Private Streets), where private streets
are proposed.
33. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform
with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses.
A. OFF -SITE STREETS
1) Washington Street (Augmented Major Arterial — 132' R/W):
No widening of the east side of the street along all frontage
adjacent to the Site Development Permit is required for its
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Boureston\SDP 04-81 1 COA.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
Site Development Permit 2004-81 1-Boureston Development
September 14, 2004
ultimate width as specified in the General Plan and the
requirements of these conditions except at locations where
additional street width is needed to accommodate:
a) A deceleration/right turn only lane at the Lake La Quinta
intersection. The east curb face shall be located sixty feet
(60') east of the centerline of Washington Street and
length to be determined by a traffic study prepared for
the applicant by a licensed traffic engineer per
Engineering Bulletin # 03-08. As a minimum, the required
right of way shall be for a length of 100 feet plus a
variable dedication of an additional 50 feet to
accommodate improvements conditioned.
Other required improvements in the right or way and/or adjacent
landscape setback area include:
b) All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to:
curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs.
c) 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk. The meandering
sidewalk shall have an arrhythmic horizontal layout that
utilizes concave and convex curves with respect to the
curb line that either touches the back of curb or
approaches within five feet of the curb at intervals not to
exceed 250 feet. The sidewalk curvature radii should
vary between 50 and 300 feet, and at each point of
reverse curvature, the radius should change to assist in
creating the arrhythmic layout. The sidewalk shall
meander into the landscape setback lot and approach
within 5 feet of the perimeter wall at intervals not to
exceed 250 feet.
2) Lake La Quinta Drive (Collector - 72' R/W Option):
No widening of the south side of the street along all frontage
adjacent to the Site Development Permit is required.
3) Caleo Bay (Collector - 60' R/W Option):
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Boureston\SDP 04-811 COA.doc r}
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
Site Development Permit 2004-81 1-Boureston Development
September 14, 2004
No widening of the west side of the street along all frontage
adjacent to the Site Development Permit is required.
Other required improvements in the right or way and/or adjacent
landscape setback area include:
a) The applicant shall contribute fair share cost to re -stripe
Caleo Bay from Lake La Quinta Drive to the southerly
property line to accommodate the left turn lanes at the
driveways and the Lake La Quinta Drive intersection.
B. TRAFFIC SIGNAL — The applicant shall enter into an improvement
agreement and post security for 25% of the cost to design and
construct the traffic signal at the Washington Street and Lake La
Quinta Intersection prior to issuance of an onsite grading permit; the
security shall remain in effect until the signal is warranted.
34. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the
following:
A. Caleo Bay
1) North Entry (Relocated 150 feet from Lake La Quinta Drive
measured curb return to curb return): Full turn movements are
permitted.
2) South Entry: Full turn movements are permitted.
The applicant shall extend improvements beyond the subdivision boundaries
to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements (e.g., grading;
traffic control devices and transitions in alignment, elevation or dimensions of
streets and sidewalks).
35. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design
procedure for 20-year life pavement, and the site -specific data for soil
strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic).
Minimum structural sections shall be as follows:
Parking Areas
3.0"
a.c./4.5"
c.a.b.
Collector
4.0"
a.c /5.0"
c.a.b.
Major Arterial
5.5"
a.c./6.5"
c.a.b.
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Boureston\SDP 04-811 COA.doc .
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
Site Development Permit 2004-81 1-Boureston Development
September 14, 2004
or the approved equivalents of alternate materials.
36. 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.
A. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control
signs, markings and other devices, raised medians if required, street
name signs and sidewalks.
37. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City
adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, or as approved
by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and
parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers.
PARKING LOT AND ACCESSWAYS
38. The design of parking facilities shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150 and
especially the parking stall and accessway widths and the parking stall
striping design.
CONSTRUCTION
39. 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.
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Boureston\SDP 04-811 COA.doc
�� r ;
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
Site Development Permit 2004-81 1-Boureston Development
September 14, 2004
LANDSCAPING
40. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks)
& 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC.
41. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention
basins, common lots and park areas.
42. Drought tolerant landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and
setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped
by a licensed landscape architect.
The applicant shall submit the drought tolerant 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 Coachella valley Water
District and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner, prior to
submittal for signature by the City Engineer.
NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City
Engineer.
43. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the
requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn areas shall be minimized with
no lawn, or spray irrigation, being placed within 18 inches of curbs along
public streets.
PUBLIC SERVICES
44. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by
SunLine Transit Agency and approved by the City Engineer.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
45. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that
meet with the approval of the City Engineer.
46. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such
other appropriate professionals as are required to provide the expertise with
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Boureston\SDP 04-811 COA.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
Site Development Permit 2004-81 1-Boureston Development
September 14, 2004
which to prepare and sign accurate record drawings, and to provide adequate
construction supervision.
47. 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.
48.. 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
49. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160
(Maintenance), LQMC.
50. 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
51. 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.
52. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the
Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at
the time of issuance of building permit(s).
P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Boureston\SDP 04-811 COA.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
Site Development Permit 2004-81 1-Boureston Development
September 14, 2004
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
53. The applicant shall limit the height of the parking lot lighting standards to a
maximum of eighteen (18) feet.
54. The applicant shall install shields on fixtures located along Caleo Bay so as to
reduce glare that could be potentially projected onto the adjacent residential
area.
55. The mechanical equipment screening shall be reduced in a height subject to
the review and approval of the Community Development Director. The roof
top equipment screen shall be covered in a material that is consistent with
the building walls exterior finish and shall have a matching parapet.
56. The tree wells shall be increased to 8' x 8' wherever possible.
57. The applicant shall provide a more enhanced connection from the rear of the
building to Caleo Bay.
58. The stone veneer shall be replaced with a material that is more of an
institutional style (i.e., brick).
59. The applicant shall comply with all of the mitigation measures included in the
Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project.
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Boureston\SDP 04-81 1 COA.doc
ATTACHMENT #
HIGHWAY
111
AVENUE 48
WMCN u OUNrA
cournrr cux
AVENUE 49
AVENUE 50 Lo
w
0
coL%7" CUE
rr
3D0
AVENUE 51
AVENUE 52
i
SITE LOCATION MAP
NOT TO SCALE
ATTACHMENT #
ONNNWW -qmw- or
September 8, 2004
Martin Magana
Associate Planner/.
City Of La Quinta
Hand Delivered
Re: SDP: 2004-81 1/Public Works Conditions of Approval
Dear Mr. Magana:
M,
As I am certain you are aware, I was quite surprised to discover some of the conditions of
approval found in your recommendation primarily resulting from public works issues. As you
may know, I have been involved with the overall development of Lake La Quinta, nearly since
its inception. For your benefit, I would like to offer a brief history of the project, hoping that it
may influence your decision or at the very least, help you understand our perspective.
A.G. Spanos Companies originally developed the entire Lake La Quinta property in the late
eighties and as conditioned on the final map, delivered finished "super pads" for residential and
commercial uses fully developed and ready for vertical construction. The commercial pads,
which were subsequently divided into smaller pads, included all utility distribution, sidewalks,
curb and gutter, paving, storm retention, signage, signalization and offsite street improvements
necessary to accommodate regional commercial uses, as zoned.
You may be interested to know that, prior to Spanos the entire property was shown on the
general plan as regional commercial. Spanos actually down -zoned the property thereby
diminishing the traffic impact to the city from the onset. Even though the impact was less, the
final map specifically prohibited direct vehicular access from the commercial pads to
Washington, Lake La Quinta Drive, 47th and 48th. All traffic was intended to access Caleo Bay,
which was designed as a collector street feeding 47 , 48 and Washington via Lake La Quinta
Drive. As conditioned, Spanos was required to nearly fully develop Lake La Quinta Drive,
(formerly Via Marques), Adams, Caleo Bay, 47th, 48th and a realigned Washington Street, to the
final build out condition. The public street improvements included sidewalks, curb and gutter,
paving, storm retention, signage, and signalization. These improved streets were dedicated to
and accepted by the City as public streets.
Subsequently, as you well know, Spanos subdivided the larger commercial pads to
accommodate smaller developments, which has resulted in the commercial development we
see today. More recently, Spanos requested a signal at Lake La Quinta Drive, which staff
would not support, and subsequently changed the application for a left -in. While he gained
unanimous approval from the Planning Commission, he was unanimously rejected at City
th b came the applicant for a left -in and not so surprisingly, gained
Council. The City en e
approval. .
RB/La Quinta
September 9, 2004
Page 2 of 2
In summation we believe the conditions requiring additional right-of-way and improvements to
Washington Street including a turn pocket and a signal are not warranted by our development
for the following reasons:
> City has already accepted the fully improved public streets as conditioned on the final
map including Washington, Adams, 47th, 48th , Lake La Quinta Drive and Caleo Bay which were
designed to accommodate regional commercial uses on all of the parcels.
> Ultimate trip generation for the entire Lake La Quinta development had been already
reduced by the original down zoning, as well as the more recent down zoning of the
commercial on the Lake to low density residential.
> Even if you ignore the down zoning and the additional curb cuts the existing improvements
easily accommodate this project.
> We are not requesting direct access to Washington or Lake La Quinta Drive.
> You can not ignore an approved and improved development entitlement when a less
intense use is contemplated, in order to benefit another project altogether.
I trust you will come to the same conclusion that quite simply all we are doing is developing a
"pad", with a less intense use than the original general plan, zoning, and development permit
allows, in an already approved and improved development.
Should you require additional information in order to make your evaluation, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Bartlett Commercial
a California corporation
By: Timothy R. Bartlett, President
BARTLETT COMMERCIAL bartlettc(d)-aol.com
73-382 Salt Cedar St., Palm Desert, CA 92260
Phone: (760) 776-4141 Fax: (760) 779-0714
PH #G
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 2004
CASE NO: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-515
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32742
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY
OWNER: VILLAGE BUILDERS 98, LP
REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A ZONE CHANGE TO REMOVE THE
EQUESTRIAN OVERLAY TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP AND A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
TO SUBDIVIDE ± 14.54 ACRES INTO 40 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS
AND MISCELLANEOUS LOTS
LOCATION: 55-101 MONROE STREET, APPROXIMATELY 150 FEET SOUTH
OF AVENUE 55
ENGINEER: MAINIERO, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HAS COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-515;
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 (LDR)/LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL (RL); EQUESTRIAN OVERLAY
SURROUNDING
LAND USES: NORTH: VACANT LAND
SOUTH: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL/GOLF COURSE
EAST: VACANT LAND
WEST: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Village Builders\TTM 32742 PC StfRpt .doc
BACKGROUND:
The site is ± 14.54 acres in size and located on the west side of Monroe Street,
approximately 150 feet south of Avenue 55 (Attachment 1). Two mobile homes are
located on the site. A parcel of land with a single-family home is located immediately
west of the project site. An existing residential development is located further west
and immediately south of the project site (Greg Norman Course). Land immediately to
the north consists of vacant land and further north a residential development (La
Quinta Estates). Land to the east consists of vacant land, which was once used for
agricultural purposes.
The site itself was graded in the past and used for agricultural purposes. The eastern-
most, western -most and central portions of the site appear to have been disked and
are clear of vegetation. The remainder of the property is densely covered with tall
grasses, brush and abandoned crops.
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
The applicant was also proposing a Zone Change to remove the Equestrian Overlay on
the subject property. After further review, staff has concluded that the Zone Change
is not necessary. The Overlay Zone would allow property owners the ability to
maintain horses, if they decide to do so.
The applicant proposes to subdivide the ± 14.54 acre site into 40 single-family lots
and miscellaneous lots (Attachment 2). The residential lots range in size from ± 9,200
to ± 15,654 square feet. The proposed lots meet the minimum lot size of 7,200
square feet as required in the Low Density Residential Zone. Storm water retention is
provided in Lot "A" at the southeast corner of the site.
There are a number of easements on the property that will be abandoned or relocated.
Lots 11 through 15 have pipeline easements traversing the properties along the
western portions of the lots. Also, Lot 15 lies within an easement (along Avenue 55
alignment) which provides access to the property immediately west of the project site.
The applicant will be conditioned to disclose that information to the buyer of Lot 15
and the buyer will have to continue to honor the recorded easement. Also the buyer
will be required to disclose that information to any future buyer(s). This will allow
continued access to the single-family residence located immediately west of the
subject property. Other pipeline easements traverse Lots 4, 27, 28, and 29. The
applicant has stated that these easements will be abandoned or relocated. The
applicant has been conditioned to submit proof of those abandoned easements prior to
the issuance of building permits.
I
P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Village Builders\TTM 32742 PC StfRpt Am
Access
Vehicular access to the site is provided via Monroe Street, a Major Arterial with a 110-
foot right-of-way. A private roadway with a 41-foot right-of-way and four short cul-
de-sacs is proposed within the development. The development will be allowed to have
full turning movements at the project entrance.
Historic Preservation Commission
The Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the Historical/Archeological and
Paleontological reports for this project at the August 19, 2004 meeting. At the
meeting, the Commission adopted Minute Motions 2004-021 accepting the
Historical/Archeological report and adopted Minute Motion 2004-022, accepting the
Paleontological report, subject to the following conditions:
Historical/Archeological
1. The site shall be monitored during on- and off -site trenching and rough grading by
qualified archaeological monitors. Proof of retention of monitors shall be given to
the City prior to issuance of first earth -moving or clearing permit. The Torres -
Martinez Desert Cahuilla, Augustine, and Cabazon Band of Mission Indians shall
be contacted to determine if a tribe member is to be included as an archaeological
monitor.
2. The final report on the monitoring shall be submitted to the Community
Development Department prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of
Occupancy for the project.
3. Collected archaelogical resources shall be properly packaged for long term
curation, in polyethylene self -seal bags, vials, or film cans as appropriate, all
within acid -free, standard size, comprehensively labeled archive boxes and
delivered to the City prior to issuance of first Certificate of Occupancy for the
property.
Materials shall be accompanied by descriptive catalogue, field notes and records,
primary research data, and the original graphics.
Paleontological
1. On- and off -site monitoring of earth -moving and grading in areas identified as
likely to contain paleontological resources shall be conducted by a qualified
paleontological monitor. The monitor shall be equipped to salvage fossils as they
are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove samples of sediments
that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates.
J
P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Village Builders\TTM 32742 PC StFRpt Am
The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow
removal of abundant or large specimens. Proof that a monitor has been retained
shall be given to City prior to issuance of first earth -moving permit, or before any
clearing of the site is begun.
2. Recovered specimens shall be prepared to the point of identification and
permanent preservation, including washing of sediments to recover small
invertebrates and vertebrates.
3. A report of findings with an appended itemized inventory of specimens shall be
submitted to the City prior to the first occupancy of a residence being granted by
the City. The report shall include pertinent discussions of the significance of all
recovered resources where appropriate. The report and inventory, when submitted
will signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontological
resources.
4. Collected resources and related reports, etc. shall be given to the City for
curation. Packaging of resources, reports, etc. shall comply with standards
commonly used in the paleontological industry.
These items have been added as Conditions of Approval to the Tentative Tract Map.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
This project was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on September 2, 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 a Mitigated Negative Declaration for
Environmental Assessment 2004-515, and approve the Tentative Tract Map can be
made and are contained in the attached Resolutions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_, recommending to the City Council
certification of Environmental Assessment 2004-515, subject to findings.
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_, recommending to the City Council
approval of Tentative Tract Map 32742, subject to findings and the attached
Conditions of Approval.
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Village Builders\TTM 32742 PC StfRpt .doc LJ
Attachments:
1. Site Location Map
2. Tentative Tract Map (Planning Commission only)
Prepared by:
Martin Magana IV
Associate Planner
P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Village Builders\TTM 32742 PC StfRpt .doc
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 32742.
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-515
APPLICANT: VILLAGE BUILDERS 98
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California, did, on the 141h day of September, 2004, hold a duly noticed Public
Hearing to consider a request by Village Builders 98 for certification of
Environmental Assessment 2004-515 for Tentative Tract Map 32742 to subdivide
± 14.54 acres into 40 single-family lots and miscellaneous lots, generally located
on the west side of Monroe Street, approximately 150 feet south of Avenue 55,
more particularly described as follows:
APN: 767-580-015
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 2004-515 has been completed and determined that although the
project may have a significant adverse effects on the environment, mitigation
measures have been imposed on the project to reduce impacts to a less than
significant level; and therefore, a mitigated negative declaration is recommended
for certification; 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
P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Village Builders\PC RESO EA 04 515.doc 0
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_
Environmental Assessment 2004-515 — Village Builders 98
Adopted: September 14, 2004
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 site has been previously graded, and
potential impacts associated with cultural and paleontologic resources have
been mitigated to a less than- significant level. The majority of the site is
covered in weeds, and that significant habitat is absent. Also, the project site
is located outside the boundary of the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard
Habitat Conservation Plan, therefore, impacts to biological and cultural
resources are less than significant.
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 subject site is covered in weeds, and
significant habitat is absent from the site. The site is physically suitable for
the proposed land division and currently, development exists in the immediate
area which has reduced the amount of habitat suitable for any fish or wildlife
habitat.
4. The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as
the proposed project will add to the housing types offered to the City's
residents, a goal of the General Plan. 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 proposed project is
consistent with the General Plan vision for this area. Construction of the
project will have no significant cumulative impacts.
6. The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect the human
population due to air quality impacts. Since the Coachella Valley is in a non -
attainment area for PM 10, and the site will generate PM 10. However, a
number of mitigation measures have been imposed to reduce the potential
impacts on air quality as identified in the Environmental Assessment.
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
P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Village Builders\PC RESO EA 04 515.doc el
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_
Environmental Assessment 2004-515 — Village Builders 98
Adopted: September 14, 2004
have been imposed on the project that will reduce impacts to a less than
significant level.
8. The Planning Commission has considered Environmental Assessment 2004-
515 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.
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 2004-515 for the reasons set forth in this
Resolution and, as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist on file
in the Community Development Department and attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 14th day of September, 2004, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Village Builders\PC RESO EA 04 515.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_
Environmental Assessment 2004-515 — Village Builders 98
Adopted: September 14, 2004
ATTEST:
OSCAR ORCI, Interim
Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
j
P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Village Builders\PC RESO EA 04 515.doc
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project title: Tentative Tract Map 32742
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: West side of Monroe Street, approximately 150 feet south of Avenue 55.
APN: 767-580-015
5. Project sponsor's name and address: Village Builders 98, LP
121 Spear Street, Suite 250
San Francisco, CA 94105
6. General plan designation: Low Density 7. Zoning: Low Density Residential
Residential
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 to divide a 14.54 acre parcel into 40 single family residential lots, as
well as lots for retention and streets. Streets within the project are proposed to be private. The
lot size ranges from 9,200 s.f. to just over 15,000 s.f. Access will be provided on Monroe
Street with no secondary access.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
North: Vacant, Single -Family Residential (Very Low -Density Residential)
South: Single -Family Residential, golf course (Low -Density Residential, Golf Course -OS)
West: Single -Family Residential (Low -Density Residential,)
East: Monroe Street, Vacant, Agriculture (Low -Density Residential/Agriculture/Equestrian
Overlay)
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District
-111
-
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Biological Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Mineral Resources
Public Services
Utilities / Service
Agriculture Resources
Cultural Resources
Hydrology / Water
Quality
Noise
Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Air Quality
Geology /Soils
Land Use / Planning
Population / Housing
Transportation/Traffic
Systems
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
X environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature
August 23, 2004
Date
-2-
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each
question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project
falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based
on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site,
cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as
operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant
with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is
substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially
Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact"
to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and
briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures
from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures
based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from
the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the
proj ect.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources
for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared
or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where
the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
-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
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
X
scenic vista? (General Plan Exhibit 3.6)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
X
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway? (Aerial
photograph)
c) Substantially degrade the existing
X
visual character or quality of the site and
its surroundings? (Application materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial
X
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
(Application materials)
I. a)-d) Monroe Street is not designated an Image Corridor in the General Plan. There are no
significant scenic or topographic features on or near the subject property. The
construction of single-family residential units on the site will not impact scenic vistas,
and is consistent with existing and proposed surrounding development. Impacts
associated with aesthetics are expected to be insignificant.
The primary source of light and glare upon build -out of the site will be from automobile
headlights. With the construction of 40 residential units, this impact is expected to be less
than significant. The lots' landscaping will also generate limited lighting increases. The
City regulates lighting levels through a Dark Sky Ordinance and does not allow lighting
to spill over onto adjacent property. Impacts will not be significant.
-4-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
H. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:
Would theproject:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
X
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. III-21
ff.)
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract? (Zoning Map)
c) Involve other changes in the existing
X
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
(General Plan Land Use Map)
H. a)-c) The project site is vacant land, with single-family residences located on the western
extremity of the site. The site is not in agricultural use, nor are there Williamson Act
contracts on the land. The area to the east of the site does have scattered agricultural
activity. However, the project site, being only about 14.5 acres, is not a viable site for
substantial agriculture. Impacts to agricultural resources are expected to be negligible.
-5-
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) Automobile emissions are the largest contributor to air quality issues in the City. It is
expected that vehicle trips generated by the proposed project will be the most significant
generators of air pollutants. The proposed project will result in 40 single-family homes,
which have the potential to generate up to 383 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, Oh Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, category 210, Single Family Detached. . J
-6-
Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout
(hounds Der dav)
Ave. Trip Total
Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Length (miles) miles/day
383 x 10 = 3,830
PM10 PM10 PM10
Pollutant ROC CO NOX Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wear
Grams at 50 mph 344.70 8,962.20 1,838.40 - 38.30 38.30
Pounds at 50 mph 0.76 19.78 4.06 - 0.08 0.08
SCAQMD Threshold
(lbs /day) 75 550 100 150
Assumes 1,055 ADT. Based on California Air Resources Board's EMFAC7G Emissions Model. Assumes Year 2005
summertime running conditions at 75T, light duty autos, catalytic.
As demonstrated above, the proposed project will not exceed any of SCAQMD's
recommended daily thresholds for chemical emissions. The project's potential impacts to
air quality resulting from vehicular emissions are therefore expected to be less than
significant.
The City and Coachella Valley are a severe non -attainment area for 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 90.82 pounds per day, for a limited
period while grading operations are active. The perimeter of the site has been landscaped,
which will aid in reducing the blowing sand impacts on adjacent properties. 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.
-7-
1. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize
exhaust emissions.
2. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary power
poles to avoid on -site power generation.
3. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit opportunities.
4. Imported fill shall be adequately watered prior to transport, covered during
transport, and watered prior to unloading on the project site.
Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of three feet
prior to the onset of grading activities.
6. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed on an on-
going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the site. Portions of the
site that are actively being graded shall be watered regularly to ensure that a crust
is formed on the ground surface, and shall be watered at the end of each work day.
7. Any area which remains undeveloped for a period of more than 30 days shall be
stabilized using either chemical stabilizers or a desert wildflower mix hydroseed
on the affected portion of the site.
8. Landscaping on the Monroe Street parkway shall be installed immediately
following project precise grading, as will the project's perimeter wall.
9. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean-up of construction -
related dirt on approach routes to the site.
10. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone
episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour
Implementation of these mitigation measures will ensure that impacts associated with
PM10 are mitigated to a less than significant level.
III. d) & e) The project will consist of residential units and will not result in objectionable odors, nor
will it expose residents to concentrations of pollutants.
-8-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --
Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
X
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Letter dated July 7, 2004, J. Cornett)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
X
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game
or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Letter
dated July 7, 2004, J. Cornett)
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? (Letter dated July 7, 2004, J.
Cornett)
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? (Letter dated
July 7, 2004, J. Cornett)
e) Conflict with any local policies or
X
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? (General Plan MEA, p. 73 ff.)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
X
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
-9-
other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan? (General Plan
Exhibit 6.3)
IV. a)-f) A letter was prepared by James Cornett for the proposed project. The letter indicates that
the project site was surveyed for burrowing owls, and that none were sighted. The letter
further states that the majority of the site is covered in weeds, and that significant habitat
is absent.
The project site is located outside the boundary of the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed
Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan.
Impacts to biological resources are expected to be insignificant.
-lo-
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 15 (Historical/
Archaeological Resources Survey ... CRM Tech,
June 2004)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to'15064.5? (Historical/
Archaeological Resources Survey ... CRM Tech,
June 2004)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
X
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? (Paleontologic Resources
Assessment ... CRM Tech, June 2004)
d) Disturb any human remains, including
X
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? (General Plan MEA p. 123 ff.)
V. a)-b) & d) A cultural resources analysis was completed for the proposed project site 2. The analysis
included both records searches and on -site investigation. The on site investigation did not
identify any resources. However, because of the high sensitivity of the area, the potential
for buried resources is high. Should these resources be uncovered during project grading,
impacts could be significant. In order to mitigate this potential impact, the following
mitigation measure shall be implemented:
A qualified archaeological monitor shall be present during all earth moving and
grading activities. The monitor shall be empowered to stop or redirect activities
on the site should a resource be identified. A final report shall be filed with the
Community Development Department prior to issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for the first house on the project site.
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 project site. Development of the site could result in
significant impacts to paleontologic resources without mitigation. In order to assure that
2 Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report, prepared by CRM Tech, June 2004
3 "Paleontological Resources Assessment Report," prepared by CRM Tech, June 2004.
-11-
'.J
these potential impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level, the following
mitigation measures shall be implemented.
1. A surface collection of mollusks shall be completed prior to initiation of any earth
moving activity on the project site.
2. A paleontologist shall be present on site during all earth moving and trenching
activities in areas of undisturbed lakebed soils. 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.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would
the project:
a) Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
X
as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of
a known fault? (MEA Exhibit 6.2)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (MEA
X
Exhibit 6.2)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure,
X
including liquefaction? (MEA Exhibit 6.3)
iv) Landslides? (MEA Exhibit 6.4)
X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
X
the loss of topsoil? (MEA Exhibit 6.5)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
X
defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property (MEA
Exhibit 6.1)
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
X
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water? (General Plan
Exhibit 8.1)
VI. a)-e) The 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. The homes to be built 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 City Engineer will require the preparation of site -specific
geotechnical analysis in conjunction with the submittal of grading plans. This
-13-
requirement will ensure that impacts from ground shaking are reduced to a less than
significant level.
The project site is located in an area subject to liquefaction. Depending on the depth to
groundwater, special construction methods may need to be implemented on the project
site. In order to assure that this potential impact is mitigated to less than significant levels,
the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
1. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project proponent shall submit to the
City Engineer, for review and approval, a liquefaction study which determines
whether the project will be subject to liquefaction. Any recommendations made in
the study shall be implemented in project construction.
The proposed project is not located in an area subject to rockfall or landslides. The site
does not have expansive soils. The proposed project will be required to connect to the
CVWD sanitary sewer system, and septic tanks will not be installed.
The site is located in an area of moderate blow sand potential. The mitigation measures
included 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.
-14-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS --Would theproject:
a) Create a significant hazard to the
X
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials? (Application materials)
b) Create a significant hazard to the
X
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the
environment? (General Plan MEA, p. 95 ff.)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
X
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed School? (General Plan MEA, p. 95
ff.)
d) Be located on a site which is included
X
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment? (General Plan MEA, p.
95 ff.)
e) For a project located within an airport
X
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in
the project area? (General Plan land use map)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
X
private airstrip, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area? (General Plan
land use map)
g) Impair implementation of or
X
physically interfere with an adopted
-15-
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff)
h) Expose people or structures to a
X
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas
or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands? (General Plan land use map)
VII. a)-h) The construction of 40 homes on the subject site will not have an impact on hazards and
hazardous materials. The City implements Household Hazardous Waste programs
through its trash hauler, which are designed to provide for safe disposal of hazardous
substances generated in the home. Impacts are expected to be negligible.
-16-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VHI. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
UALITY -- Would theproject:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
X
waste discharge requirements? (General
Plan EIR p. 111-187 ff.)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
X
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume
or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)? (General Plan
EIR p. 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. 111-187 ff.)
d) Substantially alter the existing
X
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off -site?
(General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.)
e) Create or contribute runoff water
X
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff? (General Plan
EIR p. 111-187 ff.)
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood
X
-17- t
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance
Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map? (General Plan EIR p. III-
187 ff.)
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard
X
area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental
Assessment Exhibit 6.6)
VIII. a) & b) Domestic water is supplied to the project site by the Coachella Valley Water District
(CVWD). The development of the site will result in the need for domestic water service
use for residential use and for landscaping irrigation. The CVWD has prepared a Water
Management Plan which indicates that it has sufficient water sources to accommodate
growth in its service area. The CVWD has implemented or is implementing water
conservation, purchase and replenishment measures which will result in a surplus of
water in the long term.
The project proponent will be required to implement the City's water efficient
landscaping and construction provisions, including requirements for water efficient
fixtures and appliances, which will ensure that the least amount of water is utilized within
the homes.
The applicant will also be required to comply with the City's NPDES standards, requiring
that potential pollutants not be allowed to enter surface waters. These City standards will
assure that impacts to water quality and quantity will be less than significant.
VIII. c) & d) The City requires that all projects retain the 100 year storm on site. A preliminary
hydrology study was prepared to assess the needs of the project site 4. The study found that
a system of pipes through the site, leading to a retention basin at the southeastern
boundary of the project, will be sufficient to retain on -site flows. The City Engineer will
also review final plans to assure that these conclusions are still applicable prior to the
issuance of grading permits. Impacts associated with storm water drainage are therefore
not expected to be significant.
VIII. e)-g) The site is not located in a flood zone as designated by FEMA.
4 Preliminary Hydrology Report, prepared by MSA Consulting, July 2004.
-18- " 1
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
X
community? (Aerial photo)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use
X
plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program,
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? (General Plan Land
Use Element)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
X
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan? (Master Environmental
Assessment p. 74 ff.)
IX. a)-c) The project site is designated Low -Density Residential in the General Plan. The proposed
project is consistent with this designation.
The project site is not within the boundary of the mitigation fee for the Coachella Valley
Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan.
There will be no impacts to land use and planning.
-19-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would
the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
X
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
the state? (Master Environmental Assessment
p. 71 ff.)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
X
locally -important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment
p. 71 ff.)
X. a) & b) The proposed project site is within the MRZ-1 Zone, and is therefore not considered to
have potential for mineral resources.
-20-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XI. NOISE Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation
X
of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies? (General Plan MEA p. 111
ff.)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
X
of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? (General Plan
MEA p. 111 ff.)
c) A substantial permanent increase in
X
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the
project? (General Plan MEA p. 111 ff.)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
X
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? (General Plan MEA p.
111 ff.)
e) For a project located within an airport
X
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? (General Plan land
use map)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
X
private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels? (General
Plan land use map)
XI. a)-f) The proposed project will result in a total of 40 single family units. The project will be
surrounded by a block wall, which will reduce noise levels on the site. Noise levels on
Monroe in this area of the City are not expected to exceed the City's standards, because
of the limited traffic generated in this area.
Noise will be generated during project construction. Sensitive receptors are located
adjacent to the project site to the south, surrounded by a 6 foot block wall, and single-
family residential units occur approximately 150 feet to the north. During construction,
the adjacent units may experience a periodic increase in noise levels. The wall on the
southern project will provide attenuation of the noise intrusions to a great extent. In
addition, the project is required to construct its wall immediately following site grading
(please see Air Quality section, above). This will provide attenuation for the single family
residences located northerly of the site.
Impacts associated with noise at the site are expected to be less than significant.
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 construction of 40 homes will not induce substantial population growth. The site
includes two mobile homes which will be removed prior to construction. This does not
represent a significant displacement of either housing or people. Impacts associated with
population and housing are expected to be negligible.
-22-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:
Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
X
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
X
Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.)
X
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks
X
Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA,
X
p. 46 ff.)
XIII. a)Build-out of the site will have a less than significant impact on public services. The proposed
project will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, under City contract.
Build -out of the proposed project will generate sales and property tax 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 development impact
fees at the time of issuance of building permits to reduce the impacts to public services.
-23-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XIV. RECREATION --
a) Would the project increase the use of
X
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
(Application materials)
b) Does the project include recreational
X
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment? (Application materials)
XIV. a) & b) The project proponent will be subject to park in lieu fees for the provision of recreation
facilities throughout the City.
-24-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC --
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
X
substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street
system (i.e., result in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicle
trips, the volume to capacity ratio on
roads, or congestion at intersections)?
(General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.)
b) Exceed, either individually or
X
cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads
or highways? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.)
c) Result in a change in air traffic
X
patterns, including either an increase in
traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks? (No air
traffic involved in project)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
X
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Site Plan)
e) Result in inadequate emergency
X
access? (TTM 32742)
0 Result in inadequate parking capacity?
X
(TTM 32742)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,
X
or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? (Project description)
XV. a)-g) The development of the 40 homes will generate about 383 daily trips. The project is
consistent with the General Plan designation for the property, and was therefore analyzed
as part of the General Plan EIR. The traffic on Monroe at build -out of the General Plan
-25-
was expected to remain at acceptable levels of service in that analysis. Impacts associated
with traffic are expected to be less than significant.
The project does not include inadequate parking or unsafe designs. The site is located
within the service area of SunLine Transit, and can be served by it. Overall impacts to
traffic are expected to be less than significant.
-26-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
X
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board? (General
Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
b) Require or result in the construction of
X
new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
c) Require or result in the construction of
X
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
d) Have sufficient water supplies
X
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements
needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
e) Result in a determination by the
X
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project=s
projected demand in addition to the
provider=s existing commitments?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
X
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project=s solid waste disposal needs?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
X
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
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 the cost of providing services. The construction of
the proposed project is expected to have less than significant impacts on utility providers.
-28- a
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE --
a) Does the project have the potential to
X
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to
X
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage
of long-term environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are
X
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
d) Does the project have environmental
X
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
XVII. a) The site has been previously graded, and potential impacts associated with cultural and
paleontologic resources have been mitigated to a less than significant level.
XVII. b) The proposed project will add to the housing types offered to the City's residents, a goal
of the General Plan.
XVII. c) The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan vision for this area. Construction
of the project will have no significant cumulative impacts.
-29-
XVH. 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 PMIO, Section III above, includes a number of mitigation measures to
reduce the potential impacts on air quality.
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.
-30-
4-4
0
0
0
0
ai
0
0
b
00
A,
U
d
U
da�add
I
i
I
I
1
1
I
i
1
eq
o
�
rn
o
N
U
N
�
�
H
0
W
�
1
Cc
o>
O
�
�
®
z
x�
U
0-4
A
U
W
d
0
Ey
F
a
A
A
a�x
av
U�
"d
Q"
�•�+
�
V]
V]
Qr
cod
b,o
b
O
O
F
°
°'
o
o
�
�
•�
c�a
}��
0 bA
W
ai
9
Q
Cd
�.
O O
`iy
c
y
•�
t
Q
�Q
.� �,
Q
to
Q
to
Ca
Q
to
w
.d
� �
•b
-d
;�
•U
U
U
U Q
'C
do
°'
y N
z
®to�b
cd
s,
o °
to
[~
Cd
cIn
d
U
opt
4.
O
�
c
c
c
yC's
0.
N
cts
U P
V
O
N 'd
O
• cad
N
4C Y
d
�b
cOd 'C
a
r
w
p
v)�
F
Q
A
dA
A
a�
�WUW
OU
on
F
b)
Cd
b)
o
to
Ca
a.
Q
a
w�
0-4 O
zz
C
, l
m
U Q
F
F,
�W
I/
� R1
C/� Y•+
V CC
F
B
A
dA
A
ox
UU
0
d
F
0
0
a
a
o�
w
�o
oz
U
O
�
U
h
O�
rW
5
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A SUBDIVISION OF ± 14.54 ACRES
INTO 40 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS AND MISCELLANEOUS LOTS
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32742
APPLICANT: VILLAGE BUILDERS 98, LP
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California, did, on the 141h day of September, 2004, hold a duly noticed Public
Hearing to consider a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide ± 14.54 acres into 40
single-family lots and miscellaneous lots, generally located on the west side of
Monroe Street, approximately 150 feet south of Avenue 55, more particularly
described as follows:
APN: 767-580-015
WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map 32742 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 2004-515 has been completed and determined that although the
project may have a significant adverse effects on the environment, mitigation
measures have been imposed on the project to reduce impacts to a less than
significant level; and therefore, a mitigated negative declaration is recommended for
certification.
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 32742:
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's General Plan in that all streets and improvements in the proposed
project will conform to City standards and are contained in the General Plan.
Access for the land uses on the site will be provided from existing streets in
the immediate area. The density and design for the tract will comply with the
Land Use Element of the General Plan.
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Village Builders\TTM 32742 PC RESO Am
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Tentative Tract Map 32742
Village Builders 98
September 14, 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 subject site is covered in weeds, and significant
habitat is absent from the site. The site is physically suitable for the proposed
land division and currently, development exists in the immediate area which
has reduced the amount of habitat suitable for any fish or wildlife habitat.
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 required to
implement various mitigation measures and 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 are existing streets 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 32742 to the
City Council, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission, held on this 14' day of September, 2004, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Village Builders\TTM 32742 PC RESO Am
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Tentative Tract Map 32742
Village Builders 98
September 14, 2004
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
OSCAR ORCI, Interim
Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Village Builders\TTM 32742 PC RESO Am
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32742 — VILLAGE BUILDERS 98, LP
SEPTEMBER 14, 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 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.
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Village Builders\TTM 32742 PC COA.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Tentative Tract Map 32742 — Village Builders 98, LP
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 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.
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.
2
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Village Builders\TTM 32742 PC COA.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Tentative Tract Map 32742 — Village Builders 98, LP
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
F. The approved SWPPP and BMPs shall remain in effect for the entire
duration of project construction until all improvements are completed and
accepted by the City.
5. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the
Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the
time of issuance of building permit(s).
PROPERTY RIGHTS
6. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements
and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper functioning of
the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to
dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for
maintenance, construction and reconstruction of essential improvements.
7. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Final Map all public street right-of-
ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable
specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer.
8. The public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this development
include:
A. PUBLIC STREETS
1) Monroe Street (Primary Arterial, Option A 1 10' ROW) — The standard
55 feet from the centerline of Monroe Street for a total 110-foot
ultimate developed right of way except for an additional variable right
of way dedication at the proposed primary entry measured sixty
seven feet (671 west of the centerline of Monroe Street and length
to be determined by a traffic study prepared for the applicant by a
licensed traffic engineer per Engineering Bulletin # 03-08. As a
minimum, the required right of way shall be for a length of 100 feet
plus a variable dedication of an additional 50 feet to accommodate
improvements conditioned under STREET AND TRAFFIC
IMPROVEMENTS.
9. The applicant shall retain for private use on the Final Map all private street right-
of-ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable
specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer.
3
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Village Builders\TTM 32742 PC COA.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Tentative Tract Map 32742 — Village Builders 98, LP
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
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 gutter flow line to gutter flow line
shall have a 36-foot travel width.
B. CUL DE SACS
1) The cul de sac shall conform to the shape shown on the tentative
map with a 38-foot curb radius at the bulb or larger as shown on the
tentative map.
11. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and
left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved
construction plans.
Pursuant to this requirement, the Applicant shall include in the submittal packet
containing the draft final map submitted for map checking, an offsite street
geometric layout, drawn at 1 " equals 40 feet, detailing the following design
aspects: median curb line, outside curb line, lane line alignment including lane
widths, left turn lanes, deceleration lane(s) and bus stop turnout(s). The
geometric layout shall be accompanied with sufficient professional engineering
studies to confirm the appropriate length of all proposed turn pockets and
auxiliary lanes that may impact the right of way dedication required of the project
and the associated landscape setback requirement
12. When the City Engineer determines that access rights to the proposed street right-
of-ways shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map are necessary prior to
approval of the Final Map dedicating such right-of-ways, the applicant shall grant
the necessary right-of-ways within 60 days of a written request by the City.
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.
4
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Village Builders\TTM 32742 PC COA.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Tentative Tract Map 32742 — Village Builders 98, LP
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
14. The applicant shall abandon or relocate all existing easements over buildable lots
particularly easements 1, 2, 5 and 7 traversing Lots 11 through 15 along the
westerly property line. The applicant shall also notify the owner of Lot 15 of the
existing easement 6 for ingress and egress along the northerly 40 feet of Lot 15.
15. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public right-of-
ways as follows:
A. Monroe 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.
16. 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.
17. Direct vehicular access to Monroe Street from lots with frontage along Monroe
Street is restricted, except for those access points identified on the tentative tract
map, or as otherwise conditioned in these conditions of approval. The vehicular
access restriction shall be shown on the recorded final tract map.
18. 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.
19. 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.
5
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Village Builders\TTM 32742 PC COA.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Tentative Tract Map 32742 — Village Builders 98, LP
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
FINAL MAPS
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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.
U
C
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.
On -Site Street Plan:
On -Site Rough Grading Plan
1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical
1 " = 40' Horizontal
6
P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Village Builders\TTM 32742 PC COA.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Tentative Tract Map 32742 — Village Builders 98, LP
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
D. Drainage Plans 1' = 40' Horizontal
E. On -Site Precise Grading Plan: 1 " = 30'Horizontal
Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed
above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to
commencing plan preparation.
All Off -Site Plan & Profile Street Plans and Signing & Striping Plans shall show all
existing improvements for a distance of at least 200-feet beyond the project
limits, or a distance sufficient to show any required design transitions.
"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, "Precise Grading" plans are
required to be submitted for approval by the Building Official and the City
Engineer.
"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.
23. The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes for
elements of construction on the Public Works Online Engineering Libraryat
http://www.la-guinta.org/publicworks/tractl/z onlinelibrary/0 intropage.htm.
24. 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.
7
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Village Builders\TTM 32742 PC COA.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Tentative Tract Map 32742 — Village Builders 98, LP
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. If the applicant elects to utilize the secured agreement alternative, the applicant
shall submit detailed construction cost estimates for all proposed on -site and off -
site improvements, including an estimate for the final survey monumentation, for
checking and approval by the City Engineer. Such estimates shall conform to the
unit cost schedule adopted by City resolution, or ordinance.
For items not listed in the City's unit cost schedule, the proposed unit costs shall
be approved by the City Engineer.
At the time the applicant submits its detailed construction cost estimates for
conditional approval of the Final Map by the City Council, the applicant shall also
submit one copy each of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " reduction of each page of the Final
Map, along with a copy of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " Vicinity Map.
Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be
approved by those agencies and submitted to the City along with the applicant's
detailed cost estimates.
Security will not be required for telephone, natural gas, or Cable T.V.
improvements.
8
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Village Builders\TTM 32742 PC COA.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Tentative Tract Map 32742 — Village Builders 98, LP
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
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.
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
9
P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Village Builders\TTM 32742 PC COA.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Tentative Tract Map 32742 — Village Builders 98, LP
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
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 (1.5") in the first eighteen inches (18") behind
the curb.
35. Building pad elevations on the rough grading plan submitted for City Engineer's
approval shall conform with pad elevations shown on the tentative map, unless
the pad elevations have other requirements imposed elsewhere in these
Conditions of Approval.
36. Building pad elevations of perimeter lots shall not differ by more that one foot
from the building pads in adjacent developments.
Where compliance within the above stated limits is impractical, the City may
consider alternatives that are shown to minimize safety concerns, maintenance
difficulties and neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential.
37. Prior to any site grading or regrading that will raise or lower any portion of the site
by more than plus or minus three tenths of a foot from the elevations shown on
the approved Tentative Tract Map, the applicant shall submit the proposed
grading changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance finding review.
38. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building lot, the applicant shall
provide a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or
surveyor.
Each pad certification shall list the pad elevation as shown on the approved
grading plan, the actual pad elevation and the difference between the two, if any.
Such pad certification shall also list the relative compaction of the pad soil. The
''r
10
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Village Builders\TTM 32742 PC COA.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Tentative Tract Map 32742 — Village Builders 98, LP
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
data shall be organized by lot number, and listed cumulatively if submitted at
different times.
nRAINAr,F
39. 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.
40. In design of retention facilities, the maximum percolation rate shall be two inches
per hour. The percolation rate will be considered to be zero unless the applicant
provides site specific data indicating otherwise.
Nuisance water shall be retained on site. In residential developments, nuisance
water shall be disposed of in a trickling sand filter and leach field or equivalent
system approved by the City Engineer. The sand filter and leach field shall be
designed to contain surges of up to 3 gph/1,000 sq. ft. of landscape area, and
infiltrate 5 gpd/1,000 sq. ft. The nuisance water percolation system shall be
designed/sized to accommodate nuisance water produced by residential uses and
any domestic well sites located within the project area.
41. The project shall be designed to accommodate purging and blow -off water
(through underground piping and/or retention facilities) from any on -site or
adjacent well sites granted or dedicated to the local water utility authority as a
requirement for development of this property.
42. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless approved
by the Architectural and Landscape Review Committee and the Planning
Commission.
43. For on -site common retention basins, retention depth shall be according to
Engineering Bulletin 97.03, and side slopes shall not exceed 3:1 and shall be
planted with maintenance free ground cover. For retention basins on individual
lots, retention depth shall not exceed two feet.
11
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Village Builders\TTM 32742 PC COA.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Tentative Tract Map 32742 — Village Builders 98, LP
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
44. Stormwater may not be retained in landscaped parkways or landscaped setback
lots Only incidental storm water (precipitation which directly falls onto the
setback) will be permitted to be retained in the landscape setback areas. The
perimeter setback and parkway areas in the street right-of-way shall be shaped
with berms and mounds, pursuant to Section 9.100.040(B)(7), LQMC.
45. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries,
levels or frequencies in any area outside the development.
46. The development shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention
capacity to flow out of the development through a designated overflow and into
the historic drainage relief route.
47. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and
retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route.
UTILITIES
48. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.110 (Utilities),
LQMC.
49. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all
utility lines within any right-of-way, and all above ground utility structures
including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electric vaults, water valves,
and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic
purposes.
50. Existing overhead utility lines within, or adjacent to the proposed development,
and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground.
All existing utility lines attached to joint use 92 KV transmission power poles are
exempt from the requirement to be placed underground.
51. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For
installation of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply with
trench restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer.
The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for
approval by the City Engineer.
12
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Village Builders\TTM 32742 PC COA.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Tentative Tract Map 32742 — Village Builders 98, LP
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
52. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Sections 13.24.060 (Street
Improvements), 13.24.070 (Street Design - Generally) & 13.24.100 (Access For
Individual Properties And Development), LQMC for public streets; and Section
13.24.080 (Street Design - Private Streets), where private streets are proposed.
53. 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.
54. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with
the General Plan (street type noted in parentheses.)
A. OFF -SITE STREETS
1) Monroe Street (Primary Arterial; 1 10' R/W Option 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,
except at locations where additional street width is needed to
accommodate:
a) Bus turnout (if required by Sunline Transit)
b) A deceleration/right turn only lane at Primary Entry. The
west curb face shall be located fifty five feet (55') west
of the centerline.
Other required improvements in the Monroe Street right or way and/or
adjacent landscape setback area include:
13
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Village Builders\TTM 32742 PC COA.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Tentative Tract Map 32742 — Village Builders 98, LP
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
c) All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to:
curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs.
d) 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk. The meandering
sidewalk shall have an arrhythmic horizontal layout that
utilizes concave and convex curves with respect to the
curb line that touches the back of curb at intervals not to
exceed 250 feet. The sidewalk curvature radii should
vary between 50 and 300 feet, and at each point of
reverse curvature, the radius should change to assist in
creating the arrhythmic layout. The sidewalk shall
meander into the landscape setback lot and approach
within 5 feet of the multi -purpose trail at intervals not to
exceed 250 feet.
e) A 10-foot wide Multi -Purpose Trail. The applicant shall
construct a multi -use trail along the Monroe Street
frontage within the back 20-foot portion of the required
32-foot wide combined setback/parkway. The location
and design of the trail shall be approved by the City. A
split rail fence shall be constructed to separate the multi-
purpose trail from the pedestrian sidewalk in accordance
with Section 9.140.060 (Item E, 3a) of the Zoning
Ordinance. Bonding for the fence to be installed shall be
posted prior to final map approval.
f) Half width of an 18' - foot wide raised landscaped
median along the entire boundary of the Tentative Tract
Map plus variable width as needed to accommodate full
turn movements at the entry.
g) Establish a benchmark in the Monroe Street right of way
and file a record of the benchmark with the County of
Riverside.
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).
go
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Village Builders\TTM 32742 PC COA.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Tentative Tract Map 32742 — Village Builders 98, LP
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
The applicant is responsible for construction of all improvements mentioned
above. The development is eligible for reimbursement from the City's
Development Impact Fee fund in accordance with policies established for
that program. The cost of improvements expended by the applicant from the
centerline of Monroe Street to within 20 feet of the outer curb face is eligible
for reimbursement. The applicant is responsible for the remaining cost of the
improvements.
The landscape median improvements are eligible for reimbursement from the
City's Development Impact Fee fund in accordance with policies established
for that program.
B. PRIVATE STREETS
1) Construct full 36-foot wide travel width improvements
measured gutter flow line to gutter flow line plus curb and
gutter where the residential streets are double loaded.
2) The location of driveways of corner lots shall not be located
within the curb return and away from the intersection when
possible.
C. PRIVATE CUL DE SACS
1) Shall be constructed according to the lay -out shown on the
tentative map with 38-foot curb radius or greater at the bulb
similar to the layout shown on the rough grading plan.
55. All gated entries shall provide for a three -car minimum stacking capacity for
inbound traffic; and shall provide for a full turn -around outlet for non -
accepted vehicles.
Where a gated entry is proposed, the applicant shall submit a detailed exhibit
at a scale of 1 " = 10', demonstrating that those passenger vehicles that do
not gain entry into the development can safely make a full turn -around out
onto the main street from the gated entry.
Two lanes of traffic shall be provided on the entry side of each gated entry,
one lane shall be dedicated for residents, and one lane for visitors.
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Village Builders\TTM 32742 PC COA.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Tentative Tract Map 32742 - Village Builders 98, LP
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
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.
56. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design
procedure for 20-year life pavement, and the site -specific data for soil
strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic).
Minimum structural sections shall be as follows:
Residential
Primary Arterial
3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b.
4.5" a.c./6.0" c.a.b.
or the approved equivalents of alternate materials.
57. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at
the time of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement
concrete. The submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in
the mix design procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal
shall include recent (less than six months old at the time of construction)
aggregate gradation test results confirming that design gradations can be
achieved in current production. The applicant shall not schedule construction
operations until mix designs are approved.
58. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the
following:
1. Primary Entry (Monroe Street): Full turn movements are permitted.
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.
2. 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.
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Village Builders\TTM 32742 PC COA.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Tentative Tract Map 32742 — Village Builders 98, LP
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
CONSTRUCTION
59. 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
60. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks)
& 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC.
61. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention
basins, common lots and park areas.
62. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians,
retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed
landscape architect.
63. The applicant shall submit the landscape plans for approval by the
Community Development Department (CDD), prior to plan checking by the
Public Works Department. When plan checking has been completed by CDD,
the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County
Agricultural Commissioner, prior to submittal for signature by the City
Engineer.
NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City
Engineer.
64. 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.
P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Village Builders\TTM 32742 PC COA.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Tentative Tract Map 32742 — Village Builders 98, LP
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
PUBLIC SERVICES
65. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by
SunLine Transit Agency and approved by the City Engineer.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
66. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that
meet with the approval of the City Engineer.
67. 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.
68. 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.
69. 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
70. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160
(Maintenance), LQMC.
71. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual
maintenance of all private on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping,
access drives, and sidewalks.
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Village Builders\TTM 32742 PC COA.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Tentative Tract Map 32742 - Village Builders 98, LP
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
FEES AND DEPOSITS
72. 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.
73. 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
74. The applicant shall disclose all easements on any lot within the proposed
tract map to potential buyers prior to the sale of a lot within the tract map.
75. The applicant shall submit proof of abandoned easements on lots 4, 15, 27,
28, and 29 prior to the issuance of building permits for those lots.
76. The applicant shall comply with the following Historical/Archaeological and
Paleontological conditions:
A. Historical/Archeological
1. The site shall be monitored during on- and off -site trenching and
rough grading by qualified archaeological monitors. Proof of
retention of monitors shall be given to the City prior to issuance
of first earth -moving or clearing permit. The Torres -Martinez
Desert Cahuilla, Augustine, and Cabazon Band of Mission Indians
shall be contacted to determine if a tribe member is to be
included as an archaeological monitor.
2. The final report on the monitoring shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department prior to the issuance of the
first Certificate of Occupancy for the project.
3. Collected archaelogical resources shall be properly packaged for
long term curation, in polyethylene self -seal bags, vials, or film
PAReports - PC\9-14-2004\Village Builders\TTM 32742 PC COA.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Tentative Tract Map 32742 — Village Builders 98, LP
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
cans as appropriate, all within acid -free, standard size,
comprehensively labeled archive boxes and delivered to the City
prior to issuance of first Certificate of Occupancy for the
property. Materials shall be accompanied by descriptive
catalogue, field notes and records, primary research data, and the
original graphics.
B. Paleontological
1. On- and off -site monitoring of earth -moving and grading in areas
identified as likely to contain paleontological resources shall be
conducted by a qualified paleontological monitor. The monitor
shall be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to
avoid construction delays and to remove samples of sediments
that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates
and vertebrates. The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily
halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large
specimens. Proof that a monitor has been retained shall be given
to City prior to issuance of first earth -moving permit, or before
any clearing of the site is begun.
2. Recovered specimens shall be prepared to the point of
identification and permanent preservation, including washing of
sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates.
3. A report of findings with an appended itemized inventory of
specimens shall be submitted to the City prior to the first
occupancy of a residence being granted by the City. The report
shall include pertinent discussions of the significance of all
recovered resources where appropriate. The report and inventory,
when submitted will signify completion of the program to mitigate
impacts to paleontological resources.
4. Collected resources and related reports, etc. shall be given to the
City for curation. Packaging of resources, reports, etc. shall
comply with standards commonly used in the paleontological
industry.
P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Village Builders\TTM 32742 PC COA.doc '`
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Tentative Tract Map 32742 — Village Builders 98, LP
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
September 14, 2004
77. The applicant shall comply with all of the mitigation measures imposed on
the project to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Prior to the
issuance of grading permits, the project proponent shall submit to the City
Engineer, for review and approval, a liquefaction study which determines
whether the project will be subject to liquefaction. Any recommendations
made in the study shall be implemented in project construction.
P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Village Builders\TTM 32742 PC COA.doc
ATTACHMENT #
Op'C'r
54TH AVENUE
AIRPORT BLVD.
SITE LOCATION MAP
35TH AVENUE
w
w
F-
V)
w
0
z
0
6ro
Sep-13-04 04:38pm From-OREPAC
+5036821965 T-839 P-01/01 F-046
September 13, 2004
l-a Quinta Planning Commission
78496 Calle Tampico
1_a Quinta, CA
SENT VIA FACSIMILE: 760-777-1233
RE, Public Hearing Notice — Conclitionai use Permit 2004-085
Dear Sir:
I recently (September 11 G') received a Notice of Public Hearing regarding Nexters use
permit 2004-085. 1 am unable, on such short notice, to appear at your hearing on
September 14, 2004, but I want to express my concern and objections to this project_
My residence in l.a Quinta is located at 54-111 Southern Hills, across the street from this
proposed installat,on.
My objections include the possibility of electrical interference, and unsightliness of a 60
foot tower (lighted) adjacent to my front yard. We currently experience interruption of
remote electrical appliances due (allegedly) to communications equipment operated by
the RCFO fire station at that location. Since there are many other properties in close
Proximity to this site which are not developed, I can not understand why such an
aesthetically sensitive residential neighborhood should be considered for such an
intrusive structure.
Please be aware that I am responding in writing to your notice in order to protect my
legal options in the event that this project is approved. I believe there are many other
residents in the surrounding area that have not yet received adequate notice of this
application as well; and whom will also have serious objections to a 60 foot cell tower
used for commercial purposes.
Thank you for your consicieration in this matter, and I am requesting that you deny this
application.
Very Truly Yours,
GI6drin A. Hart