Loading...
2004 09 28 PCT4t!t 4 4 ission Agendas are now a*a kaireon 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 28, 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 2004-070 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 September 14, 2004. B. Department Report G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PCAgendaW.doc V. PUBLIC HEARING: For all Public Hearings on the Agenda, a completed "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Executive Secretary prior to the start of the Planning Commission consideration of that item. The Chairman will invite individuals who have requested the opportunity to speak, to come forward at the appropriate time. Any person may submit written comments to the La Quinta Planning Commission before a public hearing, may appear and be heard in support of, or in opposition to, the approval of the project(s) at the time of the hearing. If you challenge any project(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to the public hearing. A. Item ................ CONTINUED - SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004- 811 Applicant.......... Rich Boureston Location........... Southeast corner of Washington Street and Lake La Quinta Drive Request............ Development plans to construct a 42,000 square foot medical office building on 3.44 acres. Action .............. Continue to October 12, 2004 B. Item ................ CONTINUED - 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 .............. Resolution 2004- Resolution 2004- , Resolution 2004- C. Item ................ VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2004-019 Applicant.......... Dr. John Dixon Location........... Northeast corner of Desert Club Drive and Calle Cadiz Request............ Consideration of development plans for construction of a 4,494 square foot addition to an existing 1,450 square foot building, for medical office use. Action .............. Continue to October 12, 2004 G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PCAgendaW.doc D. Item ................ DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2003-006, AMENDMENT #1 Applicant.......... City of La Quinta and CP Development La Quinta, LLC Location........... The southeast corner of Miles Avenue and Washington Street Request............ Consideration of an Amendment to the Development Agreement by and between the City of La Quinta and CP Development La Quinta, LLC. Action .............. Resolution 2004- E. Item ................ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-521, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2004-102 Applicant.......... City of La Quinta Location........... City-wide Request............ Consideration of adopting a Negative Declaration of environmental impact and Amendment to the General Plan Housing Element. Action .............. Resolution 2004- , Resolution 2004- F. Item ................ SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-813 Applicant.......... Desert Cheyenne Location........... Southwest corner of Avenue 52 and Monroe Street Request............ Consideration of architectural plans for three prototypical floor plans, common area and perimeter landscape plans for a 128 single-family subdivision on ± 80 acres. Action .............. Resolution 2004- G. Item ................ VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2004-024 Applicant.......... Kristi W. Hanson, Inc. Location........... Southwest corner of Desert Club Drive and Calle Barcelona Request............ Consideration of architectural plans for a two-story, 6,354 square foot commercial building on a 0.40 acre site. Action .............. Resolution 2004- VI. BUSINESS ITEM: A. Item ................ SIGN APPLICATION 2004-794 Applicant.......... Image Point for Torre Nissan Location........... Southeast corner of Highway 1 1 1 and Auto Center Drive Request............ Consideration of new signs for the existing Torre Nissan auto dealership. Action .............. Minute Motion 2004- G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PCAgendaW.doc VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Discussion regarding temporary tent provisions 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 October 12, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. DECLARATION OF POSTING I, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary of the City of La Quinta, do hereby declare that the foregoing agenda for the La Quinta Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, 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 24, 2004. DATED: September 24, 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\PCAgendaW.doc MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA September 14, 2004 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Kirk who asked Commissioner Ladner to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Rick Daniels, Kay Ladner, Paul Quill, and Chairman Tom Kirk. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Ladner to excuse Commissioner Krieger. C. Staff present: Oscar Orci, Interim Community Development Director, Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston, Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Fred Baker, Associate Planners Wallace Nesbit, Martin Magana, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: A. Associate Planner Martin Magana asked that Item "F" be moved before Item "E". It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Ladner/Daniels to move Item "F" to Item "E" and Item "E" to Item "F". IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of the regular meeting of August 10, 2004. There being no corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Ladner to approve the minutes as submitted. B. Department Report. Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston reviewed the memorandum sent to the Commission concerning conflict of interest regarding personal property and asked if there were any questions. Chairman Kirk asked if staff would give a report on tents at the next meeting. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-14-04.doc Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 2004 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 the property located at the northwest corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 53. 1. Planning Manager Oscar Orci informed the Commission this case still needed to complete its environmental review and staff was therefore requesting a continuance. 2. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Quill to continue the project to September 28, 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. Planning Manager Oscar Orci informed the Commission that the applicant had withdrawn the application and no further action was required. C. Environmental Assessment 2004-502 and Tentative Tract Map 32225; a request of Vince D'Ambra for 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 for the property located at the northwest corner of Madison Street and Avenue 58. 1. Commissioner Daniels stated he had a potential for a conflict of interest and left the dais. 2. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the information contained in the report a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 3. Chairman Kirk asked staff to explain condition 7.A. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer explained how the traffic model for Madison Street was set at six lanes. Due to the actual development of the G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-14-04.doc 2 Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 2004 projects in this area there is a need to.downgrade the General Plan accordingly; therefore, the condition is to allow time for the change to be made. Chairman Kirk asked if there was any discretion regarding this condition. Staff stated they would apply whatever General Plan requirements are in place at the time of final map. Interim Community Development Director Oscar Orci stated the General Plan Amendment is intended to be scheduled as soon as possible. Should this not happen, staff will make a determination of whether or not this project should be redesigned. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated there was a project on Washington Street approved under a similar circumstance. In this case staff asked for the right of way and not the entire lane. 4. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Dan Lee, representing the applicant, stated they concur with the conditions as written. 5. Chairman Kirk asked if there was any other public comment. Mr. Pierre LaTallia, 39-559 New Castle, Palm Desert, stated he has purchased a lot in the adjoining tract and believes this project is to dense for this area and even though he understands it meets the City's standards he would like to request a lowering of the density. 6. Mr. Robert Stowe, 80-581 Vista Lazo, stated he too agrees it is too dense for this area. His lot will adjoin three of the lots for this tract. They are situated too close to the property line. No other tract in this area is designed with this density. It is not compatible with the surrounding developments. It will create too much traffic for the area as well. 7. Mr. David Brudvik, Santa Rosa Development, engineer for the project, stated it will be designed with one story homes and it is half the density of the Puerta Azul project and across the street on Avenue 58, it is zoned for Medium Density. 8. There being no other public comment, Chairman Kirk closed the public participation portion of the hearing. 9. Commissioner Quill asked staff to ensure the elevations were as stated on the map so they remain the same as the adjoining tracts. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-14-04.doc 3 Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 2004 10. Chairman Kirk asked how much discretion the Commission could have in regard to density. If the Commission found the right findings they could change the density. Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston stated the Commission could provide for less density. Findings such as aesthetics, community design, community health and safety, etc., could be made. 11. Commissioner Ladner thanked the applicant for restricting the units to one story. 12. Chairman Kirk asked the density of the adjoining projects. Staff stated Puerta Azul located immediately to the north, is zoned Medium Density. Chairman Kirk stated it seems that a slight reduction in density on Lots 1 1-15 on the west side of the project would mitigate some of the issues regarding density. 13. Commissioner Ladner asked if they move to see a change in the density, would it go to the City Council for their approval. Chairman Kirk stated yes. 14. Chairman Kirk reopened the public hearing. 15. Commissioner Quill asked the applicant if they intended to build the homes on the site. Mr. Brudvik stated he intends to build the homes. They originally envisioned the project to be designed similar to the La Quinta Hotel casitas units. Staff noted the site design and elevations will be before the Commission for approval of a Site Development Permit and public comment will be taken at that time. 16. Mr. Robert Stowe, owner of Lot 12, stated he is concerned with the entry to the project that will have a left turn lane across the median so close to Madison Street. He is also concerned about the safety of those exiting at this location. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated that Avenue 58 and Madison Street will be signalized within two years. With respect to the full turn for the project it complies with the General Plan. 17. There being no further public comment the public hearing was again closed. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-14-04.doc 4 Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 2004 18. Commissioner Quill asked about the setbacks. Staff stated the setbacks and discussion followed. Commissioner Quill stated he would prefer a 90 foot dimension on the frontage to allow the houses to have a 3,000 square foot range. 19. Chairman Kirk stated the project to the north has a higher density. Lot 10 to the west is larger than Lots 37 — 40, so there isn't much impact. Lot 11 to the south end of Lot 15 is where the compatibility is impacted. A 90-foot width could be required on Lots 4-16 to provide a buffer between the two tracts. 20. Commissioner Ladner asked that Lot 4 not be included. 21. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Ladner to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-061, recommending certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment 2004-502, as recommended: ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Ladner, Quill, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Daniels and Krieger. ABSTAIN: None. 22. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Ladner to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-062, recommending approval of Tentative Tract Map 32225, as recommended by staff and amended: a. Condition added: The front lot dimension for Lots 5-16 shall be increased to a minimum of 90 feet. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Ladner, Quill, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Daniels and Krieger. ABSTAIN: None. Commissioner Daniels rejoined the Commission. D. Conditional Use Permit 2004-085; a request of Nextel Communication for consideration of a 60 foot high telecommunications monopole and 230 square foot equipment shelter for the property located at the southwest corner of Avenue 54 and Madison Street, within Riverside County Fire Department Station #70 property. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-14-04.doc 5 Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 2004 1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit presented the information contained in the report a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Daniels stated he is a resident of PGA West and the homeowners' association is within 500 feet of this property, but he does not feel there is any conflict of interest. 3. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Ladner asked the distance between the top of the live tree to the bottom of the monopalm. Staff stated the highest tree is 42 feet in height, so about a 15-22 foot difference. 4. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. John Beke with Tetra Tech Wireless, representing the applicant, stated they have reviewed the conditions and have no objections. With regard to the opposition letter submitted by Mr. Glen Hart, the FCC does not allowed them to interfere with any other electrical appliances; in terms of unsightliness, it is planted among live palms of the same species; in regard to lighting, they have not applied for any and none are required; in regard to adjacency to his front yard it is over 200 feet away. To view this pole, Mr. Hart will have to view this through a grove of trees to even see this pole. They tried to locate at the PGA Clubhouse, but were unable to do so. In regard to staff's recommendation for plantings 8-10 feet tall between the perimeter wall and their shelter, they would prefer to use vines to grow up onto the shelter. 5. Chairman Kirk stated the monopalm dominates the view as it appears to be twice as tall and large, but in the photos contained in their packet, the palms were indistinguishable. Mr. Beke went over the process of how they produce the photos and determine the height needed. 6. Chairman Kirk asked if there was any other public comment. Mr. John Bobbitt, 80-432 Pebble Beach stated he is the president of the homeowners' association that will be affected by this pole. A number of residents are away and not available to speak to this project. They object to an object of this height. He appreciates their attempt to disguise it, but it will still be unsightly. The potential to interfere with their equipment room that controls a lot G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-14-04.doc 6 Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 2004 of their equipment is a great concern. He understands they have to conform to FCC rules and yet he knows these things do not operate perfectly. He reaffirmed his protest against the project. 7. Commissioner Daniels asked if their concern was that the tower may interfere with their communication equipment. Mr. Bobbitt stated yes as well as the aesthetics. They have had trouble with the Fire Department radio equipment interfering with their equipment, and Mr. Beke has already had problems even though they cannot prove it. Mr. Beke stated that in regard to the interference, they would be happy to have a condition added that they would remedy any interference within a time frame. They would begin a remedy within 48-hours of notice by the claimant to resolve the problem. 8. There being no other public comment, Chairman Kirk closed the public participation portion of the hearing. Commissioner Quill asked if the Riverside County Fire Department had reviewed this request and found there were no issues. Mr. Beke stated yes. 9. Commissioner Daniels asked how they chose this site and what other sites were reviewed. 10. Chairman Kirk reopened the public hearing. Mr. Beke stated their customer, KSL, requested they improve their service. They do not like to go with vacant land as it is unknown what will be there and this site was then chosen. 11. Commissioner Daniels asked why the height had to be 60-feet. Mr. Beke stated this is the lowest functional height to give them the coverage they need. 12. Commissioner Daniels asked if the Verizon pole was approved at a lower height. Staff stated it was 60-feet. 13. Mr Bobbitt stated he would recommend KSL use a different company and reduce the need for the tower. 14. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Ladner to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-063, approving Conditional Use Permit 2004-085, as recommended and amended: G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-14-04.doc 7 Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 2004 a. Condition added: If any complaints regarding interference are received, the applicant will address them within 48 hours. b. Condition added: Vines shall be added to the equipment building between the perimeter wall and the building. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Ladner, Quill, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Krieger. ABSTAIN: None. E. Environmental Assessment 2004-516 and Site Development Permit 2004-81 1; a request of Rich Boureston for consideration of adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact and development plans to construct a 42,000 square foot medical office building on 3.44 acres for the property located at the southeast corner of Washington Street and Lake La Quinta Drive. 1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Martin Magana presented the information contained in the report a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff clarified there will be outpatient surgery, but no overnight stays. 2. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Richard Boureston, the applicant, stated they were in agreement with the conditions, with the exception of the condition for the deceleration lane. Most of the deceleration lanes on Washington Street are for the projects with direct access to their site. There are other places along Washington Street that do not have a deceleration lane who have access off another street. Because of the distance off Lake La Quinta Drive they believe the requirement for a deceleration lane is not warranted. The other objection is for them to pay the 25% for the signal that will someday be installed. The 25% is a difficulty for them and they are the last to build at this location. Other developments will be constructed further south who should also contribute to the cost of the signal. 3. Chairman Kirk asked staff to address the concerns raised. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated the City is in a state of growth and therefore there are a lot of differences in what has been required. This is true by virtue of changes to the General Plan. This condition arose from the City Council requesting G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-14-04.doc 8 Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 2004 conditions be added to require deceleration lanes on major streets. Currently, the General Plan requires Washington Street to be an eight lane street. Staff has been requesting applicants to either install the deceleration lane or dedicate the easement necessary to meet this requirement should it become necessary. With respect to the traffic signal, staff has found that the developers impact fee has been formed to help pay for Arterial street signals. Typically the developers on each corner will pay for the signals. We have been changing the condition to require a fair share prorate share up to 25%. A sentence will be added to the condition to address this. Mr. Boureston stated the City does need deceleration lanes where there is direct access from Washington Street. If Lake La Quinta Drive was heavily traveled it would need a deceleration lane, but it is not. 4. Chairman Kirk stated his concern was the City's requirement to have the front of the building at one story. Mr. Ron Sakahara, architect for the project, stated this design was based on the City's height requirement for this area. Chairman Kirk stated there has been some relief on other projects if there are architectural features. He would like to see the entire building at two stories even if it encroaches into the setback 20-feet. Mr. Sakahara stated they would like to work with staff if this was acceptable to the Commission as long as it did not affect their timeline. 5. Mr. Tim Bartlett, 73-382 Salt Cedar Street, Palm Desert, gave a history on the development of the site. All four corners were developed at that time and received the final map. In his opinion, this pad is within that final map approval and should not be required to pay for the signal as all conditions had been met. Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston stated a final map does not give a vested right to develop in a particular way. Vested rights only accrue upon the issuance of a building permit and substantial completion of construction pursuant to a building permit. The concept of a final map does not allow a discretionary body to make further discretionary approvals and attach conditions, is not what the law is. Mr. Bartlett stated the streets have all been finished and the City has accepted them. 6. Mr. Sakahara stated they may have only one drop off on the Washington Street side instead of the two and the mechanical equipment screen shows it should have a matching parapet and they would prefer to just match the color texture with only the G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-14-04.doc 9 Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 2004 cornice showing. Lastly, they would like to eliminate the use of brick and use a stacked stone. 7. Mr. Ben Rosker, 47-675 Via Montesa, Lake La Quinta HOA, stated he was surprised that the developer of the homes being constructed across from this site was never informed of this public hearing. On Caleo Bay there is a gated entry to Lake La Quinta. During the school year there are a number of children waiting to be picked up by buses. It is surprising to see this medical office is going to enter off Caleo Bay. This is a narrow street with children present and he believes this project should have an entry off a different street. He would recommend the building be reversed to have the one story on Caleo Bay. Caleo Bay has parking on both sides which will narrow the street for access of other cars. Assistant City Engineer stated those who have been developing along Caleo Bay have been conditioned to participate in the cost of restripping Caleo Bay. Parking will be eliminated and there will be a two-way left turn lane with a single lane on both sides of the street. 8. Commissioner Ladner asked the reasoning to have their access off Caleo Bay. Mr. Boureston stated they were told by staff this was the only access they could have. 9. Commissioner Daniels asked the implication of changing the building to make it two story and moving the building to Washington Street and putting the parking on the Caleo Bay side. Mr. Boureston stated they would have to redesign the site plan and see how it works on the site. If they went to a two story building and were relieved of meeting the setback condition, they would be willing to move the building as suggested. 10. Commissioner Quill stated he is glad it is setback and only one story. He is emphatic that a deceleration lane be installed, but he is not certain whose responsibility it is. This would also apply to the signal in regard to who is responsible for the construction. What concerns him is that they were very strict with Walgreens for their architectural style as well as other developments along Washington Street. Yet this building is just a concrete tilt -up building with some architectural features. 11. Commissioner Ladner stated it is not an attractive building. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-14-04.doc 10 Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 2004 12. Chairman Kirk stated they are not as hard on the architecture style as they have been on other buildings that are different. There is a variety of architecture along Washington Street. This building does need some additional features, but not necessarily tile roofs. He also believes the building should be a two story and moved closer to Washington Street to move it away from the residents and sensitive to viewshed. In respect to access, he supports staff's recommendation in respect to location and design, but also concerned as to who should pay the cost of the signal. Staff has made good suggestions making sure that those who benefit should contribute. He does support the deceleration lane. In regard to compatibility, this has been a difficult street. He does support the use. 13. Commissioner Ladner asked what kind of input came from the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee (ALRC). Staff stated the ALRC stated they realized the building fit the design as it was an institutional use. They discussed the parapet being out of balance and the applicant agreed to reduce the height. The ALRC determined the style was reminiscent of something from Chicago and suggested the brick to bring out the institutional look. Mr. Boureston stated the ALRC made the statement that when you think of a concrete tilt up building you think of an industrial style building. Mr. Bartlett noted the architectural features. Mr. Sakahara went over the design of the building. 14. Chairman Kirk asked if there was any other public comment. There being no other public comment, Chairman Kirk closed the public participation portion of the hearing. 15. Commissioner Ladner stated she would rather have it set back and the number of stories is not an issue. She would not object to having two stories. She is not in favor of the architectural style. Staff stated that an increase in size would require more parking which would require the applicant to do another analysis. 16. Commissioner Daniels stated he has no problem making it all two story and if necessary move it closer to Washington Street. 17. Chairman Kirk stated that architecture is not a concern of his and if the Commission wants to continue this, direction needs to be provided. Staff stated deviations to the Code could be allowed through a specific plan. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-14-04.doc 11 Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 2004 18. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Ladner/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-067, recommending certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment 2004-516, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Ladner, Quill, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Krieger. ABSTAIN: None. 19. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Daniels to continue the SDP to September 28, 2004, with the following instructions: a. Reducing the applicant's cost of the signal, based on staff's recommendation up to a 25% contribution, pending an analyze of the relative benefit of this and on other projects; b. Requiring the deceleration lane; C. Respect the ALRC conditions regarding stone veneer; an alternative more formal stone may be more appropriate and more of it possibly in the entry area and not just the columns; and d. If architectural standards were enhanced, the150 foot setback off Washington Street and the parking standards could be relaxed if architecture enhancement were provided. Unanimously approved. F. Environmental Assessment 2004-513, Specific Plan 2004-072, and Tentative Tract Map 32398; a request of Rob Schumacher for consideration of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact, establish design and development principles, and the subdivision of 110.9 acres into 392 single-family lots, a ten acre commercial lot and miscellaneous lots for the property located at the northeast corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 60. 1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Martin Magana presented the information contained in the report a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Kirk asked about the commercial setback requests. Staff stated the applicant was requesting a ten foot setback along the northern property line. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-14-04.doc 12 Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 2004 3. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Web Barton, representing the applicant, stated they had no objections to the conditions and were available to answer any questions. 4. Chairman Kirk asked about the ten foot setback and wall. Mr. Barton stated they designed it with the 10/30 setback which was a mistake in the Specific Plan and they are not requesting the deviation. Chairman Kirk stated it is an incredible project and yet a poor Specific Plan with erroneous information. Chairman Kirk reviewed his concerns about the Plan. Mr. Frank Laulainen, apologized for the condition of the Specific Plan and stated they would correct it before going to the City Council. One of the problems they faced was to divorce themselves from the Coral Mountain Specific Plans. 5. Mr. Michael Keebler, representing Coachella Valley Unified School District, stated that in the document in two places Page 63 and 91 there is discussion about a bus turnout. In most projects they try to coordinate bus turnouts with Sunline and in this case they would request conditions be placed on the project that they coordinate with both agencies. 6. Chairman Kirk asked if there was any other public comment. There being no other public comment, Chairman Kirk closed the public participation portion of the hearing. 7. Commissioners Ladner, Daniels, and Quill commended the architect on the project and Chairman Kirk agreed. 8. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Ladner to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-065, recommending certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment 2004-513 , as recommended: ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Ladner, Quill, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Krieger. ABSTAIN: None. 9. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Ladner to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-066, recommending approval of Specific Plan 2004-072, as recommended/amended: G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-14-04.doc 13 Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 2004 a. Condition added: The applicant shall work with staff to upgrade the quality of the Specific Plan formatting ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Ladner, Quill, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Krieger. ABSTAIN: None. 10. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Ladner to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-066, recommending approval of Tentative Tract Map 32398, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Ladner, Quill, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Krieger. ABSTAIN: None. G. Environmental Assessment 2004-515, Zone Change 2004-121, and Tentative Tract Map 32742; a request of Village Builders 98, LP for consideration of adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact, a zone change to remove the Equestrian Overlay and the subdivision of 14.54 acres into 40 single-family lots and miscellaneous lots for the property located at 55-101 Monroe Street, approximately 150 feet south of Avenue 55. 1. Chairman Kirk excused himself due to a possible conflict of interest and left the dais. 2. Vice Chairman Quill opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Martin Magana presented the information contained in the report a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 3. Vice Chairman Quill asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Daniels noted the Greg Norman course is within the PGA development and as a homeowner within PGA West with common area interest, he believes in this instance, he has no conflict of interest. 4. Vice Chairman Quill asked staff to explain Lot B. Staff stated it contains easements for the one single-family home. Staff has conditioned that Lot 15 honor the easement to this house and that all future homeowners of this lot be made aware of this easement. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-14-04.doc 14 Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 2004 5. There being no further questions of staff, Vice Chairman Quill asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Ms. Margo Thibeault, MSA Consulting, representing the applicant, stated they are in agreement with all conditions except Condition #54.A.e. It was their understanding the equestrian trail would be on the east side of the street and as it would not make any connection to any other trail and would like to be relieved of this condition. In regard to the property to the north, they did try to purchase it but was unsuccessful. 6. Commissioner Daniels asked for an explanation of the cross -hatch area on the street. Ms. Thibeault stated it is decorative section for traffic calming. 7. Vice Chairman Quill asked if there was a multi -purpose trail or if this condition was an error. Staff stated there is a mixture in this area and staff is unable to place the trail on the east side as it is not within the City's limits. Vice Chairman Quill asked if the CVWD easements would be abandoned before the Final Map. Ms. Thibeault stated they have started the abandonment procedure, but it is not a fast process. Vice Chairman Quill noted they would not be able to build until the easements were abandoned. Staff noted the condition was written prior to building permits being issued. 8. Mr. John Pedalino, the applicant, stated Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) can take as long as a year to abandon the easements, but CVWD has given them a letter noting they would be abandoned. The final map will show the easements and when BOR approved the abandonment, the title company will note on the deed. 9. There being no other public comment, Vice Chairman Quill closed the public participation portion of the hearing. 10. Commissioner Daniels asked if the trail was required. Staff noted they could take whatever action they chose to in regard to the trail. Staff noted there are trails along this area and there are breaks in the trail that will not be closed until all developments are completed. It is the City's goal to have a City-wide trail system. Discussion followed. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-14-04.doc 15 Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 2004 11. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Ladner/Daniels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-068, recommending certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment 2004-515, as recommended: ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Krieger Ladner, and Vice Chairman Quill. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Krieger and Kirk. ABSTAIN: None. 12. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Ladner/Daniels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-069, recommending approval Tentative Tract Map 32742, as recommended and amended: a. Condition #54.A.e. deleted. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Ladner, and Vice Chairman Quill. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Krieger and Kirk. ABSTAIN: None. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Interim Community Development Director Oscar Orci discussed potential issues for the joint meeting with the City Council. Commissioner Quill asked that annexations be discussed. 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 28, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:54 p.m., on September 14, 2004. Respectfully submitted, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-14-04.doc 16 PH #A STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: SEPTEMBER 28, 2004 CASE NO: 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 IT WAS 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. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS ADOPTED A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-516 ON SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 BY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 2004-064. 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 P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\Boureston (Cont.)\SDP 04 811 PC StfRpt2 .doc BACKGROUND: This project was presented to the Planning Commission on September 14, 2004. At that meeting the Planning Commission adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment 2004-516 by adoption of Resolution 2004-064. However, the Planning Commission continued Site Development Permit 2004-81 1 for the project due to concerns regarding architectural details and the two-story configuration of the building. The applicant requests this project be continued to the October 12, 2004 meeting to allow the developer sufficient time to address the Planning Commission's concerns (Attachment 1). RECOMMENDATION: Continue the item to the October 12, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. Attachments: 1. Letter from Rich Boureston dated September 21, 2004 Prepared by: 4., ", Martin Magana Associate Planner PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Boureston ICont.l\SDP 04 811 PC StfRpt2 Am ATTACHMENT #1 September 22, 2004 Martin Magana CITY OF LA QUINTA P.O. Box 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92247-1504 Dear Mr. Magana: I am requesting to have a continuance on our project with the planning commission to October 12, 2004. It' you have any questions please feel free to contact use at (949) 3874663. Sincerely, "-d� Richard E. Boureston General Partner MOURESTON o e V c L O a I- E N T 5500 Trabuco load Suite #100 Irvine, CA. 92620-5705 phone 949. 387. 4667 fax 949. 767. 5929 infoObtdev.com STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: SEPTEMBER 28, 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 AND TO ALLOW THE SUBDIVISION OF 40 ACRES INTO 101 RESIDENTIAL LOTS FOR PROPERTY TO BE ANNEXED INTO THE CITY OF LA QUINTA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-51 1 WAS PREPARED FOR THIS SPECIFIC PLAN AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED. THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT, AS CONDITIONED, WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THEREFORE, RECOMMENDS THAT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BE RECOMMENDED FOR CERTIFICATION. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: LDR (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, UP TO 4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, WITH AN AGRICULTURE/EQUESTRIAN OVERLAY) ZONING: LOW DENSITY AGRICULTURE/EQUESTRIAN RESIDENTIAL SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USES: NORTH: LOW DENSITY AGRICULTURE/EQUESTRIAN RESIDENTIAL / RESIDENTIAL PROJECT (RANCHO SANTANA) UNDER CONSTRUCTION SOUTH: RL WITH EQUSTRIAN OVERLAY/ FUTURE HIDEAWAY EXPANSION P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\tt 31874 pc rpt 9-28.doc EAST: RIVERSIDE COUNTY / AGRICULTURAL USE WEST: LOW DENSITY AGRICULTURE/EQUESTRIAN RESIDENTIAL / PROPOSED EXPANSION AREA FOR THE HIDEAWAY BACKGROUND This item was continued from the August 10, and September 14, 2004 meetings to allow completion of the environmental review and submission of a revised Specific Plan document. The property is a 40-acre parcel in the south La Quinta at the northwest corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 53. The property is presently not within the City limits, but is within the City of La Quinta's adopted Sphere of Influence. On September 23, 2004 the Local Agency Formation Commission reviewed and approved the request to annex to the City of La Quinta. The approval of these applications will be effective only upon the completion of the annexation process. The property is presently improved with a single-family and caretakers' residence, horse barn, RV barn, small pond, horse corrals and other accessory structures. The property has been graded flat and used for various crop farming, most recently grapes. A number of palm trees are along the north property line and along a driveway connecting Monroe Street with the residence that is near the west property line. Power poles line the site along Monroe Street and Avenue 53. Rancho Santana, an equestrian oriented, 201-lot project is under construction to the north. To the south and west is land (recently purchased) and proposed for expansion of The Hideaway. A Specific Plan Amendment is being processed for this area. The project will consist of 101 residential lots and will be called Pista de Dorado (Trail of Gold). It will portray a historic -western theme in areas such as its private park, perimeter walls and multi -purpose trail (with a trail stop). However, they are not providing any on -site equestrian facilities or trails as permitted by the Low Density Agriculture/Equestrian Residential District. A Tentative Tract application has been submitted to divide the property into 101 single-family lots as well as a Specific Plan to establish development standards, principles, guidelines and programs, as well as provide deviations to some of the Low Density Agriculture/Equestrian Residential districts standards. PROJECT REQUEST The applicant is proposing to subdivide the 40-acre site into 101 single-family residential lots (Attachment 2). Several miscellaneous lots would be created, primarily for storm water retention areas, landscaping, recreation, private streets and a well site. The proposed density of this subdivision is 2.53 dwelling units per acre which is within the range allowed in the Zoning Code and General Plan land use designation. The PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\tt 31874 pc rpt 9-28.doc existing zoning on the property requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. The proposed Specific Plan establishes minimum lot sizes from 9,600 square feet to 21,608 square feet, with an average lot size of approximately 11,000 square feet. One water well site, one retention basin, and one recreation/retention lot is proposed. The project will have 36-foot wide interior private curvilinear streets with a card access security gates on Monroe Street and Avenue 53. The entry areas will provide decorative paving and security gates. On -street parking will be allowed on both sides of the internal streets. Decorative "vintage style" six-foot high block walls with detailing and decorative cap reminiscent of a historic style wall will be provided. Planting will consist of primarily desert and low water use plants. Lawn areas will be limited to portions of the residential lots front yards and private park lot. On -site storm water retention is provided in two basins. The primary basin is located at the southeast corner of the property at the intersection of Monroe Street and Avenue 53 and designed to contain runoff from a 100-year storm. The remaining basin is near the middle of the project. This 35,000 square foot lot is intended to function primarily as a private village park and contain active and passive recreation facilities such as playground equipment, benches, half -court basketball, shade structures, lawn areas and a small landscape water feature. As required by the General Plan, a multi -use (equestrian) trail will be provided along the Monroe Street parkway. The applicant has proposed to provide an upgraded trail by increasing the landscape setback lot depth from 20 to 30 feet, providing a bridge crossing over a dry creek along the trail, and a "trail stop". The trail stop for riders and pedestrians will provide a drinking fountain, bench, watering trough for horses, possibly a public art piece, and hitching area. The Specific Plan provides conceptual information on the residences proposed to be developed on the property (Attachment 3). Four floor plans are shown, varying from 2,694 to 3,049 square feet. An optional detached or attached casita room will be offered. The plans will be one story in height and incorporate a blend of Tuscan, Spanish Revival, Mediterranean, Spanish Colonial, early California Mission, and Rancho architectural styles. On Page 26 of the Specific Plan, development standards for the development of the residences are proposed. A comparison of the "Low Density Agriculture/Equestrian Residential District regulations and the proposed standards shows that the development will be oriented more towards an urban style rather than the rural standards. Lot coverage is increased from 40 to 50%, the minimum lot size is reduced slightly from 10,000 to 9,600 square feet and setback requirements are reduced on all sides. The proposed development is reducing the allowable height from two to one story and increasing the minimum living area requirement from 1,400 to 2,200 square feet. PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\tt 31874 pc rpt 9-28.doc Public Notice This map application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on July 31, 2004. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required by the La Quinta Municipal Code. As of this writing, no comments have been received. Public Agency Review All written comments received are on file with the Community Development Department. All applicable agency comments received have been made part of the Conditions of Approval for these applications. FINDINGS Findings to recommend approval of this request to the City Council can be made as noted 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 2004-51 1, subject to the attached Mitigation Monitoring provisions. 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004- , recommending to the City Council approval of Specific Plan 2004-073, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. 3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004- , recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 31874, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Tentative Tract Map exhibit 3. Specific Plan document Prepared by: Stan Sawa, Principal Planner PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\tt 31874 pc rpt 9-28.doc `-t 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 31874 AND SPECIFIC PLAN 2004-073 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-511 STONEFIELD DEVELOPMENT, INC. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 281h day of September, 2004 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Stonefield Development, Inc. for Environmental Assessment 2004-51 1 prepared for Tentative Tract 31874 and Specific Plan 2004-073, located at the northwest corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 53, more particularly described as: APN 767-200-011 WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify recommending to the City Council certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1. The proposed applications will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2004-51 1. 2. The proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Potential impacts associated with cultural and paleontologic resources can be mitigated to a less than significant level. The site does not contain significant biological resources. 3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends. The site does not contain significant biological resources. 4. The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as the proposed project supports the long term goals of the General Plan by PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-511 pc res.doc (. i Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Environmental Assessment 2004-511 Stonefield Development, Inc. Adopted: September 28, 2004 providing a variety of housing opportunities for City residents. No significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the Environmental Assessment. 5. The proposed project will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the proposed project. The construction of 101 residential units will not have considerable cumulative impacts. The project is consistent with the General Plan, and the potential impacts associated with General Plan buildout. 6. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly. The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect human beings, due to air quality and noise impacts. The Coachella Valley is in a non -attainment area for PM 10, and the site will generate PM 10; however, there are a number of mitigation measures to reduce the potential impacts on air quality. Noise impacts have been addressed through a series of mitigation measures, which will lower the potential for significant impacts to less than significant levels. 7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. 8. The Planning Commission has considered Environmental Assessment 2004-511 and said 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. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment. P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-511 pc res.doc ,� Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Environmental Assessment 2004-511 Stonefield Development, Inc. Adopted: September 28, 2004 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of Environmental Assessment 2004-511 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Mitigation Monitoring Program, attached and on file in the Community Development Department. 3. - That Environmental Assessment 2004-51 1 reflects the independent judgment of the City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 28'h 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\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-511 pc res.doc %'y Environmental Checklist Form Project title: Tentative Tract Map 31874, Specific Plan 2004-073 2. Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact person and phone number: Stan Sawa 760-777-7125 4. Project location: Northwest corner of Avenue 53 and Monroe Street. APN: 767-200-001 5. Project sponsor's name and address: Stonefield Development 23333 Avenida de Caza Coto de Caza, CA 92679 6. General plan designation: Low Density 7. Zoning: Low Residential, with Agriculture/Equestrian Density/Agricultural/Equestrian* Overlay* 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.) A proposal to subdivide 40 acres into 101 single family residential lots, as well as lots for streets, retention basins, a well site and landscaped parkway. The site is proposed to have access from both Monroe Street and Avenue 53. The minimum lot size is proposed to be 9,600 square feet. Lot size ranges from 9,600 to 21,608, with most lots in the range of approximately 10,000 square feet. The project site is currently in the City's sphere of influenced, and undergoing annexation. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: North: Vacant (Low Density Residential under construction) South: Vacant (Low Density Residential, Golf Course Open Space) West: Vacant (Low Density Residential, Golf Course Open Space) East: Vacant (Agriculture County) 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Coachella Valley Water District *The property is currently in unincorporated Riverside County. Pre -annexation General Plan and Zoning designations were assigned to the property during the General Plan Update process, and have been assumed here. PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-511 chklst.doc -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. �r7A September 13, 2004 Signature Date P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-51 1 chklst.doc -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 prof 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. PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-51 1 chklst.doc -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 P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-511 chklst.doc -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) Neither Avenue 53 nor Monroe Street are designated Image Corridors in the General Plan. The proposed subdivision will result in the construction of 101 single family residences on lots of approximately 10,000 square feet. There are no significant aesthetic landmarks in the area. The site is surrounded by properties designated for golf course and residential land uses at similar grades to the proposed project. The City regulates building height for single family homes to one or two stories, which will limit the potential mass associated with the site. The impacts associated with aesthetics are expected to be insignificant. 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. PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-511 chklst.doc -5- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique X Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. III-21 ff.) X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map) c) Involve other changes in the existing X environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (General Plan Land Use Map) II. a)-c) The proposed project site has been in agriculture, and is currently partially farmed. The property is not under Williamson Act contract. The property is isolated from other farmlands, and is in an area of the City which is rapidly developing. The loss of 40 acres of partially utilized, isolated farmland is not expected to be significant. P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-511 chkist.doc -6- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct X implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) b) Violate any air quality standard or X contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) c) Result in a cumulatively considerable X net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, 2002 PM10 Plan for the Coachella Valley) d) Expose sensitive receptors to X substantial pollutant concentrations? (Project Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a X substantial number of people? (Project Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection) III. a), b) & c) The proposed project would result in 101 single family residential units on the site. These units are likely to generate approximately 1,055 vehicle trips per day'. Since automobile emissions are the largest contributor to air quality issues in the region, these vehicle trips will be the most significant generators of air pollutants as a result of the project. 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, 6t' Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, category 210, Single Family Residential, detached. P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-51 1 chklst.doc -7- Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout (pounds per day) Ave. Trip Total Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Length (miles) miles/day 1.055 x 10 = 10,550 PM10 PM10 PM10 Pollutant ROC CO NOX Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wear Grams at 50 mph 949.50 24,687.00 5,064.00 - 105.50 105.50 Pounds at 50 mph 2.10 54.50 11.18 - 0.23 0.23 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. 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 972.6 pounds per day, for a limited period while grading operations are active, assuming that the site will be mass graded. If the site is graded in sections, impacts are 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 PM10 can be mitigated by the measures below. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize exhaust emissions. PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-511 chklst.doc -8- i f 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 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 Monroe Street and Avenue 53 shall be installed with the first phase of development on the site, as shall the project's perimeter wall. 9. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean-up of construction - related dirt on approach routes to the site. 10. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour Implementation of these mitigation measures will ensure that impacts associated with PM10 are mitigated to a less than significant level. III. d) & e) The project will consist of residential units and will not result in objectionable odors, nor will it expose residents to concentrations of pollutants. PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-51 1 chkist.doc -9- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either X directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ("General Biological Resources Assessment..." Natural Resources Assessment, Inc. May 2004) 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 Biological Resources Assessment..." Natural Resources Assessment, Inc. 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? ("General Biological Resources Assessment..." Natural Resources Assessment, Inc. 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? ("General Biological Resources Assessment..." Natural Resources Assessment, Inc. May 2004) e) Conflict with any local policies or X ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ("General Biological Resources PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-51 1 chklst.doc -10- %"6 Assessment..." Natural Resources Assessment, Inc. May 2004) f) Conflict with the provisions of an X adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (General Plan Exhibit 6.3) IV. a)-f) A biological resource study was prepared for the proposed project site 2. The study included a records search as well as on -site investigation. The on site investigation included particular focus on identifying burrowing owl on the site, as well as sensitive plants. A protocol survey for burrowing owl was not completed. The study concluded that the site's long term use as farm land, and its isolated nature in regards to natural habitat make it of poor value for native species habitat. The study did not identify burrowing owl on the property, and identified only common species throughout. Because of the site's use as farm land, impacts to biological resources are expected to be negligible. 2 "General Biological Resources Assessment Stonefield 40 Acres," prepared by Natural Resources Assessment, Inc., May 2004. PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-511 chklst.doc -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 ' 15064.5? ("Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation...," Keith Companies, June 2004) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in X the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to'15064.5? ("Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation...," Keith Companies, June 2004) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique X paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ("Paleontologic Assessment..." San Bernardino County Museum, February 2004) d) Disturb any human remains, including X those interred outside of formal cemeteries? "Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation...," Keith Companies, June 2004) V. a)-b) & d) A cultural resource survey and associated report were prepared for the project site 3. The survey found one isolate on the property, as well as one circa 1925 shotshell. These finds are considered indicative of the potential for sub -surface artifacts. Therefore, the report recommends the imposition of the following mitigation measure: 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. Monitors shall include a Native American monitor. Proof of retention of monitors shall be given to the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to issuance of first earth -moving or clearing permit. 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, "Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of 40 Acres......," prepared by the Keith Companies, June 2004. PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-511 chklst.doc -12- - � J 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. The project contractor is required by state law to report a finding of human remains, should such a find be made during project grading. Law enforcement officials are responsible for the proper investigation and disposal of remains. 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 both mollusk shells and undated bone fragments which may or may not be fossils.. 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 measure shall be implemented. 1. 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. 2. Proof of retention of monitors shall be given to City prior to issuance of first earth - moving or clearing permit. 3. The final report on the monitoring shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of the first production home building permit for the proj ect. 4. Collected paleontological 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 building permit for the property. Materials will be accompanied by descriptive catalogue, field notes and records, primary research data, and the original graphics. 4 "Paleontological Assessment Stonefield Development," prepared by the San Bernardino Museum, February 2004. PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-511 chkist.doc -13- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, X as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (MEA Exhibit 6.2) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (MEA X Exhibit 6.2) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, X including liquefaction? (MEA Exhibit 6.3) iv) Landslides? (MEA Exhibit 6.4) X 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 IV groundshaking zone. The property, as with the rest of the City, will be subject to significant ground movement in the event of a major earthquake. Structures on the site will be required to meet the City's and the State's standards for construction, which include Uniform Building Code requirements for seismic zones. The City Engineer will require the preparation of site -specific geotechnical PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-51 1 chklst.doc -14- analysis in conjunction with the submittal of grading plans. This requirement will ensure that impacts from ground shaking are reduced to a less than significant level. The site is located in an area having a potential for liquefaction hazards. In order to assure that liquefaction issues are mitigated to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit, for review and approval by the City Engineer, a liquefaction study which determines the depth to groundwater at the project site, and recommends any special construction techniques to assure that structures on the site will be protected in a seismic event. Portions of the project site are located in an area of very 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. The site is not subject to landslides, nor does it have expansive soils. The proposed project will be required to connect to the CVWD sanitary sewer system, and septic tanks will not be installed. With implementation of the above mitigation measure, impacts associated with soils and geology are expected to be less than significant. PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-51 1 chklst.doc -15- 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? ("Report of Phase I Environmental Site Assessment..." Earth Systems Southwest, Jan. 2004) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle X hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? ("Report of Phase I Environmental Site Assessment..." Earth Systems Southwest, Jan. 2004) d) Be located on a site which is included X on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? ("Report of Phase I Environmental Site Assessment..." Earth Systems Southwest, Jan. 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 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 P:\Reports - M9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-51 1 chklst.doc -16- land use map) g) Impair implementation of or X physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff) h) Expose people or structures to a X significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (General Plan land use map) VII. a)-h) The construction of 101 residential units on the proposed project site will not result in significant impacts associated with hazardous materials. The City implements the standards of Household Hazardous Waste programs through its waste provider. These regulations and standards ensure that impacts to surrounding areas, or within the project itself, are less than significant. The site is not in an area subject to wildland fires. The site's use as farm land has been analyzed in a Phase I Environmental Assessments. Recommendations have been made in that study regarding a storage area which may require further study. Since the potential impacts associated with this storage area are not known, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented to reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant level. 1. Prior to issuance of grading permits, a Phase II investigation of the storage areas for prior pesticide use and potential spillage shall be completed, and any clean up required, if necessary, shall be completed. 5 "Report of Phase I Environmental Site Assessment..." prepared by Earth Systems Southwest, January, 2004. PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-51 1 chklst.doc -17- 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? ("Preliminary Hydrology..." TKC, June 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? ("Preliminary Hydrology..." TKC, June 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? ("Preliminary Hydrology..."TKC, June 2004) f) Place housing within a 100-year flood X P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-51 1 chklst.doc -18- 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 development of the site will result in the need for domestic water service for residential units, both for domestic water and landscaping irrigation. The CVWD has prepared a Water Management Plan which indicates that it has sufficient water sources to accommodate growth in its service area. The CVWD has implemented or is implementing water conservation, purchase and replenishment measures which will result in a surplus of water in the long term. The project proponent will 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. In order to achieve this requirement, a preliminary hydrology study was completed 6. The study analyzed the potential storm flows resulting from a 100 year storm, and the required capacity of the retention basin to accommodate those volumes. The study found that a retention basin capable of containing 3.16 acre feet was required. The retention basins within the project (shown as lots R & Q on the map) has been sized to accommodate this volume, with Lot Q as the primary area, and Lot R acting as additional capacity. The City Engineer will review the final hydrology study for the proposed project, and approve its findings prior to recordation of the map. 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. 6 "Preliminary Hydrology & Hydraulics Report," prepared by the Keith Companies, June 2004. PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-511 chklst.doc -19- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established X community? (Aerial photo) b) Conflict with any applicable land use X plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (General Plan Land Use Element) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat X conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 74 ff.) IX. a)-c) The project site is currently in agriculture, and will not impact any existing community. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan designation for the property, and will result in a total of 101 single family homes. This type of development is consistent with surrounding existing and approved development. No impacts are expected as a result of project implementation. The project site is outside the boundary of the mitigation fee for the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan. PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-511 chklst.doc -20- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a X known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff.) b) Result in the loss of availability of a X locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff.) X. a) & b) The proposed project site is within the MRZ-1 Zone, and is therefore not considered to have potential for mineral resources. P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-511 chklst.doc -21- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XI. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation X of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? ("Preliminary Noise Study," Urban Crossroads, April 2004) b) Exposure of persons to or generation X of excessive groundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels? ("Preliminary Noise Study," Urban Crossroads, April 2004) c) A substantial permanent increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ("Preliminary Noise Study," Urban Crossroads, April 2004) d) A substantial temporary or periodic X increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ("Preliminary Noise Study," Urban Crossroads, April 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)-0 A noise study was prepared for the proposed project. The study found that noise levels for lots on Avenue 53 are expected to remain below the City's standard of 65 dBA 7 "40 Acre Residential Development Preliminary Noise Study," prepared by Urban Crossroads, April, 2004. P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-511 chklst.doc -22- i j CNEL. However, noise levels for lots on Monroe Street, without mitigation, will reach 69.7 dBA CNEL, which exceeds the City's standards. The study also analyzed the potential well site (shown as Lot P on the Tract Map), and the noise generation potential from equipment on that site. The study found that with mitigation, potential impacts associated with noise from the well site could be mitigated to less than significant levels. The study also considered the potential impacts to second story construction from roadway noise on Monroe and Avenue 53. Noise levels are expected to reach between 62.6 and 69.2 dBA CNEL without mitigation. Although the building construction itself can provide from 12 to 20 dBA CNEL noise attenuation, the potential second stories of homes on Monroe and Avenue 53 could still exceed the City's 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard without the provision of a mechanical ventilation system, to allow a "windows closed" condition. In order to assure that the potential impacts associated with noise at the project site are reduced to a less than significant level, the study recommends the implementation of the following mitigation measures: 1. A 6 foot high wall shall be constructed, at a minimum, along the northern property line of lot 13, the eastern property lines of lots 4 through 12, the southern property line of lot 8, the northern property line of lot 7, the southern property line of lot 4, and the eastern property line of lot 3. The wall shall be of solid construction, in block or similar material, with no breaks or openings. 2. All second story units located along Avenue 53 and Monroe shall be provided with a mechanical ventilation system (air conditioning). 3. A final noise study shall be submitted with building permits for the proposed proj ect. Noise will also be generated from the project site during construction. Lands surrounding the property, however, are currently vacant, and planned for a golf course community. Should this community be built before the proposed project, it will include the construction of a wall, which should provide sufficient attenuation of the temporary noise impacts associated with construction of the proposed project. With implementation of the mitigation measures above, impacts associated with noise shall be reduced to less than significant levels. The proposed project site is not located within the vicinity of an air strip or airport. P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-51 1 chklst.doc -23- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth X in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) b) Displace substantial numbers of X existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) c) Displace substantial numbers of X people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) XII. a)-c) The construction of 101 residential units will not generate growth in the City, but will rather accommodate growth pressures caused by commercial and other types of projects in the area. PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-511 chklst.doc -24- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57) X Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57) X Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.) X Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks X Master Plan) Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, X p. 46 ff.) XIII. a)Buildout of the site will have a less than significant impact on public services. The proposed project will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, under City contract. Buildout of the proposed project will generate sales and property tax which will offset the costs of added police and fire services, as well as the costs of general government. The project will be required to pay the mandated school fees and park in lieu fees in place at the time of issuance of building permits to reduce the impacts to those services. PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-511 chkist.doc -25- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XIV. RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of X existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Application materials) b) Does the project include recreational X facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application materials) XIV. a) & b) The proposed project includes interior open space areas which will be available to residents for recreational purposes (lots R and Q, proposed for retention basins). In addition, park in lieu fees will be collected to address the project's impacts on the City's recreational facilities. PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-51 1 chklst.doc -26- 'i 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 31874) e) Result in inadequate emergency X access? (Tentative Tract Map 31874) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X (Tentative Tract Map 31874) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, X or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project description) XV. a)-g) The project site has the potential to generate 1,055 average daily trips. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning designations placed on the property by the City. The General Plan EIR included lands in the City's sphere in its P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-51 1 chklst.doc -27- analysis, and found that both Monroe and Avenue 53 would operate at acceptable levels at General Plan buildout. The proposed project, therefore, will have less than significant impacts on traffic and circulation in the area. 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. PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-511 chklst.doc -28- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment X requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) b) Require or result in the construction of X new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) c) Require or result in the construction of X new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) d) Have sufficient water supplies X available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) e) Result in a determination by the X wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient X permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) g) Comply with federal, state, and local X statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-511 chklst.doc -29- 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. PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-51 1 chklst.doc -30- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- a) Does the project have the potential to X degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to X achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? b) Does the project have impacts that are X individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental X effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. a) Potential impacts associated with cultural and paleontologic resources can be mitigated to a less than significant level. The site does not contain significant biological resources. XVII. b) The proposed project supports the long term goals of the General Plan by providing a variety of housing opportunities for City residents. XVII. c) The construction of 101 residential units will not have considerable cumulative impacts. The project is consistent with the General Plan, and the potential impacts associated with General Plan buildout. P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-511 chklst.doc -31- 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 have been addressed through a series of mitigation measures, which will lower the potential for significant 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. P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\ea 04-511 chklst.doc -32- w i H d A dm A is, U U� o 0 F cy o � QbCA � cl ;rs � o U° O O 0 U U U U Utb tb � j .� •� .� a o o c� � U O O y 0 to Q. c Rio A A Q A C'4 � a � � O co � V4 U U U A CA a� a� ®to0.4 a cd E �b c o w 0.4 En U CA '°" �' o a a aU CIS �� cli� }l x::� A 4 S i b S a. W v�43 vi F Q A � d A a UU W o U U F s cts tb tw A 0 A cd aUA •� '� 0 0 0 '�'o � rn G �, � � � � o � � 3 � o o •o 0 0 �, � -d cj r cd N to Cd O j iz. G) .�.' cn * ' bA t'"" Q. Q A C N .. o oQ ° Q. p o b 4, aoi r o.�• a� ° o o-°ter.' °U 0 °.� o E, d a •., �.. s�, a A �. :, w .., .� U a� o .n �. u. �� �s r—+ N cYi �t ° 0 U U Q. y bq is d }C}t.i. QD bA L". A _O aiau A> CO aUcd Q ' o bD Lo �C,��.� ss. 00 � cl U ' �s� �ss" o �o��o.v� to °.n -Uto .a ° � " > o '� 0 chi s Q.. o �. a; O v «i «s s-.UA cl mzQ. AAt;-. ti.cdb.U)w.c v ,..; N 0 w E'on U cd V cCt �Q s: ,.�„ ftS Cd N " y 0 (� U V C N cdd �+ cn ,> cl ° o ss.•?Uv �� O ti V u CI ¢' U G� �� �+ m N O N In. 0 In, C6 ri F d A U� �A OU 0 d 0 F O O a oz zo 00 � w U O b O •i i/j a� O vs W G7 � � U F Q A U� A a� �WUW OU 1 0 F C° d rn G7 � F O O a o� w� o wo Q zz �� cd UQ O d H b Q0-0 V.2 0 ti � cd ..1 a a� U q k 0 Q \/ ƒ > * « / U > /to k \ / � � 2 / � b f \ / 22 S f ( 22 d E ƒ Q § § � � o O Ao�\ - \ .§ \ c Q c § \ - 06 §? M� �cd�// k•) � Q Ll W 0 ©u u \n ¥ En / $ §/ r-�t \f § PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- A RESOLUTION OF THE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, PRINCIPLES, GUIDELINES AND PROGRAMS FOR 101 RESIDENTIAL LOTS CASE: SPECIFIC PLAN 2004-073 APPLICANT: STONEFIELD DEVELOPMENT, INC. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did, on the 28T" day of September, 2004 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by Stonefield Development, for approval of a Specific Plan to establish development standards, principles, guidelines and programs to allow the subdivision of ±40 acres into 101 residential lots for property to be annexed into the City of La Quinta, located at the northwest corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 53, more particularly described as: APN 767-200-01 1 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department mailed case file materials to all affected agencies for their review and comment on the proposed project. All written comments are on file with the Community Development Department; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department published a public hearing notice in the Desert Sun newspaper on July 31, 2004, as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site; and WHEREAS, said Specific Plan has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63) in that the La Quinta Community Development Department has prepared Environmental Assessment 2004-511 for this Specific Plan in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended. The Community Development Director has determined that the project, as conditioned, will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and therefore, is recommending that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact be certified. A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted with the Riverside County Recorder's office as required by Section 15072 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) statutes; and PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\sp 04-073 pc res.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Specific Plan 2004-073 Stonefield Development, Inc. Adopted: September 28, 2004 Page 2 WHEREAS, at the Public Hearing upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings to justify a recommendation to the City Council for approval of said Specific Plan: Finding A - Consistency with General Plan The property is designated Low Density Agriculture/Equestrian Residential. The proposed project will be developed with residential uses and density of the, which are allowed under the General Plan. Finding B — Public Welfare Enhancement The project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare in that the project is designed in compliance with the City's General Plan and design the Specific Plan, as well as other County and State standards, such as CEQA. Findings C and D — Land Use Compatibility and Property Suitability The residential project is within a residentially designated and zoned area. The project provides adequate buffering through landscaping and walls to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses. Additionally, the project will provide adequate perimeter landscaping and acceptable architectural design guidelines. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of said Planning Commission in this case; and 2. That it does hereby acknowledge that Environmental Assessment 2004- 511 has determined that no significant effects on the environment have been identified and mitigation measures are being imposed if needed; and 3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of Specific Plan 2004-073, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. 4. That Specific Plan 2004-073 shall become effective upon annexation of the property into the City. P:\reports-pc\9-28-04\ sp 03-073 pc res.doc t� Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Specific Plan 2004-073 Stonefield Development, Inc. Adopted: September 28, 2004 Page 3 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 281h 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\9-28-04\ sp 03-073 pc res.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL —RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2004-073 - STONEFIELD DEVELOPMENT, INC. ADOPTED: SEPTEMBER 282004 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 Specific Plan, or any Final Map recorded thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. This Specific Plan, 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 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 • 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\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\sp 04-073 pc coa.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval — Recommended Specific Plan 2004-073 - Stonefield Development, Inc. Adopted: September 28, 2004 4. The use of the subject property for residential uses shall be in conformance with the approved exhibits and conditions of approval contained in Tentative Tract Map 31874, Specific Plan 2004-073 and Environmental Assessment 2004-51 1, unless otherwise amended by the Conditions of Approval. 5. Within 30 days after City Council approval of this Specific Plan, the applicant shall submit five copies of a final text document to the Community Development Department, incorporating all corrections and revisions, conditions of approval and mitigation measures required for this project. PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\sp 04-073 pc coa.doc 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION OF ± 40 ACRES INTO 101 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND MISCELLANEOUS LOTS CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT 31874 STONEFIELD DEVELOPMENT, INC WHEREAS, The Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 28' day of September, 2004, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Stonefield Development, Inc., for the subdivision of ±40 acres into 101 single-family residential lots and other miscellaneous lots, located at the northwest corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 53, more particularly described as: APN 767-200-01 1 WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63) in that the La Quinta Community Development Department has prepared Environmental Assessment 2004-511 for this Tentative Tract Map in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended. The Community Development Director has determined that, as conditioned, the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and therefore, is recommending that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact be certified. A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted with the Riverside County Recorder's office as required by Section 15072 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) statutes; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department published the public hearing notice in the Desert Sun newspaper on July 31, 2004, as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site; and WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings to justify a recommendation for approval of Tentative Tract Map 31874: P:\reports-pc\9-28-04\stonefield dev\tt 31874 pc res.doc „ a Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Tentative Tract Map 31874 Stonefield Development, Inc. Adopted: September 28, 2004 1. The Tentative Tract Map and its improvement and design, are consistent with the General Plan in that its street design and lots are in conformance with applicable goals, policies, and will provide adequate infrastructure and public utilities. 2. The design of the subdivision and its proposed improvements are not likely to create environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure wildlife or their habitat because the site does not contain significant biological resources. 3. The design of the subdivision and subsequent improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems because the construction of 101 residential units will not have considerable cumulative impacts. The project is consistent with the General Plan, and the potential impacts associated with General Plan buildout. 4. The design of the revised subdivision and the proposed types of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of the property within the subdivision in that none presently exist and access is provided within the project and to adjacent public streets. 5. That the Local Agency Formation Commission has approved the annexation of the property into the City of La Quinta. This approval will become effective upon certification by LAFCO. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Tentative Tract Map 31874 to the City Council for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. 3. That Specific Plan 2004-073 shall become effective upon annexation of the property into the City. P:\reports-pc\9-28-04\stonefieId dev\tt 31874 pc res.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Tentative Tract Map 31874 Stonefield Development, Inc. Adopted: September 28, 2004 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 28" 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 ,a P:\reports-pc\9-28-04\stonefield dev\tt 31874 pc res.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 31874 - STONEFIELD DEVELOPMENT, INC. AOPTED: SEPTEMBER 28, 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\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\TT 31874 pc coa.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval — Recommended Tentative Tract 31874 - Stonefield Development, Inc. Adopted: September 28, 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. PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\TT 31874 pc coa.doc J1 2 Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval — Recommended Tentative Tract 31874 - Stonefield Development, Inc. Adopted: September 28, 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 intersection measured a minimum 67 feet 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. 2. Avenue 53 (Collector, 74' ROW) - The standard 37 feet from the centerline of Avenue 37 for a total 74-foot ultimate developed right of way. 9. The applicant shall retain for private use on the Final Map all private street right-of- ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer. P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\TT 31874 pc coa.doc 3 Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval — Recommended Tentative Tract 31874 - Stonefield Development, Inc. Adopted: September 28, 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 shall have a 36-foot travel width measured gutter or curb flow line to gutter or curb flow line. Curb design to be approved by the City Engineer. 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. Knuckle The knuckle shall conform to the shape shown on the tentative tract map except for minor revision as may be required by the City Engineer. Curve radii for curbs at all street intersections shall not be less than 25 feet or as approved by the Engineering Division on the street improvement plans. 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. 12. 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 13. 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 PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\TT 31874 pc coa.doc — 4 Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval — Recommended Tentative Tract 31874 - Stonefield Development, Inc. Adopted: September 28, 2004 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. 14. 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. 15. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public right-of- ways as follows: A. Monroe Street (Primary Arterial) — A minimum 20-foot from the R/W-P/L. B. Avenue 53 (Collector) - 10-foot from the R/W-P/L. The listed setback depth shall be the average depth where a meandering wall design is approved. The setback requirements shall apply to all frontages including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately owned setbacks, the applicant shall offer for dedication blanket easements for those purposes on the Final Map. 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 and Avenue 53 from lots with frontage along Monroe Street and Avenue 53 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. P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\TT 31874 pc coa.doc 5 Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval — Recommended Tentative Tract 31874 - Stonefield Development, Inc. Adopted: September 28, 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. 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. 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 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 D. Storm Drain Plans 1 " = 40' Horizontal E. Off -Site Street Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical F. Off -Site Signing & Striping Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\TT 31874 pc coa.doc 6 Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval — Recommended Tentative Tract 31874 - Stonefield Development, Inc. Adopted: September 28, 2004 The Off -Site street improvement plans shall have separate plan sheet(s) (drawn at 20 scale) that show the meandering sidewalk, mounding, and berming design in the combined parkway and landscape setback area. G. On -Site Street Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical H. On -Site Signing & Striping Plan 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. I. 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. 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. "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 Library at 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 PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\TT 31874 pc coa.doc } 7 Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval — Recommended Tentative Tract 31874 - Stonefield Development, Inc. Adopted: September 28, 2004 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 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 that 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 7 P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\TT 31874 pc coa.doc K8 Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval — Recommended Tentative Tract 31874 - Stonefield Development, Inc. Adopted: September 28, 2004 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. 28. Depending on the timing of the development of this Tentative Tract Map, and the status of the off -site improvements at the time, the applicant may be required to: A. Construct certain off -site improvements. B. Construct additional off -site improvements, subject to the reimbursement of its costs by others. C. Reimburse others for those improvements previously constructed that are considered to be an obligation of this tentative tract map. D. Secure the costs for future improvements that are to be made by others. E. To agree to any combination of these means, as the City may require. Off -Site Improvements should be completed on a first priority basis. 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. 29. If the applicant elects to utilize the secured agreement alternative, the applicant shall submit detailed construction cost estimates for all proposed on -site and off -site improvements, including an estimate for the final survey monumentation, for checking and approval by the City Engineer. Such estimates shall conform to the unit cost schedule adopted by City resolution, or ordinance. For items not listed in the City's unit cost schedule the proposed unit costs shall be approved by the City Engineer. At the time the applicant submits its detailed construction cost estimates for conditional approval of the Final Map by the City Council, the applicant shall also submit one copy each of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " reduction of each page of the Final Map, along with a copy of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " Vicinity Map. Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved by those agencies and submitted to the City along with the applicant's detailed cost estimates. PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\TT 31874 pc coa.doc 9 Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval — Recommended Tentative Tract 31874 - Stonefield Development, Inc. Adopted: September 28, 2004 Security will not be required for telephone, natural gas, or Cable T.V. 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 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 PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\TT 31874 pc coa.doc 10 Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval — Recommended Tentative Tract 31874 - Stonefield Development, Inc. Adopted: September 28, 2004 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. 37. Prior to any site grading or regrading that will raise or lower any portion of the site by more than plus or minus three tenths of a foot from the elevations shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance finding review. 38. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building lot, the applicant shall provide a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or surveyor. Each pad certification shall list the pad elevation as shown on the approved grading plan, the actual pad elevation and the difference between the two, if any. Such pad certification shall also list the relative compaction of the pad soil. The data shall be organized by lot number, and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. r)RAINAGF 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. Additionally, the 100 year stormwater shall be retained within the interior street right of way or flood easement. 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 PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\TT 31874 pc coa.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval — Recommended Tentative Tract 31874 - Stonefield Development, Inc. Adopted: September 28, 2004 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 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 above mentioned nuisance water requirements. Leach line requirements are 1.108 feet of leach line per gph of flow. 41. The project shall be designed to accommodate purging and blowoff water (through underground piping and/or retention facilities) from any on -site or adjacent well sites granted or dedicated to the local water utility authority as a requirement for development of this property. 42. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. 43. For on -site common retention basins, retention depth shall be according to Engineering Bulletin 97.03, and side slopes shall not exceed 3:1 and shall be planted with maintenance free ground cover. For retention basins on individual lots, retention depth shall not exceed two feet. 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 PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\TT 31874 pc coa.doc 12 f Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval — Recommended Tentative Tract 31874 - Stonefield Development, Inc. Adopted: September 28, 2004 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. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 52. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Sections 13.24.060 (Street Improvements), 13.24.070 (Street Design - Generally) & 13.24.100 (Access For Individual Properties And Development), LQMC for public streets; and Section 13.24.080 (Street Design - Private Streets), where private streets are proposed. 53. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan (street type noted in parentheses.) A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1) Monroe Street (Primary Arterial, Option A; 1 10' R/W): Widen the west side of the street along all frontage adjacent to the Tentative Map boundary to its ultimate width on the west side as specified in the General Plan and the requirements of these conditions. Rehabilitate and/or reconstruct existing roadway pavement as necessary to augment and convert it from a rural county -road design standard to La Quinta's urban arterial design P:\Reports - M9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\TT 31874 pc coa.doc 13 Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval — Recommended Tentative Tract 31874 - Stonefield Development, Inc. Adopted: September 28, 2004 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 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: 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 and Specific Plan 04-073 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 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 Tentative Tract Map. 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 53 (Collector Street; 74' R/W): Widen the north side of the street along all frontage adjacent to the Tentative Map boundary to its ultimate width on the north side as specified in the General Plan and the requirements of these conditions. Rehabilitate and/or reconstruct existing roadway pavement as necessary to augment and convert P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\TT 31874 pc coa.doc 14 Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval — Recommended Tentative Tract 31874 - Stonefield Development, Inc. Adopted: September 28, 2004 it from a rural county -road design standard to La Quinta's urban arterial design standard. The north curb face shall be located twenty-five feet (25') north of the centerline. Other required improvements in the Avenue 53 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 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. 3) Traffic Signal at Monroe Street and Avenue 53. The applicant shall be required to pay for 25% of the signalized intersection. Applicant is responsible for 25% of the cost to design and install the traffic signal. Applicant shall enter into a SIA to post security for 25% of the cost to design and install the traffic signal prior to issuance of an on -site grading permit; the security shall remain in full force and effect until the signal is actually installed. 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 36-foot wide travel width as shown on the tentative map measured from gutter flow line to gutter flow line where parking is allowed on both sides of the street. 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 PAReports - M9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\TT 31874 pc coa.doc 15 Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval — Recommended Tentative Tract 31874 - Stonefield Development, Inc. Adopted: September 28, 2004 1) Shall be constructed according to the lay -out shown on the tentative map with 38-foot curb radius or greater at the bulb similar to the layout shown on the rough grading plan. D. KNUCKLE 1) Construct the knuckle to conform to the lay -out shown in the tentative tract map, except for minor revisions as may be required by the City Engineer. 54. 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 width 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. 55. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design procedure for 20-year life pavement, and the site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows: Residential 3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b. Collector 4.0" a.c /5.0" c.a.b. Primary Arterial 4.5" a.c./6.0" c.a.b. or the approved equivalents of alternate materials. 56. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time of PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\TT 31874 pc coa.doc 16 Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval — Recommended Tentative Tract 31874 - Stonefield Development, Inc. Adopted: September 28, 2004 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. 57. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Primary Entry (Monroe Street): Right turn movements in and out are permitted; Left turn movement out are restricted. Left turn movements in are restricted until the east side of Monroe Street is improved to it's ultimate General Plan right of way width and full width street improvements installed. B. Secondary Entry (Avenue 53): Full turn movements are permitted. 58. 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. 59. 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 60. 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 61. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC. 62. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\TT 31874 pc coa.doc . t 1 17 Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval — Recommended Tentative Tract 31874 - Stonefield Development, Inc. Adopted: September 28, 2004 common lots and park areas. 63. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect and reviewed by the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee. 64. The applicant shall submit the final 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. 65. 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 66. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by SunLine Transit Agency and approved by the City Engineer. QUALITY ASSURANCE 67. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 68. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such other appropriate professionals as are required to provide the expertise with which to prepare and sign accurate record drawings, and to provide adequate construction supervision. 69. The applicant shall arrange for, and bear the cost of, all measurements, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program, but which may be required by the City, as evidence that the construction materials and methods employed comply with the plans, specifications and other applicable regulations. 70. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City with reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans that were approved by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing," "As -Built" or "As- PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\TT 31874 pc coa.doc 18 i. Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval — Recommended Tentative Tract 31874 - Stonefield Development, Inc. Adopted: September 28, 2004 Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy and completeness of the drawings. The applicant shall have all AutoCAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City, revised to reflect the as -built conditions. MAINTENANCE 71. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance), LQMC. 72. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual maintenance of all private on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. FEES AND DEPOSITS 73. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.180 (Fees and Deposits), LQMC. These fees include all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan check and permits. 74. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). 75. 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 $1,314 to allow filing of a Notice of Determination for Environmental Assessment 2003-492 as required by State law. 76. 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. FIRE MARSHAL 77. For single family 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 from a hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 GPM for a 2-hour duration at 20 PSI. 78. Blue dot retro-reflectors shall be placed in the street 8 inches from centerline to the PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\TT 31874 pc coa.doc 19 Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval — Recommended Tentative Tract 31874 - Stonefield Development, Inc. Adopted: September 28, 2004 side that the fire hydrant is on, to identify fire hydrant locations. 79. Any turn or turn -around requires a minimum 38-foot turning radius. 80. All structures shall be accessible from an approved roadway to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior of the first floor. 81. 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. 82. 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. 83. 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. 84. 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. 85. 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. 86. Building plan check is to run concurrent with the City plan check. Submittals are the responsibility of the owner. MISCELLANEOUS 87. Perimeter wall designs including height, color, material, design shall approved by the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee and the Planning Commission prior to issuance of building permit for the wall. 88. Proposed street names with a minimum of two alternative names per street shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval. Names to be approved prior to recordation of final map. PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\TT 31874 pc coa.doc 20 Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval — Recommended Tentative Tract 31874 - Stonefield Development, Inc. Adopted: September 28, 2004 89. All mitigation measures contained in Environmental Assessment 2004-51 1 shall be met. 90. 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. 91. 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. 92. Production homes require approval of a Site Development Permit application by the Planning Commission. 93. Recreational amenities shall be provided within the project on the "park" site as conceptually shown in Specific plan 2004-073. 95. Multi -use trail improvements as shown in Specific Plan 2004-073 shall be provided as approved by the City. 96. Police Department comments on file in the Community Development Department shall be considered and implemented where feasible. PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Stonefield Dev\TT 31874 pc coa.doc 21 PH #C DATE: CASE NO: APPLICANT/OWNER: STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 28, 2004 VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2004-019 DR. JOHN R. DIXON REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION OF 4,494 SQUARE FEET TO AN EXISTING ± 1,450 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING, FOR OFFICE USE LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF DESERT CLUB DRIVE AND CALLE CADIZ BACKGROUND: Staff is requesting a continuance of this item to the Planning Commission meeting of October 12, 2004, in order to address additional issues pertaining to parking area improvements. RECOMMENDATION: Move to continue consideration of Village Use Permit 2004-019 to the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of October 12, 2004. Prepared by: Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner PH #D STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: SEPTEMBER 28, 2004 CASE NO.: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2003-006, AMENDMENT #1 REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA AND CP DEVELOPMENT LA QUINTA, LLC LOCATION: THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MILES AVENUE AND WASHINGTON STREET. APPLICANT: THE CITY OF LA QUINTA AND CP DEVELOPMENT LA QUINTA, LLC ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-436 AND SUBSEQUENT ADDENDUM WERE CERTIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON FEBRUARY 5, 2002, UNDER RESOLUTION 2002-07 AND RESOLUTION 2003-034 ON JUNE 3, 2003, RESPECTIVELY. THE AMENDMENTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DO NOT INVOLVE CHANGES TO THE PROJECT ITSELF. THERE HAVE BEEN NO CHANGES IN CIRCUMSTANCES OR NEW INFORMATION REGARDING THE PROJECT OR ITS SETTING THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 15162 OF THE GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, THE CITY HAS CONCLUDED THAT NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS NECESSARY IN CONNECTION WITH THE REVIEW OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. CURRENT GENERAL PLAN/ZONING DESIGNATION: TOURIST COMMERCIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND PARK P:\REPORTS - PC\9-28-2004\CENTER POINT DA AMD\CIC-DA-PC STAFF REPT.DOC BACKGROUND: Site Background The 50-acre site is situated at the southeast corner of Miles Avenue and Washington Street, a major entry point to the City. On March 11, 2003, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the following on the subject site: A. A mid -priced 134 unit suites type hotel; B. 132 Condominium Casitas type units; C. Two restaurants; D. A medical office/clinic facility; E. A development containing 30 privately -owned Villas development; and F. 13 courtyard cluster villas; G. 54 residential units containing 29 courtyard cluster and 25 perimeter homes of which 40 units will be moderate income affordable units The City's Redevelopment Agency and CP Development La Quinta, LLC (the "Developer") entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement for the development of this project (the "DDA"). Concurrently with the execution of the DDA, the City and the Developer entered into a Development Agreement concerning the development of the project, as provided by the La Quinta Zoning Code and State statutes. A Development Agreement is a binding agreement between both parties for the purpose of establishing certainty in the development. Transfer of Land and Improvement Interests Prior to Project Completion In order to obtain construction defect insurance, as required by both the DDA and the Development Agreement, for the Casitas and Sanctuary Villas components of the project, the Developer desires to add Lennar Homes of California, Inc. ("Lennar") as a member of the Developer. Further, the Developer has informed the City that the Ehline Company, which is the entity that Developer initially contemplated would construct the residential component of the project, does not wish to continue with this development. The Developer has indicated that Lennar homes will be developing the residential portions of the project, as well as the casitas and Sanctuary Villas components. The Developer has requested that the Development Agreement be modified to permit Lennar to participate in the LLC and undertake the residential, Casitas and Sanctuary Villas components of the project. The Development Agreement Amendment accommodates this transfer. The Amendment would also omit all references to the Ehline Development Co., which was previously listed as a pre -approved transferee entity of the residential components of the Project (but not the Casitas or Sanctuary Villas components). P:\REPORTS - PC\9-28-2004\CENTER POINT DA AMD\CIC-DA-PC STAFF REPT.DOC The City's approval of the Amendment would be conditioned on the Developer executing an Indemnification Agreement, in the form attached to the Amendment, indemnifying the City for any causes of action related to the transfer/assignment revisions or the City's approval of the Amendment. The City Attorney has, in conjunction with the Developer, prepared the Amendment. Public Noticing This Amendment was advertised in the Desert Sun on September 18, 2004 in a 1 /8 display ad. As of this writing, no correspondence has been received regarding this project. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: The findings necessary to recommend approval of Amendment #1 to the Development Agreement can be made, as noted in the attached Resolution. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-, recommending to the City Council approval of the Development Agreement Amendment #1. Attachments: 1. Development Agreement Amendment #1 P:\REPORTS - PC\9-28-2004\CENTER POINT DA AMD\CIC-DA-PC STAFF REPT.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 AN AMENDMENT TO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA AND CP DEVELOPMENT LA QUINTA, LLC CASE NO.: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2003-006, AMENDMENT NO. 1 APPLICANT: CP DEVELOPMENT LA QUINTA, LLC WHEREAS, on or about December 18, 2003, the City of La Quinta ("City") and CP Development La Quinta, LLC (the "Developer"), entered into Development Agreement No. 2003-006, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65864 et seq. and Section 9.250.030 of the City's Municipal Code (the "Development Agreement"); and WHEREAS, City staff and the Developer have negotiated an Amendment to the Development Agreement that would revise the transfer and assignment provisions set forth in the Development Agreement (the "Development Agreement Amendment"); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City (the "Planning Commission") did on the 28th of September, 2004, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the Amendment; and WHEREAS, Environmental Assessment 2001-436 and subsequent Addendum were certified by the City Council on February 5, 2002, under Resolution 2002-07 and Resolution 2003-034 on June 3, 2003. The Development Agreement Amendment does not involve changes to the project itself. There have been no changes in circumstances or new information regarding the project or its setting that would require the preparation of a subsequent environmental review. Therefore, pursuant to Section 15162 of the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Qualify Act, the City has concluded that no further environmental review is necessary in connection with the review of the Development Agreement Amendment. WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings of approval to justify a recommendation for approval of said Development Agreement Amendment: PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Center Point DA Amd\CP LQ Center Pt DA Amd Reso.DOC it Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_ Development Agreement 2003-006, Amendment #1 CP Development La Quinta, LLC Adopted: September 28, 2004 1. The proposed Development Agreement Amendment is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs of the City of La Quinta General Plan and Specific Plan 2001-055. 2. The land uses authorized and regulations prescribed for the Development Agreement Amendment are compatible with the zoning and its related regulations applicable to the property. 3. The proposed Development Agreement Amendment conforms with public convenience and the general welfare by providing for extensive public improvements and conforms to good land use practice by encouraging a long- range, comprehensive approach to the development of a major hotel, services, and mixed residential complexes. 4. Approval of this Development Agreement Amendment will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare since adequate provisions has been made in previous City approvals to provide for necessary and desirable improvements which are incorporated herein. 5. Approval of this Development Agreement Amendment will not adversely affect the orderly development of the subject or surrounding property nor the preservation of area -wide property values, but rather will enhance them by encouraging planned, phased growth. 6. Consideration of the Development Agreement Amendment has been accomplished pursuant to California Government Code Section 65864 et seq. and the City of La Quinta Municipal Code Section 9.250.030, which governs Development Agreements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of the Development Agreement Amendment for the reasons set forth in this Resolution. P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\Center Point DA Amd\CP LQ Center Pt DA Amd Reso.DOC Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_ Development Agreement 2003-006, Amendment #1 CP Development La Quinta, LLC Adopted: September 28, 2004 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission, held on the 28th 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\9-28-2004\Center Point DA Amd\CP LQ Center Pt DA Amd Reso.DOC r RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Attn: Citv Clerk Space Above This Line for Recorder's Use (Exempt from Recording Fee per Gov't Code § 27383) AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Amendment No. 1") is made and entered into as of , 2004 ("Effective Date") by and between the CITY OF LA QUINTA, a California municipal corporation and charter city organized and existing under the Constitution of the State of California (the "City"), and CP DEVELOPMENT LA QUINTA, LLC, a California limited liability company ("Developer"). RECITALS: A. The La Quinta Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") is the fee owner of that certain real property located southeast of the Miles Avenue and Washington Street intersection in the City of La Quinta, California 92253 (the "Site"). The Site is legally described in Exhibit "A", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. B. On or about December 18, 2003, the Agency and Developer entered into that certain Disposition and Development Agreement (the "DDA"), pursuant to which Agency agreed to sell to Developer, and Developer agreed to purchase from Agency, the Site, and to construct, complete, and operate thereon a commercial project containing a medical office/surgical facility, a development containing sanctuary villas, a mid -price suites hotel, a resort -style condominium/casitas development, two (2) sit-down restaurants, and two (2) single- family residential developments, with forty (40) of the single-family homes restricted for sale to "Eligible Buyers" at an "Affordable Housing Cost" (as those terms are defined in the DDA (collectively, the "Project"). C. By virtue of the DDA, the Developer has an equitable interest in the Site. By its execution of the consent form attached to this Amendment No. 1, the Agency consents to recordation of this Amendment No. 1 against the Site. D. Concurrently with the execution of the DDA, the City and Developer entered into that certain Development Agreement dated December 18, 2003, and recorded on January 5, 2004, as Instrument No. 2004-0005256, in the Official Records of the County of Riverside (the G:\WPDOCS\Documents\CP CtrPt Amd1.DOC "Development Agreement"), for purposes of (i) identifying the terms, conditions, and regulations for the construction of the Project, certain components of which constitute a Planned Development (as defined in Civil Code Section 1351(k)); (ii) setting forth a payment schedule for the Developer's payment to the City of certain amounts designed to compensate the City in the event that certain components of the Project fail to generate specified levels of transient occupancy tax (as that term is used in La Quinta Municipal Code Chapter 3.24) (hereinafter, "transient occupancy tax" or "TOT"); (iii) setting forth a payment schedule for the Developer's payment to the City of Three Hundred Forty -Six Thousand Eleven Dollars ($346,011), to cover the Developer's contribution towards the cost of certain landscaping improvements the City desires to install within certain portions of the real property adjacent to the Site; (iv) requiring the Developer, at its sole cost, to construct a neighborhood park on certain real property owned in fee by the City; and (v) setting forth the extent to which Developer may construct, develop, use and operate the Project. E. On or about September 23, 2004, Agency and Developer entered into that certain Amendment No. 1 to Disposition and Development Agreement (the "DDA Amendment") to revise (i) certain timeframes in the schedule of performance attached to the DDA; (ii) certain conditions that must be satisfied prior to the Agency's conveyance to Developer of the Site; and (iii) the transfer and assignment provisions in the DDA. F. City and Developer now wish to amend the Development Agreement to revise the transfer and assignment provisions in the Development Agreement in a manner consistent with the revisions made to the DDA transfer and assignment provisions pursuant to the DDA Amendment. G. The City Council has determined that this Amendment No. 1 is consistent with the City's General Plan and the Specific Plan, including the goals and objectives thereof. H. All actions taken by City have been duly taken in accordance with all applicable legal requirements, including the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.) ("CEQA"), and all other requirements for notice, public hearings, findings, votes and other procedural matters. I. On October 5, 2004, the City Council adopted its Ordinance No. approving this Amendment No. 1. AGREEMENT: NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals, which are incorporated herein by this reference, and for valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. The Development Agreement is hereby amended as follows: 1.1 To replace Section 7.2.c with the following: C. A transfer of the Suites Hotel or the Suites Hotel Parcel to a limited liability company in which Developer is the managing member. G:\WPDOCS\Documents\CP CtrPt Amd1.DOC -2- 1.2 To replace Section 7.2.d with the following: d. A transfer of any of the Villas Residential Development, Villas Residential Development Parcel, Cluster/Perimeter Residential Development, Cluster/ Perimeter Residential Development Parcel, Casitas Development, or the Casitas Development Parcel(s) to Lennar Homes of California, Inc., a California corporation ("Lennar"). 1.3 To replace Section 7.2.e with the following: e. A transfer of the Sanctuary Villas Development or the Sanctuary Villas Parcel(s) to Lennar or to Center Point Sanctuary, LLC, a California limited liability company. 1.4 To replace the last paragraph of Section 7.2 with the following: In the event of a Transfer by Developer under subparagraphs (a) through (f) above not requiring the City's prior approval, Developer nevertheless agrees that at least thirty (30) days prior to such Transfer it shall give written notice to City of such assignment and satisfactory evidence that the assignee has assumed in writing through an assignment and assumption agreement all of the obligations of Developer of this Agreement; provided, however, that no such assignment and assumption agreement shall be required for transfers under subparagraphs (d) or (e) to Lennar, and upon such assignment Lennar shall be deemed to have assumed only those obligations hereunder that pertain to the portion of the Site and the component of the Project transferred to Lennar. In the event such transfer is under subparagraph (c) or (f) above, Developer shall, along with the notice required to be given pursuant to the immediately preceding sentence, provide City with evidence that such proposed transferee entity has been duly formed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 2. City's approval of this Amendment No. 1 is conditioned upon Developer's execution, concurrently with the execution hereof, of an Indemnification Agreement substantially in the form attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit `B". 3. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Amendment No. 1, all of the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 4. In the event of any action between City and Developer seeking enforcement of any of the terms and conditions to this Amendment No. 1, the prevailing party in such action shall be awarded, in addition to damages, injunctive or other relief, its reasonable costs and expenses, including without limitation its expert witness fees and reasonable attorney's fees. 5. This Amendment No. 1 shall be construed according to its fair meaning and as if prepared by both parties hereto. 6. This Amendment No. 1 shall be governed by the internal laws of the State of California and any question arising hereunder shall be construed or determined according to such law. The Municipal and Superior Courts of the State of California in and for the County of Riverside, or G:\WPDOCS\Documents\CP OrPt Amdi.DOC -3 J such other appropriate court in such county, shall have exclusive jurisdiction of any litigation between the parties concerning this Amendment No. 1. Service of process on City shall be made in accordance with California law. Service of process on Developer shall be made in any manner permitted by California law and shall be effective whether served inside or outside California. 7. Time is of the essence of this Amendment No. 1 and of each and every term and provision hereof. 8. A waiver of a provision hereof, or modification of any provision herein contained, shall be effective only if said waiver or modification is in writing, and signed by both City and Developer. No waiver of any breach or default by any party hereto shall be considered to be a waiver of any breach or default unless expressly provided herein or in the waiver. 9. Signatures of the parties transmitted by facsimile shall be deemed binding. However, each party agrees to submit their original signature to the other party within five (5) business days after execution hereof. 10. This Amendment No. 1 may be executed in counterparts, each of which, when this Amendment No. 1 has been signed by all the parties hereto, shall be deemed an original, and such counterparts shall constitute one and the same instrument. 11. The person(s) executing this Amendment No. 1 on behalf of each of the parties hereto represent and warrant that (i) such party is duly organized and existing, (ii) they are duly authorized to execute and deliver this Amendment No. 1 on behalf of said party, (iii) by so executing this Amendment No. 1 such party is formally bound to the provisions of this Amendment No. 1, and (iv) the entering into this Amendment No. 1 does not violate any provision of any other agreement to which such party is bound. [End — Signature Page Follows] G:\WPDOCS\Documents\CP OrPt Amd1.D0C -4- . J IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Developer each hereby represents that it has read this Amendment No. 1, understands it, and hereby executes this Amendment No. 1 to be effective as of the day and year first written above. "Developer" CP DEVELOPMENT LA QUINTA, LLC, a California limited liability company By: Oliphant Family Trust Its: Member Date: 92004 Bv: Richard Oliphant Its: Trustee By: Oliphant Enterprises, Inc. Its: Manager Date: , 2004 Bv: Richard Oliphant Its: President "City" CITY OF LA QUINTA, a California municipal corporation and charter city organized and existing under the Constitution of the State of California Date: , 2004 By: City Manager ATTEST: June Greek, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP M. Katherine Jenson, City Attorney G:\WPDOCS\Documents\CP CtrPt Amd1.DOC -5- x. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss COUNTY OF ) On , before me, personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss COUNTY OF On , before me, , personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public [SEAL] G:\WPDOCS\Documents\CP CtrPt Amd1.DOC -6- STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss COUNTY OF ) On , before me, , personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public [SEAL] G:\WPDOCS\Documents\CP CtrPt AmdLDOC -7- EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE IN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST, S.B.M., MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CENTER ONE -QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 19, ALSO BEING AND ANGLE POINT IN THE CENTERLINE OF MILES AVENUE AS SHOWN ON TRACT NO. 23971-1, ON FILE IN BOOK 213 AT PAGES 25 THROUGH 30, INCLUSIVE, OF MAPS, RIVERSIDE COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE SOUTH 0002738" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 75.00 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 75.00 FEET SOUTHERLY OF SAID CENTERLINE OF MILES AVENUE AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 89033'22" EAST ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, A DISTANCE OF 960.27 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00026'40" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 20.00 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 55.00 FEET SOUTHERLY OF SAID CENTERLINE OF MILES AVENUE; THENCE NORTH 89033'22" EAST ALONG LAST SAID PARALLEL LINE, A DISTANCE OF 80.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00026'40" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 112.88 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 440.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 41°42'33", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 320.30 FEET; THENCE NON -TANGENT TO SAID CURVE SOUTH 4404432" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 90.06 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 80.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 45°27'41 ", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 63.48 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO SAID CURVE NORTH 8904747" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 239.56 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL "C" AS DESCRIBED IN DEED TO STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO. RECORDED MAY 16, 1994 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 108979, O.R. GAWPDOCS\Documents\CP CtrPt Amd1.DOC -1- THENCE SOUTH 00012'13" EAST ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 790.73 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT THEREIN; THENCE SOUTH 4305642' WEST ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL "C", A DISTANCE OF 510.61 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON -TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 4565.17 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 4205927" EAST; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL "C" THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02057'46", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 236.07 FEET; THENCE NON -TANGENT TO SAID CURVE SOUTH 00017'57" EAST ALONG AN EASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL "C" A DISTANCE OF 11.03 FEET TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS POINT A, BEING ON THE NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT FLOOD CHANNEL AS SHOWN ON C.V.W.D. RIGHT-OF-WAY STATUS MAP DATED APRIL 4, 1968, DRAWING NO. 1758-10; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 00017'57" EAST ALONG LAST SAID EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL "C", A DISTANCE OF 386.46 FEET; THENCE NORTH 48009'56" WEST ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL "C", A DISTANCE OF 22.00 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT THEREIN; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL "C" AND ITS NORTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION NORTH 64021'03" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 444.84 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT IN THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF PARCEL 2 AS DESCRIBED IN DEED TO THE LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY RECORDED AUGUST 4, 1995 AS INSTRUMENT NO.255528, O.R. THENCE NORTH 58014'00" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF PARCEL 2, A DISTANCE OF 320.54 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON -TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2072.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 8601 P26" EAST; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 11 005'41 ", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 401.22 FEET; THENCE NON -TANGENT TO SAID CURVE NORTH 75033'02" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 4.22 FEET TO A POINT ON AFOREMENTIONED NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT FLOOD CHANNEL, SAID LINE BEING A NON -TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2500.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 17°33'23" EAST; G:\WPDOCS\Documents\CP CtrPt Amd1.DOC ,1 THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG LAST SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 00032'28", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 23.61 FEET TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS POINT B, SAID POINT ALSO BEING ON A NON -TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2092.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 75053'46" EAST; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG LAST SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 07041'06", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 280.60 FEET; THENCE NON -TANGENT TO SAID CURVE SOUTH 67°06'56" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 20.00 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON -TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2072.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 68013'18" EAST; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG LAST SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02012'44", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 80.00 FEET; THENCE NON -TANGENT TO SAID CURVE NORTH 67°0656" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 20.00 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON -TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2092.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 66001'12" EAST; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG LAST SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 19058'08", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 729.11 FEET; THENCE NON -TANGENT TO SAID CURVE NORTH 00°28'37" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 153.41 FEET TO A POINT ON A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 75.00 FEET SOUTHERLY OF THE AFOREMENTIONED CENTERLINE OF MILES AVENUE; THENCE NORTH 89031'23" EAST ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, A DISTANCE OF 487.01 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYING SOUTHWESTERLY OF SAID NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT FLOOD CHANNEL, SAID LINE BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT AFOREMENTIONED POINT A IN SAID NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT-OF- WAY LINE, SAID POINT BEING ON A NON -TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2500.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 36°57'27" EAST; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND SAID NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 18°51'35", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 822.91 FEET TO AFOREMENTIONED POINT B. G:\WPDOCS\Documents\CP CtrPt Amdl.DOC SUBJECT TO ALL RIGHTS -OF -WAY AND EASEMENTS OF RECORD. COMPRISING 42.47 ACRES (1,850,000 SQUARE FEET), MORE OR LESS. G:\WPDOCS\Documents\CP CtrPt Amd].DOC I EXHIBIT "B" INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT [See Following Pages] G:\WPDOCS\Documents\CP CtrPt Amd1.DOC '1' INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT THIS INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT ("Indemnification Agreement") is made and entered into as of , 2004, by and between CP DEVELOPMENT LA QUINTA, LLC, a California limited liability company ("Developer"), and the CITY OF LA QUINTA, a California municipal corporation and charter city organized and existing under the Constitution of the State of California ("City"), with reference to the following Recitals: RECITALS A. On or about December 18, 2003, Developer and the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") entered into that certain Disposition and Development Agreement (the "DDA"), pursuant to which, among other things, (i) Agency agreed to sell to Developer, and Developer agreed to purchase from Agency certain real property identified therein as the "Property", which is located in the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, State of California, and (ii) Developer agreed to construct, complete, and operate on the Property a commercial project containing a medical office/surgical facility, a development containing privately owned villas (the "Sanctuary Villas Development"), a mid -price suites hotel, a resort -style condominium/casitas development (the "Casitas Development"), two (2) sit-down restaurants, and two (2) single-family residential developments (the "Residential Component"), with forty (40) of the single-family homes restricted for sale to moderate -income buyers at restricted sales prices, all as more particularly described in the DDA (collectively, the "Project). B. Concurrently with the Developer's and Agency's execution of the DDA, Developer and the City entered into that certain Development Agreement dated December 18, 2003, and recorded on January 5, 2004, as Instrument No. 2004-0005256, in the Official Records of Riverside County (the "Development Agreement"), which, among other terms, (i) sets forth a payment schedule for Developer's mitigation payments to the City; (ii) sets forth a schedule for Developer's payment to the City of Three Hundred Forty -Six Thousand Eleven Dollars ($346,011) as Developer's financial obligation toward certain landscaping improvements to be installed on a portion of the Property; (iii) requires Developer, at its sole cost, to construct a neighborhood park on certain real property owned in fee by the City; and (iv) sets forth the extent to which Developer may construct, develop, use and operate the Project, all as more particularly described in the Development Agreement. C. Developer initially informed the City and Agency that the Residential Component would be constructed by Ehline Development Co., a California corporation ("Ehline Development Co."). As a result, both the DDA and Development Agreement, as originally executed, permit Developer to transfer and assign the Residential Component to Ehline Development Co. or to an affiliated entity of Ehline Development Co. (an "Affiliated Entity"). The term "Ehline" shall be used hereinafter to refer to, collectively, Ehline Development Co. and the Affiliated Entities. D. On or about September 23, 2004, Agency and Developer entered into that certain Amendment No. 1 to Disposition and Development Agreement (the "DDA Amendment") to, G:\WPDOCS\Documents\CP CtrPt Amd1.DOC -2- among other revisions, omit Ehline as a permitted assignee/transferee of the Residential Component and to instead permit the assignment/transfer of the Residential Component and also the Casitas Development and the Sanctuary Villas Development to Lennar Homes of California, Inc., a California corporation ("Lennar"). E. The City has prepared an amendment to the Development Agreement (the "Development Agreement Amendment") to revise the transfer and assignment provisions in the Development Agreement in a manner consistent with the revisions made to the DDA. The City has expressly conditioned its approval of the Development Agreement Amendment on Developer's execution of an indemnification agreement substantially in the form hereof. F. The parties hereto now wish to impose on Developer the obligation to indemnify the City, as more particularly defined in this Indemnification Agreement, against any claims regarding the assignment/transfer revisions set forth in the Development Agreement Amendment or resulting from the City's approval of the Development Agreement Amendment, or arising from Ehline's entry onto the Property, or Ehline's or Developer's obligations to third parties including but not limited to those who have prepared plans or conducted work in furtherance of the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: AGREEMENT 1. Indemnification by Developer. Developer hereby agrees that it shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City and City's officers, officials, members, employees, agents, consultants, and representatives, from and against any and all claims, liabilities, damages, losses, suits, costs and expenses (including but not limited to expert witness fees and reasonable attorneys' fees) of every kind, nature, and type asserted by any person or entity arising out of the City's agreement, as set forth in the Development Agreement Amendment, to revise the assignment/transfer provisions set forth in the Development Agreement, or resulting from the City's approval of the Development Agreement Amendment, or arising from Ehline's entry onto the Property, or Ehline's or Developer's obligations to third parties including but not limited to those who have prepared plans or conducted work in furtherance of the Project, including, but not limited to, persons or entities who have designed or prepared plans or conducted any other work related to the Project on behalf of Ehline or Developer 11.1 Developer's indemnification obligations herein are in addition to the indemnification obligations contained in the Development Agreement, and nothing herein is intended to amend or limit Developer's indemnification obligations set forth in the Development Agreement. In the event of any conflict between the indemnification obligations herein and those contained in the Development Agreement, the indemnification provisions which provide the greatest protection to the City shall prevail. 2. Non -liability of City Officers and Employees. No officer, official, member, employee, agent, or representative of City shall be personally liable to Developer, or any G:\WPDOCS\Documents\CP UrPt Amdl.DOC -3- successor or assign of same, in the event of any default or breach by City, or for any amount which may become due to City, or any successor or assign of same, or for breach of any obligation of the terms of this Indemnification Agreement 3. Successors and Assigns. This Indemnification Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the respective parties hereto. 4. Governing Law. This Indemnification Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 5. Further Assurances. The parties covenant and agree that they will execute such other and further instruments and documents as are or may become necessary or convenient to effectuate and carry out this Indemnification Agreement. 6. Authority of Signatories to Bind Principals. The persons executing this Indemnification Agreement on behalf of their respective principals represent that (i) they have been authorized to do so and that they thereby bind the principals to the terms and conditions of this Indemnification Agreement and (ii) their respective principals are properly and duly organized and existing under the laws of, and permitted to do business in, the State of California. 7. Interpretation. The paragraph headings of this Indemnification Agreement are for reference and convenience only and are not part of this Indemnification Agreement. They have no effect upon the construction or interpretation of any part hereof. The provisions of this Indemnification Agreement shall be construed in a reasonable manner to effect the purposes of the parties and of this Indemnification Agreement. 8. Attorney's Fees. In the event that a party to this Indemnification Agreement brings an action against another party hereto by reason of the breach of any condition, covenant, representation or warranty in this Indemnification Agreement, or otherwise arising out of this Indemnification Agreement, the prevailing party in such action shall be entitled to recover from the non -prevailing party expert witness fees, and its reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Attorney's fees shall include attorney's fees on any appeal, and in addition a party entitled to attorney's fees shall be entitled to all other reasonable costs for investigating such action, including the conducting of discovery. 9. Counterparts. This Indemnification Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which when so executed and delivered shall be deemed to be an original and all of which counterparts taken together shall constitute but one and the same instrument. [END — SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS] G:\WPDOCS\Documents\CP CtrPt Amd1.DOC -4- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Indemnification Agreement has been executed by the parties as of the date set forth above. "Developer" Dated: Dated: Dated: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP By M. Katherine Jenson, City Attorney CP DEVELOPMENT LA QUINTA, LLC, a California limited liability company By: Oliphant Family Trust Its: Member By: Richard R. Oliphant Its: Trustee By: Oliphant Enterprises, Inc. Its: Manager 10 Richard R. Oliphant Its: President "City" CITY OF LA QUINTA, a California municipal corporation and charter city organized and existing under the Constitution of the State of California By: Thomas Genovese Title: Executive Director G:\WPDOCS\Documents\CP CtrPt Amdt.DOC -5- AGENCY CONSENT TO RECORDATION THE LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY HEREBY CONSENTS TO THE RECORDATION OF THE FOREGOING AMENDMENT NO. I TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AGAINST THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" TO SAID AMENDMENT NO. I TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Its: STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss COUNTY OF ) On , before me, , personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public [SEAL] G:\WPDOCS\Documents\CP CtrPt Amd1.DOC -6- PH #E STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: SEPTEMBER 28, 2004 CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-521 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2004-102 REQUEST: 1) RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; AND 2) RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA LOCATION: CITYWIDE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-521 WAS PREPARED FOR THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED. BASED UPON THIS ASSESSMENT THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT; THEREFORE, THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HAS RECOMMENDED THAT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BE CERTIFIED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS AMENDMENT BACKGROUND: OVERVIEW OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT PROCESS & REQUIREMENTS A. Background on Housing Element Process The Housing Element is one of seven State required parts of the City's General Plan and represents the City's policy document for meeting all of its housing needs, including housing affordable to low- and moderate -income families. Every city and county in California is required by State law to periodically update its Housing Element. Additionally, the law requires the Housing Element be reviewed and certified by the State Department of Housing and Community P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\Housing Element\PCstaffrpt Housing Element.doc Development (HCD). The Housing Element is the only Element of the City's General Plan that must be certified by the State. The main purpose of the Housing Element is to determine how the City will try to handle increased demand for housing. To ensure that cities do not overlook their responsibilities to provide housing for households of all income levels, each city is assigned a "fair share" number of new housing units for various income levels that it needs to try to accommodate. This "fair share" number is called the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The RHNA originates at the HCD, which determines a State-wide growth number and then assigns a proportion of the State-wide number to each regional planning agency, which for La Quinta, is the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). SCAG then allocates a proportional share to each jurisdiction within the SCAG region. The City of La Quinta received a RHNA of 913 total units. The update of a Housing Element generally occurs through a five -step process: 1. Assessment of existing Housing Element; 2. Evaluation of housing needs: existing needs (e.g., overpayment), growth needs (e.g., RHNA), and special needs (e.g., elderly); 3. Analysis of Housing Resources and Constraints; both governmental (e.g., development standards) and non -governmental (e.g., endangered species habitat); 4. Refinement of goals, policies, and objectives in the context of housing needs, resources, and constraints (Attachment No. 1); 5. Creation of a Five-year Action Plan, which details the schedule, actions, and responsible parties needed to implement the goals, policies, and objectives of the Housing Element. After the City develops a draft of the revised Housing Element, a copy is sent to the HCD for review. The State then has 60 days to review and comment on the Element for compliance with State law. After modifying the Element to respond to the State's comments, the City re -submits a second revised draft Housing Element for another 60-day review period. At this stage, the State typically grants certification to the City's Housing Element. B. BACKGROUND ON ADOPTION OF HOUSING ELEMENT The City's 2004 Housing Element covers the planning period of 1998-2005. Normally, the City would expect to have begun the update process in 1998 and complete the update by 2000. However, four events transpired to cause the City to delay the update and certification until now. PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Housing Element\PCstaffrpt Housing Element.doe First, the assignment of housing growth needs, the central theme of the Housing Element, was not distributedby SCAG to their jurisdictions until October 2000. The delay was caused by infighting between cities and counties over the amount of growth allocated. The dispute rose to such levels that jurisdictions within Riverside and San Bernardino Counties sued the State and SCAG, arguing that the housing unit goals assigned to the Inland Empire were unrealistically and inequitably large. A decision was not handed down until April 2003, at which point a court ruled that the State could not withhold funding based on a jurisdiction's failure to accommodate SCAG's RHNA allocations. Accordingly, the City could not receive a final confirmation of the RHNA figures until early 2003. A second event was the 2000 Census. Although the Census is conducted in April of 2000, the results are not tabulated and released for many of the city - level population and housing statistics until late in 2002. To ensure that the Housing Element represents the most up-to-date information possible, the update of a significant portion of the housing profile and needs data was delayed until after the release of the 2000 Census data. The use of 2000 Census data will aid future updates of the Housing Element and ensure consistency between the Housing Element and the other elements of the General Plan. The update of the City's General Plan represents the third event that delayed update of the Housing Element. In 2000, the City began to update the Land Use Element as part of a full General Plan update. Accordingly, the City decided to halt the Housing Element update until the completion of the revised Land Use Element in order to produce a more accurate and functional Housing Element. The revised Housing Element is now consistent with the City's General Plan. The City submitted the first draft of the revised Housing Element on November 6, 2002 and responded to the State's comments with a second submittal on March 1, 2004. This second submittal was the result of several discussions with State staff person assigned to review the City's Housing Element, and was expected to receive certification. The fourth event is the main reason for the delay in certification of the City's Housing Element. After the second submittal, the State did not grant certification to the City's Housing Element, citing that the City had still not shown a diligent effort to achieve an adequate level of public participation. A conversation with State Staff confirmed that the reason for the State's reluctance to grant certification was based on a letter from the California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA). CRLA raised questions on public participation, farm worker housing, the Vista Dunes Mobile Home Park, and constraints to building affordable housing in La Quinta. P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\Housing Element\PCstaffrpt Housing Element.doc The City and its consultant held several conversations with the State on the concerns of CRLA and public participation. The City prepared a response letter on June 7, 2004 that included substantial text detailing the outreach efforts of the City during the preparation of the General Plan update and Housing Element update. The City and its consultant then held explicit conversations confirming the adequacy of text. After several weeks of additional review, the State decided the City had still not demonstrated diligent efforts to achieve public participation and requested the City mail copies of the Housing Element to: Martha's Village & Kitchen, Catholic Charities, Coachella Valley Rescue Mission, Desert AIDS Project, Desert Alliance for Community Empowerment, Habitat for Humanity of the Coachella Valley, and the Housing Authority of the County of Riverside. On August 23, 2004, the City distributed copies of the Housing Element to these organizations and received public input up until September 1-4, 2004. The City also distributed copies of the Housing Element's draft Negative Declaration to local and State agencies on August 25, 2004 for a 30-day public review period. The City received responses on the Housing Element from the County Housing Authority and the Coachella Valley Rescue Mission. The nature of the comments was minor and primarily concerned data clarification. The City also received a copy of CRLA's May 10th letter sent to the State. The City has responded to CRLA's concerns. II. LA QUINTA'S REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT ("RHNA") ALLOCATION The 1999 RHNA proposes that La Quinta construct 913 new housing units to accommodate housing needs for all income groups during the planning period January 1998 through June 2005. According to SCAG, 178 new units are needed to accommodate very low-income households, 103 new units to accommodate low-income households, and 196 new units to meet the needs of moderate -income households. Approximately half of the new units (436) cited by the RHNA to accommodate growth will be for above moderate -income households, which can be provided through market -rate housing. The RHNA is calculated by factoring projected population, vacancy rates, housing market removals and existing housing units, adjusted by income categories to reflect income distribution in the community. The City's 913 unit future housing need represents 4.4 percent of the Coachella Valley's future housing need, though La Quinta households constitute 6.2 percent of the Valley's total number of households. P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\Housing Element\PCstaffrpt Housing Element.doc III. AVAILABLE RESOURCES AND CONSTRAINTS A. Land resources and development potential Land Resources: Future residential development in the City of La Quinta will take place throughout the City, primarily in areas for which specific plans and tract maps have been approved. These properties include vacant and undeveloped lands presently within the City of La Quinta and its Sphere of Influence area that is adjacent to, or within service hook-up distance from public sewer, water, and street systems; as well as scattered infill sites in the Cove and Village. The 2002 General Plan designates 5,839 vacant acres for residential development which could result in 13,195 units in the City. This includes 86.7 acres of High Density, which accommodates multi -family and potential sites for housing affordable to lower -income households (with assistance). Although land designated for High Density Residential is limited, it is the City's policy that land will continue to be re -designated to Higher Density Residential or Mixed -use designations on a case -by - case basis in order to accommodate projects that propose inclusion of affordable units. Another significant land use designation resource for development of Higher Density Residential is within the Mixed Regional Commercial, as well as recently amended Commercial Park designation, both of which allow for residential development of up to 16 du's/ac. There is a potential for over 500 infill lots in the Cove, which could provide market -rate moderate and low income new housing potential. It is important to note that only lands within City boundaries can be considered for the purposes of accommodating the RHNA allocation. This can include lands recently annexed, or will be annexed into the City and likely to develop during the planning period. Such development includes 101 units at the Village at the Palms, two to three tracts of approximately 100 units each in the Coral Mountain Specific Plan, and 100 units within the Trilogy by Shea Homes, for 500 market -rate units. Development Potential within the Planning Period, assuming development continues at a similar rate as it did between 1989 and 2003, it can be expected that up to 9,204 new units will be completed during the 1998- 2005 planning period. This significantly exceeds the RHNA in all income categories. There is sufficient land designated at appropriate designations to accommodate the number of units allocated by the RHNA for the very low- and low-income households. In all cases, any new projects that propose inclusion of affordable units have, or will require involvement of the City and the RDA for assistance. P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\Housing Element\PCstaffrpt Housing Element.doc 0 B. Significant Governmental and Non -Governmental Constraints Constraints on the construction and affordability of housing include: land costs, financing, development standards, local permitting procedures, and impact fees. The City has given close consideration to ways in which the City can mitigate possible constraints. For example, processing time and fees can add to the cost of development of housing, which is often passed on in rents or purchase price. The City will continue to prioritize processing for projects with affordable housing components. Additionally, to facilitate the availability of second units as a housing resource, the City will consider the reduction of garage or parking requirements on a case -by -case basis. As an incentive to an affordable or senior housing project, the City will consider paying particular fees on a case -by -case basis based on the analysis of the attributes of a project such as: Fringe -toed Lizard fee; school assessment fees; and water and sewer hook up fees. The City will also consider payment, waiver, or reduction of certain City fees such as Development Impact fees, Art in Public Places fees, select permit processing fees, and building inspection and plan check fees. IV. POLICIES AND ACTIONS TO ACCOMMODATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. A. Quantified Objectives - new construction, assistance, rehabilitation In housing markets of the past, land designated for High Density typically could accommodate housing affordable to lower -income households. In the present housing market, however, products developed as Mixed use or High Density Residential can only be sold/rented at market -rates if they receive some form of assistance and/or incentives in order to provide affordable housing units. Accordingly, the Redevelopment Agency has been incredibly proactive in working with developers and non -profits to provide enough units affordable to low- and very low-income households to the extent that the RHNA numbers are actually exceeded in both categories. Moreover, the types of projects with affordability components incorporate a wide range of housing products, including: senior apartments, senior detached units; traditional family apartments; cluster homes; detached single-family units; and mobile home park rehabilitation and replacement with manufactured or site built housing. This variety allows a larger proportion of the population to gain access to affordable housing. As part of the Housing Element, the City sets forth quantified objectives for new construction, financial assistance, and rehabilitation activities during the planning period. The City's new construction objectives (a PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Housing Element\PCstaffrpt Housing Element.doc combination of existing, in the pipeline or under construction, and proposed under negotiations which count towards the RHNA) total over 9,200 units, of which 7,872 are planned for above moderate -income households. New construction objectives in the lower three income categories exceed the RHNA allocations. The City also plans on preserving or providing financial assistance to 919 households and rehabilitating 155 housing units during the planning period. The majority of preservation and assistance activities will occur through the Assessment Subsidy Program (427 units) and La Quinta Silent Second Trust Deed Program (229 units). Rehabilitation efforts will be focused in the older residential areas of the City as well as the existing mobile home stock. Funds and activities will occur through programs such as the La Quinta Rehabilitation Program, Riverside County Senior Housing Grants, and Redevelopment Set -Aside funds. Public Notice The proposed Environmental Assessment, General Plan Amendment, and Housing Element Update were advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on September 2, 2004. The public hearing notice was published as 1 /8 page display advertisement. Public Agency Review On April 27, 2004 a joint Planning Commission and City Council study session was held to review the Draft Housing Element. On November 6, 2002 the Draft Element was first submitted to the State Department of Housing and Community Development for review and comment; the Draft Element is now at HCD for a fourth review. Environmental Assessment Based on California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, staff prepared Environmental Assessment (EA) 2004-521 for the draft Element. Staff recommends certification of a Negative Declaration of environmental impact. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: 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 Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental Assessment 2004-521; and, PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Housing Element\PCstaffrpt Housing Element.doc 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004- , recommending to the City Council approval of the General Plan Amendment 2004-102, Housing Element Update. Attachments: 1. La Quinta Draft Housing Element Prepared by: Fred Baker, AICP Principal Planner PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Housing Element\PCstaffrpt Housing Element.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 NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2004-102 CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-521 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT — HOUSING ELEMENT APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the 28th day of September, 2004, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the proposed General Plan Amendment Housing Element Update; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California previously adopted Resolution 2002-44 as a comprehensive update of the General Plan for the City pursuant to Sections 65350 et seq. of the California Planning and Zoning Law; and WHEREAS, Environmental Impact Report (SCH #20000991023) has been prepared, adopted under City Council Resolution 2002-43, and certified for the General Plan as prescribed by the California Environmental Quality Act and identifies various mitigation measures to a level of insignificance and identifies certain impacts which cannot be so mitigated with a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and, WHEREAS, the City has prepared the Initial Study and 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 Community Development Director has determined that said Amendment will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment due to the mitigations measures required in the General Plan EIR and incorporated herein by this reference and that a Negative Declaration of environmental impact should be filed; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, does recommend to the City Council to certification of the Environmental Assessment; 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 14th day of September, 2004 to the Riverside County Clerk; and P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\Housing Element\PC RESO EA 2004-509 Housing Element.doc j Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Environmental Assessment 2004-521 General Plan Housing Element Adopted: September 28, 2004 Page 2 WHEREAS, the City published a Public Hearing Notice to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Initial Study in the Desert Sun newspaper on September 2, 2004, such notice was also mailed to concerned agencies, 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 Negative Declaration has been prepared and processed in compliance with the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's implementation procedures. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the 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, and finds that there are no significant environmental effect resulting from this project. 2. The Project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2004-521. 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. PAReports - P09-28-2004\Housing Element\PC RESO EA 2004-509 Housing Element.doc s� Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Environmental Assessment 2004-521 General Plan Housing Element Adopted: September 28, 2004 Page 3 6. The Project will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the Project. 7. The Project will not have the environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public services. 8. The Planning Commission has fully considered the proposed Negative Declaration and the comments, if any, received thereon. 9. The 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, are located in the La Quinta City Hall, Community Development Department, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California, 92253. 11. 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 Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental Assessment 2004-521 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Housing Element\PC RESO EA 2004-509 Housing Element.doc f _A Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Environmental Assessment 2004-521 General Plan Housing Element Adopted: September 28, 2004 Page 4 Assessment Checklist and Addendum, 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 28th 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\9-28-2004\Housing Element\PC RESO EA 2004-509 Housing Element.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 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT UPDATING THE HOUSING ELEMENT CASE NO.: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2004-102 HOUSING ELEMENT APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did on the 28'h day of September, 2004, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the proposed General Plan Amendment Housing Element Update; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California previously adopted Resolution 2002-44 as a comprehensive update of the General Plan for the City pursuant to Sections 65350 et seq. of the California Planning and Zoning Law; and, WHEREAS, it is recognized that the current General Plan Housing Element requires revisions and update to assure compliance with current State laws and regulations, WHEREAS, the General Plan Housing Element contains an assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints to meeting the needs as required by Section 65583(a) of the Government Code; and, WHEREAS, the General Plan Housing Element contains a statement of the community's goals, quantified objectives, and policies to achieve the objectives of the element as required by Section 65583 (b) of the Government Code; and, WHEREAS, the General Plan Housing Element contains a program which sets forth a yearly schedule of actions to implement the policies and achieve the objectives of the Housing Element as required by Section 65583 (b) of the Government Code; and, WHEREAS, the City's unique population characteristics, economic conditions, housing conditions, residential density objectives and Redevelopment Agency financial resources were considered in the preparation of the General Plan Housing Element update; and, WHEREAS, a General Plan Housing Element was submitted to the Department of Housing and Community Development for review and comment; and, P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\Housing Element\PC RESO GPA 2004-102 Housing Element.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004 General Plan Amendment 2004-102 Housing Element September 28, 2004 WHEREAS, the City has considered the findings made by the Department of Housing and Community Development and other entities and persons that have provided written and oral comment to the City and the Department of Housing and Community Development; and, WHEREAS, said General Plan Amendment 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 conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 2004-521), and determined that the Housing Element will not have a significant impact on the environment and a 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 wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings to justify a recommendation for approval of said General Plan Amendment updating the Housing Element : 1. The General Plan Housing Element is internally consistent and consistent with the other elements of the General Plan, and reflects updated statistics and information regarding the City's current and anticipated conditions. 2. The General Plan Housing Element is compatible with land use designations in the Land Use Element and other elements of the General Plan. 3. The General Plan Housing Element will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare in that the resulting programs and policies improve the preservation and development of housing. 4. The General Plan Housing Element addresses changes in specific circumstances and changes in general conditions since the adoption of the previous Housing Element. 5. The City is required by State laws and regulations to update the Housing Element in a five year cycle and the General Plan Housing Element achieves this mandatory requisite. 6. The City has considered all comments made by the Department of Housing and Community Development and has made revisions to the draft General Plan Planning Commission Resolution 2004 General Plan Amendment 2004-102 Housing Element September 28, 2004 Housing Element to respond to the comments received from the Department of Housing and Community Development. 7. The updated General Plan Housing Element substantially complies with the provisions of California's Planning and Zoning Law, codified, at California Government Code section 65580 et seq. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby recommend approval of the above -described General Plan Amendment, Housing Element request for the reasons set forth in this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 28th day of September, 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: TOM KIRK, Chairman City of LaQuinta, California ATTEST: OSCAR ORCI, Interim Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California 0 PH #F PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: SEPTEMBER 28, 2004 CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-813 APPLICANT: DESERT CHEYENNE REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR THREE PROTOTYPICAL FLOOR PLANS AND COMMON AREA AND PERIMETER LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR 128 SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ON ± 80 ACRES FOR TRACT 31202 LOCATION: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF AVENUE 52 AND MONROE STREET ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THE REQUEST HAS BEEN ASSESSED IN CONJUNCTION WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-472 PREPARED FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 2003-064, WHICH WAS CERTIFIED ON JULY 1, 2003. NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS ARE PROPOSED, OR NEW INFORMATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 15162 OF THE GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS CONCLUDED THAT NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS NECESSARY IN CONNECTION WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) AND AGRICULTURE/EQUESTRIAN OVERLAY ZONING: LOW DENSITY/ AGRICULTURAL EQUESTRIAN/RESIDENTIAL (LD/A-E) SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USES: NORTH: RECREATIONAL; ELDORADO POLO CLUB (IN CITY OF INDIO) pAreport-pc\9-28-04 desert cheynne pc rpt BACKGROUND: SOUTH: LOW DENSITY/ AGRICULTURE EQUESTRIAN RESIDENTIAL (LD/A-E); AGRICULTURE EAST: LOW DENSITY/ AGRICULTURE EQUESTRIAN RESIDENTIAL (LD/A-E); AGRICULTURE (PRE - ZONE, IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY) WEST: LOW DENSITY/ AGRICULTURE EQUESTRIAN RESIDENTIAL (LD/A-E); AGRICULTURE Site Background At approximately 79.21 acres in size, the site is situated at the southwest corner of Avenue 52 and Monroe Street. The subject property was reviewed and approved by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for annexation into the City of La Quinta and recorded on August 15, 2003. The property is bound by the El Dorado Polo Club (an equestrian use) to the north, in the City of Indio; agricultural properties are located east, west and south of the site. The property to the east is located within the City's Planning Area "1 " and designated for residential use. A Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map to allow this development were approved by the City Council on July 1, 2003. The property is presently being graded for development. Project Request Three floor plans are proposed on 128 lots that will range in size from 2,130 to 2,863 square feet. Additionally, 13 one-half acre lots will have custom homes; the balance of the lots (60 lots) will be developed by a different developer. Each home will have two elevation options with a modern Spanish/Mediterranean theme and will include earth -tone colored stucco, wrought iron details, shutters, stone veneer accents, and front courtyard entries. Detached casitas will also be available. Public amenities will include an eight -foot wide on -street bike/golf path, a six-foot meandering walkway and a 10-foot multipurpose trail. Avenue 52 and Monroe Street, both Primary Arterials, will be improved in accordance with the General Plan requirements. Rancho Santana includes an equestrian landscape concept that consists of canopy trees, split rail fencing, decomposed granite trails, enhanced desert planting, and stone walls. In addition, the perimeter landscape will include a six-foot high split face block wall, 10-foot wide equestrian trail with a split rail fence, and landscaping with a meandering six-foot wide sidewalk. The project entries will include stone pilasters, with oversized rustic gates complimenting the equestrian theme and a ± 19 square foot entry sign. pAreport-pc\9-28-04 desert cheynne pc rpt The project will include extensive desert friendly landscaping. In addition to the equestrian trails within the project, two open spaces for passive and active recreation will be provided. Architecture and Landscape Review Committee (ALRC) At the September 1, 2004 meeting, the ALRC reviewed and recommended approval of the project subject to the conditions that the Pigmy Date Palm be excluded from the landscape palette, or that it be obtained from a certified local nursery. Public Notice This application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on September 18, 2004. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required by the Zoning Ordinance of the La Quinta Municipal Code. Public Agency Review All written comments received are on file with the Community Development Department. All applicable agency comments received have been made part of the Conditions of Approval for this case. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: The proposed development plans are consistent with the Specific Plan. The findings necessary to approve the Site Development Permit can be made, as noted in the attached Resolution. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_, approving Site Development Permit 2004-813, subject to the attached conditions. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Plan exhibits Prepared by: Oscar W. Orci, Interim Community Development Director I pAreport-pc\9-28-04 desert cheynne pc rpt PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THREE DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR 128 LOTS WITHIN TRACT 31202 CASE NOS.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMITS 2004-813 DESERT CHEYENNE, INC. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the 28th day of September, 2004, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Desert Cheyenne, Inc., for approval of landscape plans and three development plans on 128 lots within a single-family residential development (Tract 31202) by means of Site Development Permit (SDP) 2003-813, generally located at the southwest corner of Avenue 52 and Monroe Street, more particularly described as: Tract 31202 WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee of the City of La Quinta did on the 1 st day of September, 2004, hold a public meeting to consider a request for development and landscape plans for the single-family residential subdivision by means of a SDP 2004-813; and WHEREAS, said SDP 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 determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (Environmental Assessment 2003-472) was certified by the City Council for this project under Resolution 2003-48. There are no changed circumstances, conditions, or new information which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent Environmental Assessment pursuant to Section 15162 of the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify approving said Site Development Permit: 1. The Project is consistent with the General Plan in that the property proposed for the residential project is designated Low Density Residential. 2. The Project has been designed to be consistent with the provisions of the applicable Specific Plan. 3. Processing and approval of the Project is in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act in that the La Quinta Community �'M. Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Site Development Permit 2004-813 - Desert Cheyenne Inc. Adopted: September 28, 2004 Development Department has determined that no changed circumstances, conditions, or new information has been submitted which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent Environmental Assessment pursuant to Section 15162 of the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. 4. The site design of the Project is appropriate for the use in that it has been designed with the appropriate parking and vehicular access, and provided with adequate landscaping. 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 in this case. 2. That it does hereby approve the above -described SDP request for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 28th day of September, 2004, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: Oscar W. Orci, Interim Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-813 DESERT CHEYENNE , INC. ADOPTED: SEPTEMBER 28, 2004 GENERAL 1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the OCityD), 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 developer of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. The Pigmy Date Palm shall be excluded from the landscape palette, or shall be obtained from a certified local nursery. 3. Front yard landscaping shall comply with Chapter 8.13 of the City's Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance and shall consist of two trees (i.e., a minimum 1.5 inch caliper measured three feet up from grade level after planting), ten 5- gallon shrubs, and groundcover. 4. Use of lawn areas shall be minimized with no lawn, or spray irrigation, being placed within 18 inches of street curbs. 5. Once the trees have been delivered to the site for installation, a field inspection by the Community Development Department is required before planting to insure they meet minimum size and caliper requirements. 6. The applicant shall comply the City of La Quinta Police and Fire Department requirements. PH #G PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: SEPTEMBER 28, 2004 CASE NO.: VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2004-024 APPLICANT: KRISTI W. HANSON, INC. REQUEST: REVIEW OF ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR A 2-STORY, 6,354 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING ON A 0.40 ACRE SITE LOCATION: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DESERT CLUB DRIVE AND CALLE BARCELONA PROPERTY OWNER: JAMES F. KELLY ARCHITECT: KRISTI W. HANSON ARCHITECTS, INC. ENGINEER: MC GEE SURVEYING, INC. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: JOHN C. KRIEG GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING DESIGNATIONS: VILLAGE COMMERCIAL/VC DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15332 (CLASS 32) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA), IN THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS AN IN -FILL PROJECT LESS THAN FIVE ACRES IN SIZE AND MEETS ALL APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING REQUIREMENTS AND, THEREFORE, WILL HAVE NO PERMANENT EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT SURROUNDING LAND USES: NORTH: CALLE BARCELONA AND VACANT LAND BEYOND SOUTH: TWO STORY COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDING (UNDER CONSTRUCTION) EAST: DESERT CLUB DRIVE AND PALMER'S RESTAURANT WEST: EXISTING KRISTINA'S RESTAURANT PARKING LOT BACKGROUND: The vacant site, approximately 0.4-acre in size is located at the southwest corner of Calle Barcelona and Desert Club Drive in the Village Commercial Zoning District (Attachment 1). Street improvements exist, including a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk adjacent to the curb on Desert Club Drive. To the south of this parcel is a 6,600 square foot, two-story office building under construction that was approved by the Planning Commission on November 26, 2002. PROJECT REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval to construct a 6,354 sq. ft., two-story commercial office building (Attachment 2). The applicant is also requesting deviations in the parking standards. The building fronts onto Desert Club Drive with parking facilities located on the south and west of the structure. The plan integrates shared parking areas for the building tenants with pedestrian access to a courtyard. The courtyard is positioned in the center of the building to create a passageway and focal point to the structure. The building would accommodate four to eight offices with upper level balconies, circular stairways and a tower element. Access/Parking Vehicle access is proposed from Calle Barcelona and Desert Club Drive. Both roadways are local streets with 50-foot right-of-ways. Access to the parking lot is provided via two-way driveways. On -site two-way drive aisles provide access to the parking spaces. The Zoning Code requires a minimum of one parking space per 250 square feet of gross floor area for office uses. However, in the Village Commercial zoning district, variations to parking standards can be approved (Section 9.65.030.3.a) by the Planning Commission if deemed acceptable. Based on the requirement of one parking space per 250 square feet of gross floor area, the total parking demand would be 25 spaces. The applicant has provided 19 spaces (including two handicap spaces), six short of the total required parking. PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\VUP Hanson-Kelly\PC Stf Rptl VUP 04-024 Hanson.doc In accordance with Section 9.150.050B.1, the applicant has provided a parking analysis to justify a reduction in the requirement (Attachment 3). The applicant's analysis shows that alternative levels of off street parking from various sources (Urban Land Institute, Institute of Transportation Engineers, International Council of Shopping Centers and American Planning Association), the most often quoted standard is one space per 333 sq. ft. of gross floor area. Based on this standard, the project would demand 19 spaces, which the applicant has provided. Staff is in agreement with the parking ratio provided by the applicant. In addition, the Village Design Guidelines state that where feasible and appropriate, on -street parking may be credited toward meeting off-street parking requirements. Based upon the Guidelines, Desert Club Drive could accommodate an additional six spaces, which would provide the 25 spaces required for the project. Staff determined that the proposed on -site parking spaces are adequate for the commercial building. Also, additional on -street parking spaces will provide further parking areas. The Zoning Code also requires at least 30 percent of the parking spaces be covered. Of the 19 parking spaces, the applicant has proposed eight covered spaces on the south side of the site, which will be a carport trellis structure. The proposed parking lot design does not comply with the minimum requirements as stated in the Zoning Code. As stated earlier, the applicant is requesting deviations from the parking standards. Again, in the Village Commercial zoning district, the Zoning Code allows variations to the parking standards in accordance with the provisions of Section 9.150. The applicant is requesting the following deviations from the parking standards as follows: No. Development Standard Zoning Code Applicant Requirement Request 1 Parking ratio (Table 9-12 of Chapter 9.150) 1 /250 sq. ft. 1 /333 sq. ft. of gross floor of gross floor area area 2 Drive Aisles (Section 9.150.080133) 26' wide min. 24' wide 3 Access Driveways (Section 9.150.080138); 28' wide min. 24' wide 4 Overhang for 17' long parking stalls 2' 1' (Section 9.150.080131) 5 Carport Posts (Section 9.150.080135) No posts No posts within 1.5' of within 1' of any parking any parking stall stall PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\VUP Hanson-Kelly\PC Stf Rptl VUP 04-024 Hanson.doc The proposed 24-foot wide access driveways and drive aisles can accommodate two-way traffic movement and is acceptable to the Department of Public Works and Fire Department. The access points and turning movements would provide adequate sight distance for traffic in and out of the site. Staff has determined that the request to allow a one -foot overhang instead of a two -foot overhang is also acceptable. The applicant is proposing eighteen -foot long spaces, instead of seventeen feet long as required by the Zoning Code. The one - foot overhang would allow less of an intrusion into the landscape planter from the vehicles. Regarding the carport posts, they are located in areas where they will not interfere with the opening of vehicle doors. The southern -most posts are located within the landscape strip while the northern -most posts are located within the tip of the landscape planter. Lighting Parking areas will be lit using six high-pressure sodium light fixtures. However, as of this writing, no detailed fixture information has been presented. Staff recommends that the applicant be required to submit specifications for a lighting fixture to be approved by the Community Development Department before working drawing are prepared. Said fixture shall comply with the Section 9.100.150 and shall be in keeping with other parking lot lighting fixtures in the area which are shielded from residential areas. This has been added as a condition (Condition #32). Additional low-level landscaping lighting will be installed. These lights are small, low standing tubular type fixtures to accent the structures and walkways. Grading Grading plans for the project show the building pads over one foot higher than the street curb height, with a drywell proposed on the north side of the building to handle parking lot run-off. The existing sidewalk improvements on Desert Club Drive will be removed to accommodate a new on -site covered sidewalk with balconies above in front of the office suites. Architecture The building architecture style is Spanish with light colored stucco exterior walls, multi -colored decorative flower pattern tiles, recessed wooden windows and doors, corbels and wrought iron. Exposed wood surfaces would be treated with a medium brown wood stain. The building has gable and parapet roof design elements up to 29-feet with a tower element that is 32' in height. Office suites would range in size between 733 and 1,711 square feet, depending on a tenant's needs. PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\VUP Hanson-Kelly\PC SO Rptl VUP 04-024 Hanson.doc A three-tier fountain and four benches compliment the structures at the building's breezeway adjacent to the parking lot. The building is setback 10 feet from each street, excluding balconies. Landscaping Landscape improvements are planned throughout the project; specimen trees are proposed in the parking areas and along the street frontages, accented by palm trees (up to 20' high), 5-gallon shrubs and groundcovers. The chosen plant materials are drought tolerant and appropriate for the desert climate. Architecture and Landscape Review Committee (ALRC) The ALRC reviewed this project at its August 4, 2004 meeting. At that meeting, the Committee suggested the following: 1. Remove the Jacaranda tree in front of the structures along Desert Club Drive. The ALRC also made the following recommendations: 1. The landscaping and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Coachella Valley Water District and Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner prior to submittal of the final plans to the Community Development Department. 2. The design of the carport trellis structure shall be approved by the Community Development Department before working drawing are prepared. The trellis shall be made out of noncombustible materials as approved by the Building & Safety Department Director. The Committee, on a 3-0 vote, adopted Minute Motion 2004-024 recommending approval of the proposed project as recommended by staff and amended. The meeting minutes are attached (Attachment 4). These have been added as Conditions of Approval (Conditions 33 & 34). Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) The HPC reviewed this request at its meeting of September 16, 2004, and on a 5-0 vote, adopted Minute Motion 2004-029 recommending approval of the Phase I Cultural Resources Report subject to the following conditions: 1. The site shall be monitored during on and off -site trenching and rough grading by qualified archaeological monitors including a Native American monitor. Proof of retention of monitors shall be given to the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to issuance of first earth - moving or clearing permit. Monitors to include a Native American from a local tribe. P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\VUP Hanson-Kelly\PC Stf Rptl VUP 04-024 Hanson.doc K 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. These have been added as Conditions of Approval (Conditions 35 thru 37). The meeting minutes are attached (Attachment 5). Public Notice This request was published in the Desert Sun newspaper on September 24, 2004, and mailed to all affected property owners and occupants within 500 feet of the project site as required by Section 9.200.110 of the Zoning Code. To date, no letters have been received. Public Agency Review A copy of this request has been sent to all applicable public agencies and City Departments on July 1, 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. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: Findings to approve this request per Section 9.65.040.F of the City of La Quinta Zoning Code can be made and are contained in the attached Resolution. RECOMMENDATION: Because the project is in keeping with the established Village Design Guidelines for the area, staff recommends the project be approved by the following action: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004- , approving Village Use Permit 2004-024, subject to the attached findings and Conditions of Approval. PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\VUP Hanson-Kelly\PC Stf Rptl VUP 04-024 Hanson.doc i� Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Plan Set 3. Parking Analysis prepared by David Belson, Ph.D. 4. ALRC Minutes of August 4, 2004 5.. HPC Minutes of September 16, 2004 Prepared by: 0 i Martin Magana, Associate Planner P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\VUP Hanson-Kelly\PC Stf Rptl VUP 04-024 Hanson.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A TWO-STORY, 6,354 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING ON A 0.40 ACRE SITE WITHIN THE VILLAGE COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT. CASE NO.: VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2004-024 APPLICANT: KRISTI W. HANSON, INC. (FOR JIM F. KELLY) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 28" day of September, 2004 hold duly noticed Public Hearings to consider a request by Kristi W. Hanson to construct a two-story, 6,354 square foot commercial building on a 0.40 acre site at the southwest corner of Desert Club Drive and Calle Barcelona, more particularly described as follows: APN: 770-182-001 WHEREAS, said Village Use Permit 2004-024 is Categorically Exempt from environmental review pursuant to provisions of Section 15332 (Class 32) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), in that the proposed project is an in -fill project less than five acres in size and meets all applicable General Plan and Zoning requirements and, therefore, will have no permanent effects on the environment; 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 9.65.040 of the Zoning Code to justify approval of said Village Use Permit: 1. Consistency with the General Plan: The proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan in that the proposed use is an allowed use within the designated Village Commercial area. 2. Consistency with the Zoning Code: The proposed project is consistent with the development standards of the Zoning Code as contained in The Village Design Guidelines. The proposed use is a permitted use in the Village Commercial District. 3. Compliance with CEQA: The proposed use is Categorically Exempt from environmental review pursuant to provisions of Section 15332 (Class 32) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), in that the proposed project is an in -fill project less than five acres in size and meets all applicable General Plan and zoning requirements and, therefore, will have no permanent effects on the environment; and P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\VUP Hanson-Kelly\PC Reso VUP 04 024.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Village Use Permit 2004-024 — Kristi W. Hanson Adopted: September 28, 2004 4. Surrounding Uses: Approval of the Village Use Permit will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare or be injurious to, or incompatible with, other properties or land uses in the vicinity in that the proposed building will be compatible with existing commercial uses in the immediate area in terms of design. The parking lot will be landscaped, the lights will be shielded as required by Code and additional parking will be accommodated on -site or on the street, immediately adjacent to the project. 5. Architectural Design: The architectural design of the project, including, but not limited to, the architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors, architectural details, roof style, and other architectural elements are compatible with surrounding development in keeping with the character of the Village Design Guidelines. 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 Village Use Permit; 2. That it does hereby approve Village Use Permit 2004-024 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval; PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 281h 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\9-28-2004\VUP Hanson-Kelly\PC Reso VUP 04 024.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Village Use Permit 2004-024 — Kristi W. Hanson Adopted: September 28, 2004 ATTEST: OSCAR ORCI, Interim Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\VUP Hanson-Kelly\PC Reso VUP 04 024.doc 1j PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2004-024 - KRISTI W. HANSON SEPTEMBER 28, 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 developer of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Prior to the issuance of any permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain the necessary permits and/or clearances 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 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, applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting the improvement plans for City approval. 3. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water), LQMC; Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 99-08- DWQ. A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land that disturbs one (1) acres or more of land, or that disturbs less than one (1) acres of land, but which is a part of a construction project that encompasses more than one (1) acres of land, the Permitee shall be required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP"). PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\VUP Hanson-Kelly\PC COA VUP 2004-024 Hanson.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Village Use Permit 2004-024 — Kristi W. Hanson Conditions of Approval - Recommended September 28, 2004 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. PROPERTY RIGHTS 4. Prior to the issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire, or confer, those easements, and other property rights necessary for the construction and/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 the maintenance, construction and reconstruction of essential improvements. 5. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, , and common areas shown on the Site Development Permit except for the relocated sidewalk. 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 'AReports - PC\9-28-2004\VUP Hanson-Kelly\PC COA VUP 2004-024 Hanson.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Village Use Permit 2004-024 — Kristi W. Hanson Conditions of Approval - Recommended September 28, 2004 proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the proposed relocated sidewalk. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. 6. 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. 7. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any portion of the subject property between the date of approval of this Village Use Permit and the date of final acceptance of the on -site and off -site improvements for this Village Use Permit, unless such easement is approved by the City Engineer. IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect" refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 8. 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. 9. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the City. A separate set of plans for each line item specified below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note: the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors. A. On -Site 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. On -Site Precise Grading Plans shall normally include all on -site surface improvements including but not necessarily limited to finish grades for curbs & gutters, sidewalks, building floor elevations, parking lot improvements and ADA requirements for the parking lot and access to the building; and showing the existing street improvements out to at least the center lines of adjacent existing streets including ADA accessibility P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\VUP Hanson-Kelly\PC COA VUP 2004-024 Hanson.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Village Use Permit 2004-024 — Kristi W. Hanson Conditions of Approval - Recommended September 28, 2004 route to surrounding buildings, parking facilities and public streets. 10. The City maintains standard plans, details 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. 11. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the AutoCAD files of all complete, 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 which can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will accept raster -image files of the plans. GRADING 12. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes, the applicant shall obtain a precise grading permit approved by the City Engineer. 13. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of all of the following: A. A precise 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. Approved Best Management Plan that includes storm water pollution prevention and erosion control plans prepared by a qualified engineer. 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. P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\VUP Hanson-Kelly\PC COA VUP 2004-024 Hanson.doc �.f Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Village Use Permit 2004-024 — Kristi W. Hanson Conditions of Approval - Recommended September 28, 2004 The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control Plan provisions submitted with its application for a grading permit. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. Nuisance water shall be retained on site and disposed of in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 17. 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. 18. No additional street improvements is required, except for: A. Desert Club Drive 1) Two (2) City of La Quinta Decorative Street Lights. The applicant shall pay to the City, 100% of the cost for installation and materials of two (2) City of La Quinta Decorative Street Lights. 2) Removal of the existing 5-foot sidewalk along Desert Club Drive where sidewalk relocation is proposed. 3) Construct an approved border along the curb of the landscaped area on Desert Club Drive for passengers getting out or into vehicles. B. Calle Barcelona 1) Construct a 6-foot wide sidewalk adjacent to curb along the Calle Barcelona boundary. P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\VUP Hanson-Kelly\PC COA VUP 2004-024 Hanson.doc J Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Village Use Permit 2004-024 — Kristi W. Hanson Conditions of Approval - Recommended September 28, 2004 19. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City adopted standards. PARKING LOTS AND ACCESS POINTS 20. The applicant shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150, with exception to the deviations requested by the applicant. 21. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using Caltrans' design procedure (20-year life) and site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows (or approved equivalents for alternate materials): Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b. 22. 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. 23. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the existing access points. 24. The applicant shall provide adequate sight distance at the proposed access driveways on Desert Club Drive and Calle Barcelona. The design shall be approved prior to precise grading and landscaping improvement plans submittal to the Engineering Department and/or Community Development Department. UTILITIES 25. 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. 26. 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\9-28-2004\VUP Hanson-Kelly\PC COA VUP 2004-024 Hanson.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Village Use Permit 2004-024 — Hanson Conditions of Approval - Recommended September 28, 2004 The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for approval by the City Engineer. QUALITY ASSURANCE 27. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 28. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such of 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. 29. 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. 30. 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. FEES AND DEPOSITS 31. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). COMMUNITY DEVELOPMETN DEPARTMENT 32. The applicant shall submit specifications for the parking lot lighting fixture to be approved by the Community Development Department before working drawing are prepared. Said fixture shall comply with the Section 9.100.150 and be in keeping with other parking lot lighting fixtures in the area. 33. The applicant shall remove the Jacaranda tree in front of the structures along Desert Club Drive that is shown on the landscape plans. The landscaping and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Coachella valley Water District and Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner prior to submittal of the final plans to the Community PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\VUP Hanson-Kelly\PC COA VUP 2004-024 Hanson.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Village Use Permit 2004-024 - Hanson Conditions of Approval - Recommended September 28, 2004 Development Department. 34. The design of the carport trellis structure shall be approved by the Community Development Department before working drawings are prepared. The trellis shall be decorative and made out of noncombustible materials as approved by the Building & Safety Department Director. 35. The site shall be monitored during on and off -site trenching and rough grading by qualified archaeological monitors including a Native American monitor. Proof of retention of monitors shall be given to the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to issuance of first earth -moving or clearing permit. Monitors to include a Native American from a local tribe. 36. 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. 37. 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. "AReports - PC\9-28-2004\VUP Hanson-Kelly\PC COA VUP 2004-024 Hanson.doc ATTACHMENT # aa.aa i ! I I � ca I I o - I I I� ESMT- 0 'aC I 162.60 No 173.79 TAA 020-091 fl 16L52 OD � co J 25 26 — — — — 134.91 1 m is o J M INN V O J - - - - 196.97 �AVE* a V 1 0 m ! J n ry I J q ATTACHMENT A Kristi W. Hanson, Inc. Architect 72-185 Painter's Path Suite A Palm Desert, CA 92260 May 11, 2004 David Belson, Ph.D. 9117 Monte Mar Drive Los Angeles, CA 90035 310 839 2568 310 839 9009 (fax) david@belson.org ECEWE _ DJULKJ CI L (fCOMMUNDAEWINTPMENT DEPARTMENT Subject: Parking Demand Study for the Kelly Construction Co. Commercial Building Dear Kristi: Pursuant to your request, I am pleased to submit this parking demand study for the Kelly Construction Company's Commercial Building at Old Town La Quinta on Desert Club Drive. I have reviewed the design plans, related data and the applicable La Quinta Municipal Code. As discussed below, the analysis shows how the planned parking meets expected demand levels based on the City of La Quinta's regulations for parking. Introduction This report consists of calculations of the parking required by subject property for the planned office building. Parking demand is normally determined based on the expected type of tenants and the size of the building. The calculation is based on the current design documents and utilizes the current municipal code requirements from the City La Quinta. Parking Computation The total parking requirement is determined based on the interior or gross floor area (GFA) in the building's design. The categories of use are identified within the La Quinta Municipal Code, 9.150.060. The parking demand is then determined based on the parking spaces required per the La Quinta Municipal Code, Section 9 on Zoning. The GLA for the subject building is 6,354 square feet for this 2-story commercial office building. It should also be noted that there are several engineering sources of recommended levels of off street parking. These include the Urban Land Institute (ULI), the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC), American Planning Association (APA) and various other publications and consultants. Thus, there are a variety of Page 1 opinions regarding the appropriate ratio of parking spaces to building size and these various viewpoints should be considered. Regarding parking for office space, the Urban Land Institute is the organization most often quoted and it recommends 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. The Institute of Transportation Engineers recommends 2.8 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Many cities use 3 spaces and the American Planning Association in a study of 127 city parking ordinances found values ranging from 1.3 to 5 spaces. Table 1 Parking Demand Study for the Kelly Construction Co. Commercial Building 6,354 Total interior of La Quinta office bldg. Parking Spaces per 1,0000 sq. ft. Required Parking I Source 2.8 17.8 Institute of Traffic Engineers 2.9 18.4 Common city ratio, such as San Diego 3 19.1 Urban Land Institute 3.3 21.0 Common city ratio, such as Carlsbad 4 25.4 La Quinta Municipal Code Therefore, the set of values in Table 1 describe the range of possible results and a ratio of 3 per 1,000 is a responsible estimate for this particular property. Of course, the specific tenants will have an impact on the requirements and timing of parking requirements. The tenants have not been set for the La Quinta project. However, there is nothing to indicate that parking demand will exceed typical amounts. Based on this information, a total demand of 19 parking spaces seems to be a reasonable conclusion. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this report or if you need any additional information. Sincerely, David Belson, Ph.D. Page 2 ATTACHMENT � Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee August 4, 2004 B. Village Use Permit 2004-024; a request of James Kelly for consideration of architectural plans for a two story 6,354 square feet office building on 0.4 acres in the Village Commercial District, at the southwest corner of Desert Club Drive and Calle Barcelona. 1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff introduced Kristi Hanson, architect for the project, who gave a presentation on the project. 2. Committee Member Thoms asked what the exterior finish would be. Ms. Hanson stated smooth, with a burnished look but not hand trowelled. 3. Committee Member Christopher commended her design. 4. Committee Members Thoms agreed. 5. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about the shrubbery to be used. It appears those listed on the plans are less than the minimum size required. He then suggested one of the jacaranda trees in the front be removed. 6. Committee Member Christopher noted the details on the cast stone should be to the proper scale. 7. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Thorns to adopt Minute Motion 2004-024 recommending approval of Village Use Permit 2004-024, as recommended by staff and amended. Unanimously approved. VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: None. Vill. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Thoms/Bobbitt to adjourn this regular meeting of the Architectural and G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\8-4-04 WD.doc 5 ATTACHMENT A Historic Preservation Commission September 16, 2004 B. Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of a 17,883 square foot piece of lot. Applicant: James F. Kelly Archaeological Consultant: The Keith Companies (Leslie Mouriquand) Location: Southwest corner of Desert Club Drive and Calle Barcelona 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Interim Community Development Department Director Oscar Orci asked that it be stated on the record that Commissioner Mouriquand was present, but had left the room since she had participated in the preparation of this report. 3. Commissioner Sharp had a question about the definition of Old Town and the Village Area. Staff replied Old Town La Quinta was the name of a commercially -developed project in the designated Village Area. 4. Commissioner Puente had a question about the contact list dated May 2004. The contacts were not the same as the contacts in the previous report. She asked if this list was the newest one. Staff replied it should be the most current. 5. Commissioner Wright stated he agreed with the staff's recommendations. 6. Commissioner Puente commented this report was very complete and a good reference. 7. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Puente and Wright to adopt Minute Motion 2004-029 accepting the Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation as submitted. AYES: Commissioners Puente, Sharp, Wright and Chairman Wilbur. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Mouriquand. ABSTAIN: None. 8. Commissioner Mouriquand re-entered the meeting. 5 DATE: CASE NO.: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: BACKGROUND B 1 #A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SEPTEMBER 28, 2004 SIGN APPLICATION 2004-794 IMAGE POINT FOR TORRE NISSAN NEW SIGNS FOR EXISTING TORRE NISSAN DEALERSHIP SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND AUTO CENTER WAY M/RC (MIXED REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) / RC (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS REQUEST CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15311, CLASS 11, OF THE GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR ON -PREMISE SIGNS. THEREFORE, NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION IS NECESSARY The project site is Torre Nissan in the La Quinta Auto Center (Attachment 1). The auto dealership was constructed in 2000, at which time the existing signs were approved and installed. Those signs are in compliance with the sign program approved for the Auto Mall dealers. SIGN PROPOSAL An application has been submitted to replace the existing signs with new signs that are consistent with Nissan's current corporate identity (Attachment 2). The new signs are contemporary in design and consist of monument, wall and small directional signs. The signs will be internally illuminated. The following is a brief comparison of the existing and proposed signs: P:\Reports - PC\9-28-2004\Torre Nisson SA\sa 2004-794 torre pc rpt .doc Sign Existing sign and size Proposed sign and size Permitted by letter sign program A NISSAN monument sign on One - Auto Center Way - 40 square foot sign 2'.-5" high x 12'-1 " 6'-3" high x 8' long long (30 square feet) (50 square feet) B NISSAN TRUCK monument sign on Two - 40 Auto Center Drive - square foot signs 2'-5" high x 12'-1 " 5'-1 " high x 7'-3" long long (30 square feet) (36.25 square feet) C & D TORRE NISSAN wall signs facing Four - wall west and north- mounted 40 square foot 2' high x 23'-6.5" long Each 2'-6" high x 10'-8.75" signs with (47 square feet) long for Torre and 3' high x 24" 20'-9.5" long for Nissan maximum (total 89.83 square feet) height letters E Freestanding directory sign at drive As approved entry on Auto Center Way - by Com. 3' high x 4' long Dev. Director 9" high x 4' long (3 square feet) (12 square feet) F Freestanding entrance sign at entry 3' high x 4' long As approved by Com. on Auto Center Way - (12 square feet) Dev. Director 9" high x 4' long (3 square feet) G Service fascia wall sign facing west One per dept. with size 1'-6" high x 8'-9" long 1'-8" high x 10'-4" long appropriate (13.1 square feet) (17.2 square feet) to be seen from street H Directory building wall sign - As approved 3' high x 4' long by Com. None (12 square feet) Dev. Director I customer parking wall sign - As approved 6" high x 2' long by Com. None one square foot Dev. Director J freestanding customer parking sign- As approved 3 proposed at 6" high x 2' by Com. none long (one square foot) Dev. Director PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Torre Nisson SA\sa 2004-794 torre pc rpt .doc The monument and wall signs will be rectangular with a flat top and rounded sides and white in color. The monument signs will have a small red accent at the bottom. The lettering for the signs will be black or red plex-glass. The "Torre Nissan" signs on the west and north sides of the building will be internally illuminated channel letters. "Torre" will have a white face with "Nissan" having a red face. The main identification monument sign on Auto Center Way will have the Nissan logo, with the letters black and the surrounding emblem silver. This new type of signs is used at Palm Springs Nissan in Cathedral City. STAFF COMMENTS The adopted sign program for the Auto Center has specific requirements for certain allowed signs. The proposed signs do not comply in the following areas: 1. The program limits the main monument sign reading Nissan with a logo on Auto Center Way (west side of property) to 40 square feet per face. This sign is proposed at 50 square feet per face. 2. The program limits the allowed "Torre Nissan" wall mounted signs on the west and north sides of the building to a maximum 24" high letter. The proposed two signs use 30" and 36" high letters. These signs as noted above that are not in compliance with the sign program can be revised to comply by reducing the size or height, as necessary. A photo -simulation for the wall mounted "Torre Nissan" sign facing Highway 1 1 1 has not been submitted, but will be in the same location as the existing wall mounted sign. The signs are allowed to be on adjacent wall surfaces as proposed on the west -facing elevation. FINDINGS The new signs with the revisions noted above would be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code and applicable specific plan sign program. Furthermore, they will be in harmony and visually compatible to the signs in the auto mall. The signs will be compatible with the building and grounds. RECOMMENDATION Adopt Minute Motion 2004- , approving the new signs for Torre Nissan, subject to the following conditions: PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Torre Nisson SA\sa 2004-794 torre pc rpt .doc 1. The "Nissan" monument sign on Auto Center Way shall be reduced to a maximum 40 square feet in size. 2. The lettering for the two main identification building wall signs reading "Torre Nissan" shall be reduced to a maximum of 24" in height with the length proportionate. 3. The revised sign plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval prior to issuance of building permit for the signs. 4. All freestanding signs shall be placed so as to not obstruct vehicle and pedestrian visibility. Those signs adjacent to public streets shall be a minimum 10 feet behind the curb. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Sign exhibits Prepared by: Stan Sawa, Principal Planner PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\Torre Nisson SA\sa 2004-794 torre pc rpt .doc L. CI #A TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OSCAR ORCI, INTERIM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SEPTEMBER 28, 2004 TEMPORARY TENT PROVISIONS Pursuant to Chairman Kirk's request, the purpose of the memorandum is to provide information regarding the installation of temporary tents in the City of La Quinta. In general, the Community Development Department (CDD), Building and Safety Department (BSD), and Fire Department (FD) are responsible for reviewing and permitting tents. The CDD reviews the installation of tents typically in concert with "special" events. If the CDD determines that a Temporary Use Permit is needed the CDD will review the application and grant the Permit with appropriate Conditions of Approval. The permit would require clearance from BSD and FD, which in turn review the event and place additional Conditions of Approval, if needed. If the special event does not require a Temporary Use Permit, no further action is necessary by the CDD. Regardless of the Temporary Use Permit, anybody that wishes to install a temporary tent in excess of 200 square feet or canopies in excess of 400 square feet must obtain approval from BSD and FD. BSD requires structural calculations (CBC Section 3105E) to identify the wind load and the anchorage connection per the California Building Code Chapter 31 E. Tents must be able to resist specific wind forces. The FD requires, among other things, they be braced and anchored to prevent weather -related collapse. At issue is the requirement to obtain engineered calculations (wet -stamp) for tents that are installed repeatedly. In accordance with the California Building Code and California Fire Code, the BSD and FD require an engineer wet - stamp for the installation of each tent, regardless of how often a tent is installed. The primary reason for such a requirement is the Code PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\tents\tent memo.doc requirements as well as the requirement to have accountability for the structural integrity of these tents. In the past, the installation of every tent in excess of 200 square feet would require an engineer's wet -stamp, no matter how often it was installed in the same location. Understanding that there are periodic events where the installation process is the same every time, the City is now allowing the engineering approval to cover more than one event. In order for this to happen, the engineer's wet - stamp must be valid throughout the period of the events, the particular Code provisions must remain the same, and the size, type and location of tents must remain the same. I will be available at the Planning Commission meeting should you have questions or would like additional information. PAReports - PC\9-28-2004\tents\tent memo.doc Structural Requirements for Temporary Tents in the City of La Quinta Temporary tents are regulated by: • 2001 California Building Code (CBC), Chapter 31 E • 2001 California Fire Code (CFC), Article 32 These regulations apply to: • Temporary tents and canopies (used not more than 180 days within a 12-month period on a single premises): o Tents having an area in excess of 200 square feet o Canopies having an area in excess of 400 square feet Enforcing authority for these Code provisions is: • State Fire Marshal (as represented by Riverside County Fire Department) Structural stability: • Fire Code requires that tents and canopies be "braced and anchored to prevent weather related collapse. Documentation of structural stability shall be furnished to the chief on request." (CFC §3206.1) • Building Code requires that tents be able to resist specific wind forces. "The enforcing authority may require certification of the provisions of this section from a structural, civil or other qualified registered engineer." (CBC §3105E) Building Department involvement: • The Riverside County Fire Department does not have staff qualified to perform a review of structural engineering calculations • The Building Department has qualified consultants in place to do this work • The Building Department has historically performed this cooperative service for the Fire Department Wet -signature requirements: • "Ali final civil engineering calculations and reports shall bear the signature and seal or stamp of the registrant, the date of signing and sealing or stamping, and the expiration date of the certificate or authority." (CA Business & Professions Code §6735(a)) • This requirement is also restated in California Code of Regulations, Title 16, Division 5 (Rules of the Board for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors), §41 1(g) and §41 1(h), where rubber stamp signatures are exclusively prohibited. Building Department conclusions: • To protect the public from structural failures, the building official is charged with enforcing all provisions of the building code, including verifying that engineers have exercised responsible control in the design of structures. That responsible control is verified by enforcing -the wet -signature requirements. • California Business & Professions Code §6735(b) indicates that "a registered civil engineer who signs civil engineering documents shall not be responsible for damage caused by subsequent... uses of those documents, if... not authorized or approved by the registered engineer who originally signed the documents." The Building Department believes that failure to enforce this provision of the law leaves the public unprotected by allowing an unauthorized use of an engineers design. • Because his signature acknowledges his acceptance of the liability of the use of his design on a particular structure, the Building Department's enforcement of wet - signature requirements protects the engineer from potential legal action stemming from unauthorized use of his design. City Council Agendas are Available on the City's Web Page @ www.la-quinta.org CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Special Meeting Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 5:00 P.M. STUDY SESSION ROOM 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 To be held jointly with: The La Quinta Planning Commission and Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee The La Quinta Community Services Commission The La Quinta Cultural Arts Commission The La Quinta Historic Preservation Commission and The La Quinta Investment Advisory Board CALL TO ORDER Roll Call: Council Members: Henderson, Osborne, Perkins, Sniff, and Mayor Adolph PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PUBLIC COMMENT At this time, members of the public may address the City Council on any matter not listed on the agenda. Please complete a "request to speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. Please watch the timing device on the podium. City Council Agenda 1 September 28, 2004 BUSINESS SESSION 1. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FROM COACHELLA VALLEY ARTS ALLIANCE REGARDING SPONSORSHIP OF ROSE PARADE FLOAT. A. MINUTE ORDER ACTION STUDY SESSION CONVENE AT 5:00 PM. Jointly with the La Quinta Planning Commission and ALRC Roll Call: Planning Commissioners: Daniels, Krieger, Ladner, Quill, and Chairman Kirk Architectural & Landscaping Review Committee Members: Bobbitt, Christopher, Thorns 1. DISCUSSION OF MATTERS OF JOINT INTEREST TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION AND ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE. • Annexations • Fiscal Analysis Standards CONVENE AT 6:45 PM Jointly with the La Quinta Community Services Commission Roll Call: Commissioners: Hackney, Leidner, Vaughn, Chairperson St. Johns 1. DISCUSSION OF MATTERS OF JOINT INTEREST TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION. CONVENE AT 7:15 PM Jointly with the Cultural Arts Commission Roll Call: Commissioners: Brodsky, Gassman, Lane, Reynolds, Chairperson Loudon 1. DISCUSSION OF MATTERS OF JOINT INTEREST TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION. RECESS AT 7:45 PM City Council Agenda 2 September 28, 2004 RECONVENE AT 8:00 PM Jointly with the Historic Preservation Commission Roll Call: Puente, Sharp, Wilbur, Wright, Chairperson Mouriquand 1. DISCUSSION OF MATTERS OF JOINT INTEREST TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION. CONVENE AT 8:30 PM Jointly with the La Quinta Investment Advisory Board Roll Call: Commissioners: Deniel, Lewis, Moulin, Olander, Chairperson Mahfoud 1. DISCUSSION OF MATTERS OF JOINT INTEREST TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE INVESTMENT ADVISORY BOARD. ADJOURNMENT Adjourn to a regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council to be held on October 5, 2004 commencing with closed session at 2:00 p.m. and open session at 3:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253. DECLARATION OF POSTING I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of La Quinta, do hereby declare that the foregoing agenda for the La Quinta City Council Special Joint Meeting of Tuesday, September 28, 2004 was posted on the outside entry to the Council Chamber, 78-495 Calle Tampico and on the bulletin board at the La Quinta Chamber of Commerce and at Stater Bros. 78-630 Highway 111, on Friday, September 24, 2004. DATED: September 24, 2004 JUNE S. GREEK, CMC, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California City Council Agenda 3 September 28, 2004