Loading...
2004 11 09 PCPlanning Commission Agendas are now available on the City's Web Page @ www.la-guinta.org PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California NOVEMBER 9, 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 2004-083 Beginning Minute Motion 2004-016 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 October 26, 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 ................ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-526, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2004-103, ZONE CHANGE 2004- 122, SPECIFIC PLAN 2004-074, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32879 Applicant.......... Transwest Housing, Inc./MG Ranch Land Inc. Location........... Southeast corner of Avenue 54 and Madison Street Request............ Consideration of a subdivision of ± 199 acres into 303 single-family residential lots. Action .............. Continue to November 23, 2004 B. Item ................ SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-814 Applicant.......... Entin Family Trust Location........... East side of Washington Street, ± 960 feet north of Fred Waring Drive Request............ Consideration of development plans for construction of a ± 23,760 square foot, two-story office building Action .............. Resolution 2004- C. Item ................ SIGN APPLICATION 2004-825, AMENDMENT #1 Applicant.......... Santa Rosa Plaza Location........... North of Calle Tampico, east of Avenida Bermudas, and west of Desert Club Drive Request............ Consideration of a Master Sign Program Amendment for Santa Rosa Plaza Action .............. Resolution 2004- G:\WPDDCS\PC Minutes\PCAgendaW.doc D. Item ................ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-470, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2003-091, ZONE CHANGE 2003- 112, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2003-074, SPECIFIC PLAN 2004-071, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 Applicant.......... Pacific Retirement Services and Westport La Quinta, LP. Location........... Northeast and southeast corners of Washington Street and Avenue 50 Request............ Consideration of a: 1) Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact; 2 & 3) General Plan Amendment and Zone Change from Low Density Residential to Medium High Residential at the northeast corner of Washington Street and Avenue 50 and Office Commercial to Medium Density Residential at the southeast corners of Washington Street and Avenue 50; 4) design principles and guidelines for a senior retirement community; 5) Conditional use permit to allow a congregate care facility; and 6) development plans to allow a senior retirement community. Action .............. Resolution 2004- Resolution 2004- Resolution 2004- , Resolution 2004- Resolution 2004- , Resolution 2004- VI. BUSINESS ITEM: None VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Review of City Council meeting IX. ADJOURNMENT: This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be held on November 23, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PCAgendaW.doc DECLARATION OF POSTING I, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary of the City of La Quinta, do hereby declare that the foregoing agenda for the La Quinta Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, November 9, 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, November 5, 2004. DATED: November 5, 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 October 26, 2004 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Kirk who asked Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Rick Daniels, Kay Ladner, Ken Krieger, Paul Quill, and Chairman Tom Kirk. C. Staff present: Oscar Orci, Interim Community Development Director, Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston, Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planners Wallace Nesbit, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of the regular meeting of October 12, 2004. There being no corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Ladner to approve the minutes as submitted. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of September 28, 2004. There being no corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Ladner to approve the minutes as submitted. B. Department Report. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Site Development Permit 2004-812; a request of Chick-Fil-A for consideration of development plans and signs for a 4,694 gross square foot restaurant with a drive through lane located on the north side of G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\10-26-04.doc Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 2004 Highway 1 1 1, east of Adams Street within The Pavilion at La Quinta project. 1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Daniels asked if the plan complied with all Code requirements. Staff stated yes. 3. Chairman Kirk asked if the master developer was providing all the landscaping or just this section prior to development or the entire landscape easement. Staff stated it is uncertain about the landscaping, but if they are not doing the entire landscaping along Highway 1 1 1, the portion in front of Chick-Fil-A will be required. Interim Community Development Director Oscar Orci noted the problem the City has with previous street landscaping. Developers have installed the entire length of the landscaping and it has not been maintained in front of areas where shops have not been developed. If the Commission determines it appropriate, this pad would only be landscaped at this time. 4. Commissioner Daniels asked if the entire street improvements had been completed for this section of Highway 1 1 1. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated they are working with Caltrans to complete the improvements including the deceleration lane. 5. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Greg Lawless, representing Chick-Fil-A, stated he concurred with the conditions and was available to answer any questions. They do not intend to open till some of the other shops in the Center open. 6. Chairman Kirk asked if there was any other public comment. There being no further comment, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 7. Commissioner Quill asked that the landscaping come back before the Commission. Interim Community Development Director Oscar Orci stated Condition #58 directs staff to review the berming and landscaping to be in compliance with the Highway 111 Design G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\10-26-04.doc 2 Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 2004 Guidelines. Commissioner Quill asked if there was a retaining wall. Staff stated not at this location at this time. Commissioner Quill asked that it be conditioned to have the retaining wall and the berming to effectively screen the drive through. Staff stated Condition #58 could be amended to include the berming and retaining wall. Mr. Lawless stated they would prefer to see the landscaping and berm rather than the wall as it becomes a nuisance and continually has to be repaired. 8. Commissioner Ladner stated the wall creates a tunnel for the exhaust to collect for those waiting. If the berming can provide what they want then the wall is a duplication and not necessary. 9. Commissioner Krieger stated he agreed with Commissioner Ladner. 10. Commissioner Quill asked that the berm be not less than seven feet. Mr. Lawless stated a wall at this height with the landscaping will hide the entire building. Staff stated this will also cause drainage problems. 11. Chairman Kirk suggested it be conditioned to have the Commission review the landscape plan to ensure the screening. 12. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Ladner/Daniels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-081 approving Site Development Permit 2004-081, as recommended by staff and amended as follows: a. Condition #58: Landscaping plans will be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The plans shall show site line studies from actual elevations from Highway 1 1 1 and the proposed drive through lane. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Ladner, Krieger, Quill and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. B. Site Development Permit 2004-816; a request of K. Hovnanian Homes/Forecast Homes for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for three new single-family prototype residential units, each with three different elevations , located at the northwest corner of Avenue 52 and Monroe Street within Tentative Tract Map 30092. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\ 1 0-26-04.doc 3 Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 2004 1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Daniels asked how many Bottlebrush trees they were planting and if they knew how messy they can be. Staff noted the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee (ALRC) discussed the problems with the Chilean Mesquite trees, but did not require their removal. If the Commission wants them removed from the plant list, they can do so. 3. Chairman Kirk asked why staff was asking them not to hydroseed; what options do they have? Staff stated it is the seed mix that is objectionable. Staff will be asking Public Works to review the seed mix for their approval. 4. Commissioner Quill noted the grade differential on the back of the lots was up to four feet between the pads. Staff noted the differential is normally not more than three feet. The grading plan is in plan check currently and Public Works will review the grades. Interim Community Development Director Oscar Orci clarified that Public Works will be reviewing the hydrology to see that it complies with City standards. 5. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Steve Chaparro, K. Hovnanian Homes/Forecast Homes, gave a presentation on the project. 6. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Quill asked about the seed mix. Mr. Chaparro noted the comments made by the ALRC on the wildflower problems. 7. Chairman Kirk noted there was a lot of turf and if it met with the City's Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance. Mr. Chaparro stated it is being reviewed by the City as well as CVWD and will meet those requirements. Chairman Kirk asked if staff had seen the calculations. Staff stated they have not seen the approved plans by CVWD in order to review the calculations. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\ 1 0-26-04.doc 4 Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 2004 8. Chairman Kirk asked if anyone else would like to address the Commission on this matter. There being none, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 9. Chairman Kirk stated the landscaping plans seem too lush and he does not believe they will meet the City's Ordinance. Staff noted the applicant must meet the allowance stated in the Ordinance. The Ordinance does allow them to mix and combine areas to reach those quotas. Discussion followed regarding the landscaping plan. 10. Chairman Kirk reopened the public hearing and asked Mr. Chaparro is he had any objection to bringing the landscaping plan back to the Commission. Mr. Chaparro stated he would prefer to have staff approval if they meet the Ordinance. 11. Commissioner Quill asked if the City had an outside consultant who could review the plant material and could give advice. Staff noted the ALRC has members who are proficient with landscaping terms and species and this is part of their review process. 12. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Daniels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-082, approving Site Development Permit 2004-816, as recommended by staff and amended as follows: a. Condition added: The final landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission prior to a Certificate of ,Occupancy. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Ladner, Krieger, Quill, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Commissioner Quill asked that discussion be agendized regarding the hiring of a horticulturalist to address plant material, their growth pattern, etc. Second, he would like to have agendized a discussion regarding G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\10-26-04.doc 5 Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 2004 putting together a container storage ordinance. He would like to see them put together in a very tasteful manner. Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston clarified that Wal-Mart would not be coming back before the Commission as it was appealed to the City Council by the applicant. Discussion followed regarding the action and alternatives presented to the Council regarding the appeal. Staff was directed to agendize the two items. B. Interim Community Development Director Oscar Orci asked the status of the Commissioners attendance at council meeting. Staff would see that the Commissioners receive the schedule in the next packet. IX. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Krieger/Quill to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on November 9, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:09 p.m., on October 26, 2004. Respectfully submitted, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\10-26-04.doc 6 PH #A STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: NOVEMBER 9, 2004 CASE NO: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-526 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2004-103 ZONE CHANGE 2004-122 SPECIFIC PLAN 2004-074 TENTATIVE TRACT 32879 APPLICANT/OWNER: TRANSWEST HOUSING, INC./MG RANCH LAND INC. REQUEST: SUBDIVISION OF ± 199 ACRES INTO 303 SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF AVENUE 54 AND MADISON STREET BACKGROUND Staff is requesting a continuance of this item to the Planning Commission meeting of November 23, 2004, in order to allow the recently completed Phase 2 Archaeological Resources Survey to be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) on November 18, 2004. The Phase 1 survey was reviewed and recommended for acceptance by HPC on October 21, 2004. However, the Phase 1 survey recommended completion of a Phase 2 report before the Environmental Assessment can be completed and available for review. The Phase 2 report will be reviewed by the HPC on November 181n. RECOMMENDATION Move to continue consideration of Environmental Assessment 2004-526, and its associated applications, to the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of November 23, 2004. Prepared by: Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: NOVEMBER 9, 2004 CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-814 APPLICANT: ENTIN FAMILY TRUST REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A ± 23,760 SQUARE FOOT, TWO-STORY OFFICE BUILDING LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF WASHINGTON STREET, ±960 FEET NORTH OF FRED WARING DRIVE (ATTACHMENT 1) ARCHITECT: WARE MALCOMB ARCHITECTS GENERAL PLAN: CC - (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) ZONING: CC - (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-525, FOR SDP 2004-814. BASED ON THIS ASSESSMENT, THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HAS DETERMINED THAT, WHILE THE PROPOSED PROJECT COULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT, THE POTENTIAL FOR SUCH IMPACTS CAN BE MITIGATED THROUGH MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT APPROVAL. ACCORDINGLY, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED. BACKGROUND: The proposed project involves two parcels, comprising 1.82 acres, to be developed with a two-story general office building of 23,760 square feet. The site is zoned Community Commercial, and does allow the proposed use. It is currently vacant but was previously developed as a medical office use. The original structures were removed several years ago, with only the asphalt parking area remaining. The remainder of the site is vacant desert land, with undulating terrain and minimal vegetation. perptsdp814 PROJECT PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting development approval to construct a 23,760 s.f. structure intended for general office uses (Attachment 2). The building has a rectangular footprint, with the front of the building facing Washington Street (west elevation). The building is flanked on its north and south sides by exterior stairwells. The architecture has been revised based upon direction by the ALRC, primarily related to the central entry feature. This feature rises to 38.5 feet in height, and is slightly recessed from the rest of the building. There are two tower elements that flank the north and south sides of the front elevation, which extend to a height of 31.25 feet from the finish grade elevation. The main roof ridge line height is at 30 feet, 8 inches from finish grade. The proposed building lies beyond 150 feet of Washington Street, which is designated a Major Arterial in the La Quinta General Plan. Along Washington Street, no building in excess of 22 feet in height is permitted within 150 of the ultimate property line. The architecture is best described as a blending of Tuscan and Mediterranean design elements. The building walls will be a concrete tilt -up, with a white painted finish, utilizing EIFS forms for cornices and other trim items. The roofing material will be a rounded clay tile in a darker earth tone (carmel) color. The first floor tower element wainscots and main entry surrounds will be finished in a stacked ledger stone, visible on the west, north and south elevations. The window surrounds and mullions will be framed in a finished aluminum. The elevation referred to above, has been revised based on ALRC comments at their October 6, 2004 meeting, and now shows the central entry raised above the main roof line, and additional accent treatments applied to the east elevation, as requested by ALRC to be done prior to the Planning Commission's review. The site plan has also been slightly revised to meet parking lot design standards required in the zoning code. The present iterations of the site plan and architectural elements of the building address the concerns of staff and those expressed by ALRC. In regard to the landscaping plan, the major landscape components and plant palette are acceptable. The applicant has provided preliminary water use calculations which indicate compliance with the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. Adequate shading will be provided through use of carport shade structures and tree canopies to be provided. A material and color board, along with a full-size color illustration, will be provided at the meeting. Architecture and Landscape Review Committee The Architecture and Landscape Review Committee reviewed this request at its meeting of October 6, 2004, and on a 3-0 vote, adopted Minute Motion 2004-029, perptsdp814 recommending approval of the proposed project (Attachment 4). The ALRC did recommend that the following measures be included in the approval of the project: 1. Remove the Chilean Mesquite trees from the landscape palette. 2. Revise the front (Washington Street) elevation, so as to provide relief to break-up the long building roof line. . 3. Extend treatment of the south stairwell accents to the rear elevation of the building. The applicant has made the changes to address the ALRC concerns with respect to architecture under items 2 and 3. Staff has added a condition to require replacement of the Mesquite trees as requested. Public Notice This request was advertised in the Desert Sun Newspaper on October 29, 2004, and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the project site. To date, no correspondence has been received. Public Agency Review A copy of this request has been sent to all applicable public agencies and City Departments. All written comments received are on file with the Community Development Department. Applicable comments received have been included in the recommended Conditions of Approval. MANDATORY FINDINGS: As required by Section 9.210.010 (Site Development Permits) of the Zoning Code, all findings can be met. CONCLUSION: The project, as redesigned, complies with the City's Zoning Code provisions and the applicable policies of the General Plan. Overall, the parking required for the proposed building as a general office use is 95 parking spaces, with 101 having been provided. A single project access point is proposed along Washington Street, to be located near the north property line. A deceleration lane has been provided, in accordance with the requirement as determined by Public Works. Regarding the height of the proposed building, the Zoning Code requires that buildings within 150 feet of a Major or Primary arterial roadway be limited to 22 feet/one story in height. This building is not affected by that stipulation. That being noted, the building has an overall height at ridgeline of just under 31 feet, while the two flanking towers are only slightly taller at 31.25 feet. The central entry feature perptsdp814 extends to 38.5 feet, which is permissible in the CC zoning district, as the height limit is 40 feet. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004- _, approving Site Development Permit 2004-814, subject to findings and conditions. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Proposed Site Plan 3. ALRC Minutes of October 6, 2004 (Excerpt) 4. Large Exhibits (Planning Commission only) Prepared by: �r,�' ✓� '„jam �*�''`�4rnY,.�...•"" � ��r Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner perptsdp814 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-525, PREPARED FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-814. CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-525 APPLICANT: ENTIN FAMILY TRUST WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 9t►, day of November, 2004, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 2004-525 to allow a two-story, 23,760 square -foot general office building, generally located on the east side of Washington Street, 960 feet north of Fred Waring Drive, more particularly described as follows: BEING A PORTION OF PARCELS 25 & 26 OF RS 015/032 WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-68), in that the Community Development Department has prepared Environmental Assessment 2004-525 for Site Development Permit 2004-814, and based upon this Assessment determined that the project may have significant adverse effects on the environment; however, mitigation measures have been imposed on the project to reduce impacts to a less than significant level; therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be adopted; and, WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following findings to justify adoption of said Environmental Assessment: 1. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant impacts, which could not be mitigated, were identified by Environmental Assessment 2004-525. 2. The proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory in that the site has been previously disturbed by grading and building activities, and potential impacts associated with cultural resources will be mitigated to a less than significant level. peresoea525 Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Environmental Assessment 2004-525 November 9, 2004 3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends in that no unmitigated significant effects on wildlife resources have been identified by the Environmental Assessment. The site is within the boundary of the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard Habitat Plan fee area, and will be required to pay the fees in place at the time grading permits are requested. 4. The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the Environmental Assessment. The proposed project will broaden the services offered to residents of the City, consistent with General Plan goals and policies pertaining to the provision of a full range of retail and office opportunities. 5. The proposed project will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the proposed project. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan vision for this area. Construction of the project will have no significant cumulative impacts. 6. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no unmitigated impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public services. 7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment in that mitigation measures are imposed on the project that will reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 8. The Planning Commission has considered Environmental Assessment 2004-525 and said Assessment reflects the independent judgement of the City. 9. The City has, on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d). 10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California, 92253. peresoea525 Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Environmental Assessment 2004-525 November 9, 2004 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment. 2. That it does hereby adopt Environmental Assessment 2004-525 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist on file in the Community Development Department and attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 9th day of November, 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 peresoea525 Environmental Checklist Form 2 3 M Q M Project title: Site Development Permit 2004-814, Entin Family Trust Office Building Lead agency name and address Contact person and phone number: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Wally Nesbit 760-777-7125 Project location: East side of Washington Street, approximately 960 feet north of Fred Waring Drive Project sponsor's name and address: Entin Family Trust 9332 Stockton Road Moorepark, CA 93021 General plan designation: Community 7. Zoning: Community Commercial Commercial Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) Site Development Permit for a proposed 23,760 square foot office building on a 1.82 acre site. The site has been previously constructed, and now only an asphalt lot remains. The proposed project would result in the construction of a two story structure. Each floor would provide 11,880 square feet of office space. A single project access point is proposed, near the northern property line on Washington Street. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: North: Vacant (Office) South: Vacant (Community Commercial) West: Washington Street; single family residential in City of Palm Desert East: Vacant (Office) 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Coachella Valley Water District ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Biological Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Mineral Resources Public Services Utilities / Service Systems Agriculture Resources Cultural Resources Hydrology / Water Quality Noise Recreation Air Quality Geology /Soils Land Use / Planning Population / Housing Transportation/Traffic Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the X environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date -2- EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: I) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead -3- agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance 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) This portion of Washington Street is not designated an Image Corridor in the General Plan. The proposed project, however, includes a landscaped parkway of up to 32 feet, and proposes to locate the building on the eastern property line. The project site is located on the east side of Washington Street, and will not obstruct views to the west. There are no rock outcroppings or other significant resources on the site. Impacts associated with scenic resources are expected to be insignificant. The construction of the office building will cause an increase in light generation, primarily from parking lot lighting, car headlights and landscape lighting. The bulk of the activity of the site, however, will be during daytime hours. The City regulates lighting levels and does not allow lighting to spill over onto adjacent property. Impacts will not be significant. -4- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact I1. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Would the ro'ect: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide X Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? (General Plan 1IR p. III-21 ff.) b) Conflict with existing zoning for X agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location X or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (General Plan Land Use Map) II. a)-c) The project site is not located in an area of the City where agriculture occurs. The site is at the northern City limits, and has previously been developed. No agricultural lands occur either adjacent or near the project site. There are no Williamson Act contract on the property or on adjacent properties. There will be no impact on agricultural resources. -5- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct X implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) b) Violate any air quality standard or X contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) c) Result in a cumulatively considerable X net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA handbook, 2002 PM10 Plan for the Coachella Valley) d) Expose sensitive receptors to X substantial pollutant concentrations? (Project Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a X substantial number of people? (Project Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection) III. a), b) & c) The largest potential sources of air pollution in the City and the region are vehicular emissions and blowing dust. The proposed project will result in 23,760 square feet of general office space. The space has the potential to generate up to 262 trips per day'.. Based on this traffic generation, and an average trip length of 15 miles, the following emissions can be expected to be generated from the project site. "Trip Generation, 6a" Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, category 710, General Office Building. 0 Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout (pounds ner dav) Ave. Trip Total Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Length (miles) miles/day 262 x 15 = 3,930 PM10 PM10 PM10 Pollutant ROC CO NOX Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wear Grams at 50 mph 353.70 9,196.20 1,886.40 - 39.30 39.30 Pounds at 50 mph 0.78 20.30 4.16 - 0.09 0.09 SCAQMD Threshold (lbs./day) 75 550 100 150 Assumes 262 ADT. Based on California Air Resources Board's EMFAC7G Emissions Model. Assumes Year 2005 summertime running conditions at 75`F, light duty autos, catalytic. As demonstrated above, the proposed project will not exceed any of SCAQMD's recommended daily thresholds for chemical emissions. Further, since the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan designation on the property, the air quality impacts associated with the project were assessed in the General Plan EIR. The project's potential impacts to air quality resulting from vehicular emissions are 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 some dust during grading. However, the site has been previously developed, and grading activities are expected to be limited. The contractor will be required to submit a PM 10 Management Plan prior to initiation of any earth moving activity. In addition, the potential impacts associated with PM 10 can be mitigated by the measures below. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize exhaust emissions. -7- 2. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary power poles to avoid on -site power generation. 3. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit opportunities. 4. Imported 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. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean-up of construction - related dirt on approach routes to the site. 9. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour. 10. Landscaping of the landscaped parkway on Washington Street shall be completed immediately following precise grading of the site. Implementation of these mitigation measures will ensure that impacts associated with PM 10 are mitigated to a less than significant level. II1. d) & e) The project will consist of offices which are not expected to generate objectionable odors, nor will it expose residents to concentrations of pollutants. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either X directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(General Plan MEA, p. 73 ff.) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any X riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (General Plan MEA, p. 73 ff.) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on X federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (General Plan MIsA, p. 73 ff) d) Interfere substantially with the X movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (General Plan MIA, p. 73 ff.) e) Conflict with any local policies or X ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (General Plan MEA, p. 73 ff.) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, X Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (General Plan I;tihibit 6.3) in IV. a)-f) The site has been previously developed, and an asphalt parking area still occurs. The site is devoid of native vegetation and does not provide significant foraging habitat for local species. The site is located in the fee payment area for the Coachella Valley Fringed -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan, and the project proponent will be required to contribute the fee in place at the time of issuance of building permits to mitigate this potential impact. Overall impacts to biological resources are expected to be insignificant. am Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the ro'ect: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in X the significance of a historical resource as defined in ' 15064.5? ("Cultural Resources Assessment" prepared by Archaeological Advisory Group,.1996) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in X the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ' 15064.5? ("Cultural Resources Assessment" prepared by Archaeological Advisory Group,.1996) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique X paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (General Plan Exhibit 6.8) d) Disturb any human remains, including X those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ("Cultural Resources Assessment" prepared by Archaeological Advisory (3Toup,.1996) V. a)-b) & d) The proposed project site has been previously developed. In addition, a cultural resource report was prepared for another project on the site in 1996, and has been updated in 20042. The study found no surface evidence of cultural resources on the site. However, since the site is subject to significant blowsand hazards, it is possible that sub -surface resources occur. In order to mitigate this potential impact, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: A qualified archaeological monitor shall be on site during all excavation, earth moving and grading activities on the site. The monitor shall be empowered to stop or redirect activities should resources be identified. The archaeologist shall also be required to submit to the Community Development Department, for review and approval, a written report on all activities on the site within 60 days of completion of grading activities. V. c) The proposed project site lies outside the General Plan's mapped boundary for ancient lake Cahuilla. No paleotological resources are expected to occur on site, and therefore no impacts to such resources will result from implementation of the proposed project. 2 "A Cultural Resources Assessment for a Proposed Medical Facility...," prepared by Archaeological Advisory Group, April 1996; and letter dated October 7, 2004, same author. -11- 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 X 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? (MHA 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 the X loss of topsoil? (MEA Exhibit 6.5) d) Be located on expansive soil, as X defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property (MEA Exhibit 6.1) e) Have soils incapable of adequately X supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (General Plan Exhibit 8.1) VI. a)-e) The project site lies in a Zone 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. The office building will be required to meet the City's and the State's standards for construction, which include Uniform Building Code requirements for seismic zones. The City Engineer will require the preparation of site -specific geotechnical analysis in conjunction with the submittal of grading plans. This requirement will ensure that impacts from ground shaking are reduced to a less than significant level. -12- The proposed project is not located in an area subject to liquefaction, rockfall or landslides. The site does not have expansive soils. The proposed project will be required to connect to the CVWD sanitary sewer system, and septic tanks will not be installed. The site is located in an area of severe blow sand potential. The mitigation measures included above under air quality are designed to mitigate the potential impacts associated with blow sand at the project site to a less than significant level. -13- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS --Would the project. a) Create a significant hazard to the X public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Application materials) b) Create a significant hazard to the X public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (General Plan MEA, p. 95 ff.) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle X hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (General Plan MEA, p. 95 ff.) d) Be located on a site which is included X on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (General Plan MEA, p. 95 f.) e) For a project located within an airport X land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) 0 For a project within the vicinity of a X private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) g) Impair implementation of or physically X interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff) h Expose people or structures to a -14- significant risk of loss, injury or death X involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (General Plan land use map) VII. a)-h) The proposed office building is expected to generate ordinary business waste, and is not expected to result in the storage or transport of hazardous materials. No impacts are expected. -15- 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 drainage X pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.. ) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage X pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 f ..) e) Create or contribute runoff water X which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) f) Place housing within a 100-year flood X hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance 9M Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ty.. ) g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard X area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 6.6) VIII. a) & b) Domestic water is supplied to the project site by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The development of the site will result in the need for domestic water service use in the offices, and for landscaping irrigation. The CVWD has prepared a Water Management Plan which indicates that it has sufficient water sources to accommodate growth in its service area. The CVWD has implemented or is implementing water conservation, purchase and replenishment measures which will result in a surplus of water in the long term. The project proponent will be required to implement the City's water efficient landscaping and construction provisions, including requirements for water efficient fixtures, which will ensure that the least amount of water is utilized. The applicant will also be required to comply with the City's NPDES standards, requiring that potential pollutants not be allowed to enter surface waters. These City standards will assure that impacts to water quality and quantity will be less than significant. VIII. c) & d) The City requires that all projects retain the 100 year storm on site. The project proposes an underground stormwater field in lieu of an on -site retention basin. This design shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.120 (Drainage), LQMC, Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03. The City Engineer shall approve the design of the proposed underground stormwater field. The applicant may be required to prepare a hydrology analysis to demonstrate on site retention of these storm waters. The City Engineer will review the hydrology study for the proposed project, and approve its findings prior to construction of the project. Impacts associated with storm water drainage are therefore not expected to be significant. VIII. e)-g) The site is not located in a flood zone as designated by FEMA. -17- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established X community? (Aerial photo) b) Conflict with any applicable land use X plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (General Plan Land Use Element) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat X conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 74 ff.) IX. a)-c) The proposed project is designated in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance for Office use, consistent with the development proposal. The site is located on a Major Arterial, and will provide direct access to this arterial for project traffic. The site is well suited for the intended use. The project site is within the boundary of the mitigation fee for the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan, and will be required to comply with its fee provisions at the time building permits are issued. There will be no impacts to land use and planning. -18- 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 tY..) b) Result in the loss of availability of a X locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff.) X. a) & b) The proposed project site is within the MRZ-1 Zone, and is therefore not considered to have potential for mineral resources. M Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XI. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation X of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (General Plan MEA p. I I I ff.) b) Exposure of persons to or generation X of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (General Plan MEA p. I I I ff.) c) A substantial permanent increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan MEA p. I I I ff.) d) A substantial temporary or periodic X increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan lvi);A p. III ff.) e) For a project located within an airport X land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (General Plan land use map) 0 For a project within the vicinity of a X private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (General Plan land use map) XI. a)-f) The development of an office building on the site will have little impact on noise in the vicinity of the project site. Lands surrounding the site are vacant, and will not be impacted by the proposed project. The offices are not considered sensitive receptors. High noise levels already occur on Washington Street, which will result in higher noise levels on the project site than in other locations in the City. However, since no residential uses are proposed, the impacts will be less than significant. The offices will not generate groundborne vibration. The site is not located in the vicinity of an airport or airstrip. Impacts associated with noise at the site are expected to be less than significant. -20- 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 23,760 square feet of office space will benefit the existing population of the City. Jobs created by the offices will be limited, and are not expected to be significant. The site is currently vacant, and the proposed project will not impact an existing population. -21- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial X 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, p. X 46 ff.) XIII. a) Buildout of the site will have a less than significant impact on public services. The proposed project will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, under City contract. Buildout of the proposed project will generate property tax which will offset the costs of added police and fire services, as well as the costs of general government. The project will be required to pay the mandated school fees in place at the time of issuance of building permits to reduce the impacts to those services. -22- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XIV. RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of X existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Application materials) b) Does the project include recreational X facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application materials) XIV. a) & b) The development of office space will have no impact on the City's recreation system. -23- 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 tratlic involved in project) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a X design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Site Plan) e) Result in inadequate emergency X access? (Site Plan) 0 Result in inadequate parking capacity? X (Site Plan) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, X or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project description) XV. a)-g) The proposed project is consistent with the Community Commercial land use designation, and is therefore expected to generate traffic volumes consistent with those studied in the General Plan EIR. Traffic volumes and levels of service on Washington Street in this area are predicted to operate at acceptable levels. Therefore, the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the circulation system. -24- 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. -25- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment X requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, P. 58 ff.) b) Require or result in the construction of X new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) c) Require or result in the construction of X new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA. p. 58 ff.) d) Have sufficient water supplies X available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) e) Result in a determination by the X wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project=s projected demand in addition to the provider=s existing commitments? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) 0 Be served by a landfill with sufficient X permitted capacity to accommodate the project=s solid waste disposal needs? . (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) g) Comply with federal, state, and local X statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) -26- 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. -27- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- a) Does the project have the potential to X degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to X achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? b) Does the project have impacts that are X individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental X effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. a) The site has been previously developed, and potential impacts associated with cultural resources have been mitigated to a less than significant level. XVII. b) The proposed project will broaden the services offered to residents of the City, consistent with General Plan goals and policies pertaining to the provision of a full range of commercial and office opportunities. XVII. c) The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan vision for this area. Construction of the project will have no significant cumulative impacts. XVII. d) The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect human beings, due to air quality impacts. Since the Coachella Valley is in a non -attainment area for PM10, and the site will -28- generate PM 10, Section III), above, includes a number of mitigation measures to reduce the potential impacts on air quality. -29- XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Not applicable. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. Not applicable. -30- i w 0 rn 0 rib d. 0 CN o� o� ., oe o W C � oIleCD A rxz�,�Q oWv3> dw� od 0 G4 �, o E H N � Q � w O v� N W oz ® z� A U W d ras A v� �A a� U W O� � Ew,,, A c �`c�• � a�i a3i v a� '4� _ •CA cn A cn a �n v� v) G7 0 O O V O 0 .14 �. rA H W W ., ., ¢. U U ° ° ° x w � z z a A Cd a a Cd U U GQ C� A Goo GO � GQ z oo O E- � Mo cg W a o4-4 cd �Qa I a -0 3A o N o •0 F d A �WAW aY v w OV a � � o U F bA A a a �o ap A �s oa o W o a a � 00 yW a od cr PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A ± 23,760 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDING, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS CASE NO: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-814 APPLICANT: ENTIN FAMILY TRUST WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 91h day of November, 2004, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request to approve Site Development Permit 2004-814, development plans for a ± 23,760 square -foot commercial/office building on a 1.82 acre site, located on the east side of Washington Street, ± 960 feet north of Fred Waring Drive, more particularly described as: BEING A PORTION OF PARCELS 25 & 26 OF RS 015/032 WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee, did on the 6" day of October, 2004 at a regular meeting, recommended approval of the architectural plans by adoption of Minute Motion 2004-029 on a 3-0 vote; and, WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63) in that the Community Development Department has prepared Environmental Assessment 2004-525, and has determined that there are no significant impacts that cannot be mitigated that will result from the approval and development of this project; therefore a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared, per the Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify approval of said Site Development Permit pursuant to Section 9.210.010 of the Zoning Code: 1. Consistency with General Plan. The proposed 23,760 sq. ft. office building is in a Community Commercial designated area that encourages retail and office uses in close proximity to arterial thoroughfares and residential neighborhoods. This office use, as designed, complies with the overall development concepts of the City's General Plan Land Use guidelines. resopcsdp814 Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Site Development Permit 2004-814 Entin Family Trust November 9, 2004 2. Consistency with Zoning Code. The proposed office building is consistent with the development standards of the Community Commercial Zoning District with regard to setbacks, building height, and parking requirements based on the proposed Conditions of Approval. 3. Architectural Design. The proposed architectural design of the two-story building incorporates design elements consistent with past approvals for similar types of commercial structures and uses. 4. Site Design. As conditioned, the proposed project will not be contrary to the existing design policies or standards established by the city of La Quinta. 5. Landscape Design. The project landscaping designed for the proposed Site Development Permit will provide an exemplary basis from which to extend a visual continuity of the proposed project into future surrounding developments. 7. Infrastructure. There are adequate existing provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities to ensure that the proposed building will not be detrimental to public health and safety. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 2004-814 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the Conditions attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission, held on the 9`h day of November, 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: P:\Reports - PC\11-9-2004\SDP 814\resopcsdp814.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Site Development Permit 2004-814 Entin Family Trust November 9, 2004 ABSENT: ABSTAIN: TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: OSCAR W. ORCI, Interim Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California PAReports - PC\11-9-2004\SDP 814\resopcsdp814.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-814 ENTIN FAMILY TRUST NOVEMBER 9, 2004 GENERAL 1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Site Development Permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain the necessary clearances and/or permits from the following agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Building and Safety Department • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District (DSUSD) • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) • Sunline Transit Agency • South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those improvement plans for City approval. 3. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls) and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water), LQMC; Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 99-08-DWQ. PAReports - PC\11-9-2004\SDP 814\coapcsdp814.doc Planning Commission 2004- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2004-814 Entin Family Trust November 9, 2004 Page 2 A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land that disturbs one (1) acre or more of land, or that disturbs less than one (1) acre of land, but which is a part of a construction project that encompasses more than one (1) acre of land, the Permitee shall be required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SW PPP") . B. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any on or off -site grading being done in relation to this project. C. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for inspection at the project site at all times through and including acceptance of all improvements by the City. D. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best Management Practices ("BMPs") (8.70.020 (Definitions), LQMC): 1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control). 2) Temporary Sediment Control. 3) Wind Erosion Control. 4) Tracking Control. 5) Non -Storm Water Management. 6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control. 4. All erosion and sediment control BMPs proposed by the applicant shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any onsite or offsite grading, pursuant to this project. A. The approved SWPPP and BMP's shall remain in effect for the entire duration of project construction until all improvements are completed and accepted by the City. PAReports - PC\11-9-2004\SDP 814\coapcsdp814.doc Planning Commission 2004- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2004-814 Entin Family Trust November 9, 2004 Page 3 PROPERTY RIGHTS 5. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction and reconstruction of essential improvements. 6. The applicant shall offer for dedication public street right-of-ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer. 7. The public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this development include: A. PUBLIC STREETS 1) Washington Street (Major Arterial, 120' ROW) — The standard 60 feet from the centerline of Washington Street for a total 120-foot ultimate developed right of way except for an additional variable right of way dedication at the proposed entry measured seventy two feet (72') east of the centerline of Washington Street and length to be determined by a traffic study prepared for the applicant by a licensed traffic engineer per Engineering Bulletin # 03-08. As a minimum, the required right of way shall be for a length of 100 feet plus a variable dedication of an additional 50 feet to accommodate improvements conditioned under STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS. 8. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction plans. 9. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public right-of-ways as follows: P:\Reports - PC\11-9-2004\SDP 814\coapcsdp814.doc Planning Commission 2004- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2004-814 Entin Family Trust November 9, 2004 Page 4 A. Washington Street (Major Arterial, 120' ROW) - 20-foot from the R/W- P/L as conditioned under this Site Development Permit especially 8A above. 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. 10. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas. 11. Direct vehicular access to Washington Street is restricted, except for the access point identified on the approved Site Development Permit, or as otherwise conditioned in these conditions of approval. 12. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as appropriate, from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments will occur. IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect," refers to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 13. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans), LQMC. 14. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department. A separate set of plans for each line item specified below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in PAReports - PC\11-9-2004\SDP 814\coapcsdp814.doc Planning Commission 2004- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2004-814 Entin Family Trust November 91 2004 Page 5 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. B. C. D. E. F. On -Site Commercial Precise Grading Plan 1 " = 20' Horizontal PM 10 Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal SWPPP 1 " = 40' Horizontal Storm Drain Plans 1 " = 40' Horizontal Off -Site Street Plan Vertical Off -Site Signing & Striping Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' 1 " = 40' Horizontal The Off -Site street improvement plans shall have separate plan sheet(s) (drawn at 20 scale) that show the meandering sidewalk, mounding, and berming design in the combined parkway and landscape setback area. Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City. approval that are not listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing plan preparation. All Off -Site Plan & Profile Street Plans shall show all existing improvements for a distance of at least 200-feet beyond the project limits, or a distance sufficient to show any required design transitions. "Precise Grading" plans shall normally include all on -site surface improvements including but not necessarily limited to finish grades for curbs & gutters, building floor elevations, parking lot improvements and ADA requirements, retaining and perimeter walls, etc. ADA accessibility to public streets and handicap parking shall be shown on the Precise Grading Plans at a scale to be determined by the Public Works Department. PAReports - PC\11-9-2004\SDP 8 1 4\coapcsdp814.doc Planning Commission 2004- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2004-814 Entin Family Trust November 91 2004 Page 6 15. The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes for elements of construction. For a fee, established by City Resolution, the applicant may purchase such standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes from the City. 16. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the AutoCAD files of all approved improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall be saved in a standard AutoCAD format so they may be fully retrievable through a basic AutoCAD program. At the completion of construction, and prior to the final acceptance of the improvements by the City, the applicant shall update the AutoCAD files in order to reflect the as -built conditions. Where the improvement plans were not produced in a standard AutoCAD format, or a file format that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will accept raster -image files of the plans. IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS 17. Should the applicant fail to construct the improvements for the development, or fail to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits, and/or final building inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements GRADING 18. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements), LQMC. 19. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes, the applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer. 20. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of all of the following: PAReports - PC\11-9-2004\SDP 814\coapcsdp814.doc Planning Commission 2004- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2004-814 Entin Family Trust November 9, 2004 Page 7 A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer or architect, B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified engineer, C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, (Fugitive Dust Control), LQMC, and D. A Best Management Practices report prepared in accordance with Sections 8.70.010 and 13.24.170 (NPDES stormwater discharge permit and Storm Management and Discharge Controls), LQMC. All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by an engineering geologist. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit. 21. The applicant shall maintain graded, undeveloped land to prevent wind and water erosion of soils. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. 22. Grading within the perimeter setback and parkway areas shall have undulating terrain and shall conform with the requirements of LQMC Section 9.60.240(F) except as otherwise modified by this condition requirement. The maximum slope shall not exceed 3:1 anywhere in the landscape setback area, except for the backslope (i.e. the slope at the back of the landscape lot) which shall not exceed 2:1 if fully planted with ground cover. The maximum slope in the first six (6) feet adjacent to the curb shall not exceed 4:1 when the nearest edge of sidewalk is within six feet (6') of the curb, otherwise the maximum slope within the right of way shall not exceed 3:1. All unpaved parkway areas adjacent to the curb shall be depressed one and one-half inches (1.5") in the first eighteen inches (18") behind the curb. PAReports - PC\11-9-2004\SDP 814\coapcsdp814.doc Planning Commission 2004- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2004-814 Entin Family Trust November 9, 2004 Page 8 23. Prior to any site grading or regrading that will raise or lower any portion of the site by more than plus or minus three tenths of a foot from the elevations shown on the Preliminary Grading Plan submitted with this Site Development Permit, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance finding review. 24. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building lot, the applicant shall provide a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or surveyor. nRAINArF 25. The applicant's proposed underground stormwater field shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.120 (Drainage), LQMC, Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03. The City Engineer shall approve the design of the proposed underground stormwater field. More specifically, stormwater falling on site during the 100-year storm shall be retained within the development, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Additionally, the 100-year stormwater shall be retained within the interior street right of way. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets. The design storm shall be either the 3 hour, 6 hour or 24 hour event producing the greatest total run off. 26. The project shall be designed to accommodate purging and blowoff water (through retention facilities approved by the City Engineer) 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. 27. In design of retention facilities, the maximum percolation rate shall be two inches per hour. The percolation rate will be considered to be zero unless the applicant provides site specific data indicating otherwise. 28. 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. PAReports - PC\11-9-2004\SDP 814\coapcsdp814.doc Planning Commission 2004- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2004-814 Entin Family Trust November 9, 2004 Page 9 29. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. 30. Stormwater from building roof drains shall not be directed to flow over walkways or planter areas but be directed to parking lot or drainage facilities via a drainage system. UTILITIES 31. 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. 32. Existing overhead utility lines within, or adjacent to the proposed development, and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground. 33. All existing utility lines attached to joint use 92 KV transmission power poles are exempt from the requirement to be placed underground. 34. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing, improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of trench compaction for approval of the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 35. 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. 36. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses. A. OFF -SITE STREETS P:\Reports - PC\11-9-2004\SDP 814\coapcsdp814.doc Planning Commission 2004- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2004-814 Entin Family Trust November 9, 2004 Page 10 1) Washington Street (Major Arterial — 120' R/W): No widening of the east side of the street along all frontage adjacent to the Site Development Permit is required for its ultimate width as specified in the General Plan and the requirements of these conditions except at locations where additional street width is needed to accommodate: a) A deceleration/right turn only lane on Washington Street at the entry drive. The east curb face shall be located sixty (60') east of the centerline of Washington Street and length to be determined by a traffic study prepared for the applicant by a licensed traffic engineer per Engineering Bulletin # 03-08. The required right of way shall be for a length of 100 feet plus and additional length required by the above mentioned traffic study and a variable dedication of an additional 50 feet to accommodate improvements conditioned. Other required improvements in the right or way and/or adjacent landscape setback area include: b) All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to: curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs. c) 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk. The meandering sidewalk shall have an arrhythmic horizontal layout that utilizes concave and convex curves with respect to the curb line that either touches the back of curb or approaches within five feet of the curb at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. The sidewalk curvature radii should vary between 50 and 300 feet, and at each point of reverse curvature, the radius should change to assist in creating the arrhythmic layout. The sidewalk shall meander into the landscape setback lot and approach within 5 feet of the perimeter wall at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. P:\Reports - PC\11-9-2004\SDP 814\coapcsdp814.doc Planning Commission 2004- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2004-814 Entin Family Trust November 9, 2004 Page 11 37. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design procedure for 20-year life pavement, and the site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows: Parking Lots and accessways 3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b. Major Arterial 5.5" a.c./6.5" c.a.b. or the approved equivalents of alternate materials. 38. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test results confirming that design gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix designs are approved. 39. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: Primary Entry (Washington Street): Right turn movements in and out are allowed. Left turn movements in and out are prohibited. 40. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs and sidewalks. Mid -block street lighting is not required. 41. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, or as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. PARKING LOT AND ACCESSWAYS 42. The design of parking facilities shall conform to LOMC Chapter 9.150; especially the parking stall and aisle widths and the parking stall striping PAReports - PC\11-9-2004\SDP 814\coapcsdp814.doc Planning Commission 2004- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2004-814 Entin Family Trust November 9, 2004 Page 12 design. A. Wheel stops shall be provided where parking stall areas are double stacked. B. Parking stall striping shall be the City of La Quinta double -striped hairpin design (Section 9.150.080.B.7). C. All entry doorways shall be ADA accessible and shall be approved in the precise grading plan process. D. The location of carport support posts shall comply with Section 9.150.080(B5) of the Zoning Code. Light fixtures, meeting the requirements of Section 9.100.150 (Outdoor Lighting) may be mounted to the underside of the carport roofing for nighttime security needs. Weather resistant materials shall be used to construct carport structures (e.g., metal, glu-lams or para-lams, etc.). 43. All right -turn -out only driveways shall have a splitter median island located in the driveway throat that adequately channels the exiting right -turn vehicles turning onto the arterial street to eliminate illegal left turns. The splitter island shall be designed in conformance with design concepts approved by the City Engineer. CONSTRUCTION 44. 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. FIRE DEPARTMENT 45. Approved super fire hydrants, shall be spaced no more than every 330 feet and shall be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the buildings as measured along outside travel ways. 46. Blue dot reflectors shall be placed in the street 8 inches from centerline to the side that the fire hydrant is on, to identify fire hydrant locations. PAReports - PC\11-9-2004\SDP 814\coapcsdp814.doc Planning Commission 2004- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2004-814 Entin Family Trust November 9, 2004 Page 13 47. The water mains shall be capable of providing a potential fire flow of 2500 GPM and the actual fire flow from any two adjacent hydrants shall be 1500 GPM for a 3-hour duration at 20-PSI residual operating pressure. 48. City of La Quinta ordinance requires all commercial buildings 5,000 sq. ft. or larger to be fully sprinkled. NFPA 13 Standard. Sprinkler plans will need to be submitted to the Fire Department. 49. Fire Department connections (FDC) shall be not less than 25 feet nor more than 50 feet from a fire hydrant, and shall be located on the front street side of the building. FDC's and PIV's may not be located at the rear of buildings. Note also that FDC's must be at least 25 feet from the building and may not be blocked by landscaping, parking stalls or anything that may restrict immediate access. 50. Building plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for plan review to run concurrent with the City plan check. 51. Water plans for the fire protection system (fire hydrants, fdc, etc.) shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 52. 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. 53. Fire Department street access shall come to within 150 feet of all portions of the 1" floor of all buildings, by path of exterior travel. Minimum road width is 20 feet clear and unobstructed with a vertical clearance of 13.5 feet clear. Turning radii shall be no less than 38 feet. 54. 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. Roads shall be a minimum 20 feet wide with a height of 13"6" clear and unobstructed. PAReports - PC\11-9-2004\SDP 814\coapcsdp814.doc Planning Commission 2004- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2004-814 Entin Family Trust November 9, 2004 Page 14 55. Install a KNOX key box on each commercial building and/or suite (Contact the Fire Department for an application). 56. Install portable fire extinguishers as required by the California Fire Code. 57. Any submissions to the Fire Department are the responsibility of the applicant. QUALITY ASSURANCE 58. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 59. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such other appropriate professionals as are required to provide the expertise with which to prepare and sign accurate record drawings, and to provide adequate construction supervision. 60. The applicant shall arrange for, and bear the cost of, all measurements, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program, but which may be required by the City, as evidence that the construction materials and methods employed comply with the plans, specifications and other applicable regulations. 61. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City with reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing," "As - Built" or "As -Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy and completeness of the drawings. The applicant shall have all AutoCAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City, revised to reflect the as -built conditions. MAINTENANCE 62. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. The applicant shall maintain required public improvements until expressly released from this responsibility by the appropriate public agency. P:\Reports - PC\11-9-2004\SDP 814\coapcsdp814.doc Planning Commission 2004- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2004-814 Entin Family Trust November 9, 2004 Page 15 63. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance), LQMC. PUBLIC SERVICES 64. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as may required by SunLine Transit Agency and approved by the City Engineer. LANDSCAPING 65. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC. 66. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks, common lots, and park areas. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. The applicant shall submit plans for approval by the Community Development Department prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. Landscape and irrigation plans (three copies) shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect, or professional landscape designer, subject to the rules and regulations of Chapter 8.13 of the Municipal Code. When plan checking is complete, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner prior to submitting for signature by the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. 67. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn areas shall be minimized with no lawn, or spray irrigation, being placed within 18 inches of curbs along public streets. The Chilean Mesquite trees shall be replaced with a more durable tree type. PAReports - PC\11-9-2004\SDP 814\coapcsdp814.doc Planning Commission 2004- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2004-814 Entin Family Trust November 91 2004 Page 16 FEES AND DEPOSITS 68. 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. 69. 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). 70. The applicant/developer shall pay the required mitigation fees for the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard, as in effect at the time of issuance of any grading or other land disturbance permit. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 71. The building area as approved under Site Development Permit 2004-814 shall be limited to general commercial office uses in order to maintain adequate parking. 72. The location of trash enclosures and recycling plan shall be approved by Waste Management of the Desert, subject to the provisions of Section 9.100.200 of the Zoning Code. The recycling plan shall include a description of the anticipated materials and volumes to be recycled and a description of the facilities to be provided for collecting general refuse and recyclable materials. Written proof shall be provided to the Community Development Department during plan check consideration. 73. A qualified archaeological monitor shall be on site during all excavation, earth moving and grading activities on the site. The monitor shall be empowered to stop or redirect activities should resources be identified. The archaeologist shall also be required to submit to the Community Development Department, for review and approval, a written report on all activities on the site within 60 days of completion of grading activities. Applicant shall submit a copy of the executed monitoring contract prior to any final authorization for a grading permit. P:\Reports - PC\11-9-2004\SDP 814\coapcsdp814.doc Planning Commission 2004- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2004-814 Entin Family Trust November 9, 2004 Page 17 74. A master sign program (10 copies) shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval by the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 9.160.090(D) of the Zoning Code. The sign program shall be submitted during, or before, review of the final construction plans. 75. The final exterior lighting plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval, to include specific details of the fixtures for all landscape, parking and exterior security lighting, including photometric drawings pursuant to Section 9.150.080(K) of the Zoning Code. Pole -mounted parking lot lighting, no higher than 18 feet, shall be adequately shielded to prevent glare from being cast onto adjacent properties and placed so that tree growth does not interfere with the lighting needs of the site. 76. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the following items shall be submitted or shown on the appropriate plan: A. The final exterior lighting plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval that includes specific details of the fixtures for the landscape lighting and exterior security lighting, including photometric drawings pursuant to Section 9.150.080(K) of the Zoning Code. Pole -mounted parking lot lighting, no higher than 18 feet, shall be adequately shielded to prevent glare from being cast onto adjacent properties and placed so that tree growth does not interfere with the lighting needs of the site. B. Roof structure and/or parapets shall screen all roof mounted mechanical equipment so that they cannot be viewed from adjacent properties. Prior to occupancy of the proposed building complex, a visual inspection shall be made by the Community Development Department from all sides of the building from a distance of 800 feet to confirm that the parapets conceal any roof mounted equipment. PAReports - PC\11-9-2004\SDP 814\coapcsdp814.doc a, THUS YAP WAS.PREP ED Fit ASSESSMENT PMSES Ky. NO LIABILITY is ASSUMED TOR THE AC CY DT THE DATA Sail.ASSESSOR'S PARCEL MAN NOT COMPLY WIT LOGL LOT -SPLIT at BUILDING SITE ORDINANCES. 1 I I I I t 6616n1 p� 2tl 76 ■ i i- -(-' 9 26 1J3� o w M �6 1 aelen2 I�l ■ o aNc 13; ! Y ATTACHMENT 1 'S30NVNiallo. JN[ffiI1% Aa k5ih1adfi5 "it100-1 F ION AVW S1331:lVd 'NMOHATlib4119166 A0"f100t/ 31 ADIISVI I ON WINO S3SOdund 30NM13d3N NIDA a3Sf1 m i 05 VV PORPAR4 .44 o y 10.21AcmL 297.6>1 POR RFMAINDfR 31 4.76 AC Ml 0 PAR .+e d7A6 1 PMiNro7 a ,a y0 1U621 •_ — •_ — -+ •_ — - 8 — _' g6216 em6a6.1o6 �!!A Ql ,� -- —---7►ri617 c�es6 I i 1 ASSESSOR'S WiP BK609 PC.07 ' Riverside County, Cali I. 604 pg RS 15/32 RECOR PM 184/87-91 P A to ATTACHMENT 2 WASHINGTON STREET .......... 110- P I r j ilI l,�tj1! 1. i ... itlt [1f[;"i j 1� / �fPatiIt i1j � �� 1 , i WARE MALCOMB r.rrww pry w•�� ATTACHMENT 3 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee October 6, 2004 8. Committee Member Bobbitt asked that the ber, ing be pushed away from the drive -through. He then ask what material would be used on the trellis over the drive- rough. Ms. Kerr stated they propose the glu-Ism beams. 9. Committee Member Christopher st ed his concern regarding the location of the trash enclosive at the main entry to the Center. The strip in front of it ould be buffered with planting. Mr. Lollia stated they would ee that it is planted whether or not it is on their property or n the common area. 10. There being no further uestions of the applicant, it was moved and seconded by C mittee Members Christopher/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Moti 2004-028 recommending approval of Site Development Per it 2004-812, as recommended by staff and amended: a. Con ' ion added: All exterior window and door sills shall m ch the rest of the Center. b. ndition added: An alternative evergreen to the Crepe yrtle trees shall be used. c. Condition added: Any wood trellis material shall be pressure treated. Unanimously approved. B. Site Development Permit 2004-814; a request of Rich Entin Family Trust/Ware Malcomb Architects for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for a ±23,760 square foot two-story general office building on a located at 43-576 Washington Street, on the east side approximately 960 feet north of Fred Waring Drive. 1. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff introduced Cesar Romero, applicant, who gave a presentation on the project. 2. Committee Member Christopher asked if it was a tilt -up building. Mr. Romero stated yes. Committee Member Christopher asked if there was any added material used to give dimension to the building. Staff stated there is a dimensional aspect. G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\10-6-04 WD.doc 3 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee October 6, 2004 3. Committee Member Thorns stated it is a rectangular building with very little detail. It needs to be given more detail. Staff noted the Washington Street setback which does restrict the development of the building. Mr. Romero explained the details on the building. 4. Committee Member Christopher stated the south and rear do show more detail than what fronts onto Washington Street. Mr. Romero stated a different color scheme may help as well. In addition, there is an entry trellis which has columns to add detail. 5. Committee Member Bobbitt stated the roofline is what needs articulation. He would like to see some vertical relief on the roof plane. He asked if the windows have any reveal. Mr. Romero stated they will be set back with beveled angles. 6. Committee Member Christopher asked if the main floor archways were recessed. Mr. Romero stated they are recessed with the accents as well as lush landscape plants. 7. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he agreed with staff's recommendation to have the Chilean Mesquite trees replaced with a different variety. 8. Committee Member Christopher asked if there was an overlay on the east elevation as to what is sitting behind this building. Staff stated the middle school is proposed in that location. Mr. Romero stated that on the east elevation they have created seating areas. The windows are designed so they could be converted to French doors. Committee Member Christopher suggested they go with a three color mixed roof tile to break up the roof. Also, the precast architectural details on the staircase need to be added to the east elevation between the archway windows. 9. Committee Member Thorns stated the entry could be enhanced. Mr. Romero stated they did not want to accentuate the entry as it was unknown who the tenants may be which could create different entries. 10. Committee Member Christopher suggested the center of the roof be pitched up. G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\10-6-04 WD.doc 4 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee October 6, 2004 11. Committee member Thorns stated he could not support the project as submitted as the blocky articulation needs to be addressed. 12. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Christopher to adopt Minute Motion 2004-02029 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2004-814, as recommended by staff and amended. a. Condition added: Something is to be added to break up the roof line by pitching the center of the roof over the main entry area. b. Condition added: A different variety of tree shall be used instead of the Chilean mesquite. C. Condition added: Architecture precast detailing on the east elevation similar to that on the south side, shall be added d. Condition added: The roof tiles shall be a three color mix. Unanimously approved. C. ite Development Permit 2004-815; a request of John Vuksic for co ideration of architectural and landscaping plans for a single story, 10,0 square foot office building on a 0.83 acre site located on the west sid f Caleo Bay, approximately 270 feet north of Avenue 48. 1. Associate tanner Martin Magana presented the information contained in a staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Dev opment Department. Staff introduced John Vuksic and Jon Gra , who gave a presentation on the project. 2. Committee Member Christo er asked if the bright orange was proposed to pick up the color f the Walgreens store. Staff stated the desire was to have a co inuation of the architecture and colors in this area. 3. Committee Member Thorns stated that on north elevation the stone should wrap around the tower. 4. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he has no objectio to the project. He asked about the size of the parking lot tree isla s. Staff noted the Code requirement has not been amended to require the 8-feet by 8-feet. G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\10-6-04 WD.doc 5 PH #C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: NOVEMBER 9, 2004 CASE NO.: SIGN APPLICATION 2004-825, AMENDMENT #1 APPLICANT: SANTA ROSA PLAZA, LLC REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A MASTER SIGN PROGRAM AMENDMENT FOR SANTA ROSA PLAZA LOCATION: NORTH OF CALLE TAMPICO, EAST OF AVENIDA BERMUDAS, AND WEST OF DESERT CLUB DRIVE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: ON- AND OFF -PREMISE SIGNS ARE EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 15301 (CLASS 1 G) AND 15311 (CLASS 1 1 A) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION ZONING: VILLAGE COMMERCIAL SURROUNDING LAND USES: NORTH: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD SOUTH: VILLAGE COMMERCIAL EAST: VILLAGE COMMERCIAL/MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WEST: VILLAGE COMMERCIAL BACKGROUND: The Santa Rosa development consists of a 145 unit Embassy Suite Hotel, 144 Casita units, and three retail pads. The Casita units are completed, the Hotel is under construction and expected to be completed by the end of the year. The City has approved the entitlements for the development of the one retail pad. On December 2002, the City approved a Master Sign Program for Santa Rosa Plaza (Attachment 1), which established the development criteria for monument signs, directional signs for the hotel and casita units, and sign criteria for the commercial tenants. The applicant proposes to amend the program to make the following modifications (Attachment 2): 1. An additional monument sign on the northwest corner of Calle Tampico at Desert Club Drive; 2. Street banners; 3. Modifications to the logo of one of the main entry monument signs; 4. Additional traffic control and incidental signs; and 5. Two building -mounted signs. Monument Sign A monument sign is proposed on the northwest corner of Calle Tampico at Desert Club Drive. The 64 square foot flagstone covered sign will incorporate the "E" logo as well as the "Santa Rosa Plaza" script. The sign is similar in shape and design with the existing monument signs, but has incorporated flagstone to blend in with the entry features located at the intersection. As of this writing, the applicant has not provided information regarding the size, color and material for the "E" logo and the "Santa Rosa Plaza" script. Staff recommends the applicant provide the information for the Community Development Director's review and approval. Banners Thirteen (13) banners are proposed throughout the Santa Rosa project entrances. These banners will be erected seven times (maximum) throughout the year during special events and or holidays events for 60 consecutive days. They will be removed seven days after the event. Colors and graphics will vary. Three specific banner sizes are specified in the Program with the largest configuration at 24 square feet in size. Staff recommends the banner be eliminated at the main entry, along Calle Tampico. This entry has two monuments as well as an entry arch. The banner would clutter the entry. Also, the 60 day duration for the banners coupled with the proposed seven events is too long; banners could be left throughout the year. Staff recommends the banners be erected not more than 30 days before the event or holiday and be removed seven days after each event, or holiday. Logo The applicant proposes to remove the mountain background from the Santa Rosa logo at the east facing entry monument sign located on Calle Tampico. The logo modification is consistent with the existing and proposed signs. Traffic and Incidental Signs Sixteen (16) signs are proposed throughout the Santa Rosa project site to limit the speed and request quiet. The signs would be no bigger than 1 square foot in size and would be incorporated into the existing directional sign pilasters. The program Amendment does not illustrate a design or location of such signs on the pilasters.. Staff recommends the applicant incorporate an exhibit into the Program illustrating the signs' design and location to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Hotel Building Signs A 36 square foot cabinet sign with a white colored "E" logo and green background is proposed on the top of the hotel, facing Calle Tampico over the Hotel's main entrance. Staff finds the logo's size and location acceptable. A 16 square foot cabinet sign with a white colored "E" logo and green background is proposed along the east facing facade along with an "Embassy Suite" individual channel letter burgundy colored 28 square foot sign (18" high channel letters). The signs are located on the east side of the hotel wall near the entrance. Staff recommends the Planning Commission remove the "E" sign. The location on the building is small (± 31 lineal feet) and not generally conducive to two signs. Notice; This application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on October 29, 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 No written comments were received for this application. Any applicable agency comments, if received, will be provided to the Commission for their review for consideration of incorporation into the Conditions of Approval for this case. Statement of Mandatory Findings In accordance with Section 9.160.090 (D), Staff finds that the Master Sign Program Amendment is consistent with the existing signs in terms of size, color and location. The signs will not adversely affect surrounding land uses or obscure the existing or adjacent off -premise signs. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Planning Commission adopt Minute Motion 2004-_, approving Master Sign Program 2004-825, Amendment No. 1, as recommended. Attachments: 1. Approved Mater Sign Program 2. Proposed Master Sign Program amendments Prepared by: Oscar W. Orci, Interim Community Development Director ATTACHMENT 1 CITY OF LA QUINTA SANTA ROSA PLAZA SIGN PROGRAM PREPARED BY SANTA ROSA PLAZA, LLC PO BOX 1503 LA QUINTA, CA 92253 IN ASSOCIATION WITH PK ARCHITECTS 1620 N. 48TH STREET, #102 PHOENIX, AZ 85008 602-283-1620 THE CAMPBELL COLLABORATIVE 1550 EAST MISSOURI PHOENIX, AZ 85014 602-266-1644 FOR EMBASSY SUITES LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA November 5, 2002 SANTA ROSA PLAZA SIGN PROGRAM PURPOSE: The purpose of this Sign Program is to develop a set of graphic standards that will be used throughout the Santa Rosa Plaza development. This program will set the type of material, size, colors, and related items for each type of sign to be used throughout this mixed -used project. The Sign Program is intended to provide the design criteria for the following: Entry monument Directional signs to the Casitas units and the Hotel Hotel signs It is also the intent of this Program to set the standards for each individual commercial tenants. These standards will create the maximum sign exposure for the commercial tenants in a manner that will enhance the overall image of the project and tie into the design of the Casitas units and Hotel signage. As each commercial tenant proposes their signs, it will first be submitted to the Santa Rosa Plaza Developer for review and approval, then submitted to the City for a permit. The criteria in this program shall be strictly enforced. Any requested deviation from the approved Sign Program shall be submitted first to the developer and then the City for approval. APPROVAL PROCESS: All signs shall be submitted to the Santa Rosa Plaza Developer for review and approval. Once approved by the Developer, an application will be submitted to the City for review and appropriate action. Each application must contain a drawing that clearly identifies the sign size, color, construction material, location, message and typeface with specifications. Each sign must comply with all provisions of Chapter 9.160-Signs of the City of La Quinta Municipal Code, unless otherwise amended herein. The application is then processed by the City. ENTRY MONUMENT, DIRECTIONAL, CASITAS, AND HOTEL SIGNS The following is a list of Exhibits that provide sign criteria for the Hotel, Casitas units, and directional information. Exhibit SN 1 Location map Exhibit SN2 & SNS: Entry and Monument signs Exhibit SN3 & SN4 Hotel and directional signs Exhibit SN6 Building signs for the Casitas units and Hotel LIGHTING PURPOSE: The visual effect of the lighting of the signs needs to be soft, subtle and effective. The overall lighting of the signs needs to portray the quality of the development and community. The light source needs to out of site. In ground fixtures, fixed with louvers will be used to direct the light. Additionally, low growing shrubs will be used to hide some floodlights. The lights will be aimed as to not blind the pedestrian, or the operator of any vehicles. The light levels will be kept at a level that will not burn out the colors of the signs. MAIN ENTRY SIGN: The main entry sign will be lit from the sides and from below in the water. The lights will illuminate both the water and the sign to create a visual effect of the sign moving. The water will glisten with the light from under the falls. The effect will be one that is soft and welcoming; not harsh and bright. The light fixture will be aimed at a 30-degree angle utilizing a 28-watt (120 volt) twin bulb fluorescent. The type of bulb and its wattage may be reduced once the sign is in place to achieve the effect desired. DIRECTIONAL SIGNS: The lighting for these signs will be supplied from an in -ground light source. Louvers will be utilized to both control and direct the lighting onto the portion of the sign that needs to be lit. The light source will not be seen. Lights will also be directed so as not to blind any of the pedestrians, or vehicular operators. The light fixture will be aimed at a 45-degree angle utilizing a 70-watt metal halide bulb. The type of bulb and its wattage may be reduced once the signs are in place to achieve the effect desired. COMMERCIAL SIGNS TENANT/SHOP SIGNS: The following is a list of criteria for all commercial tenants PURPOSE: Tenant Identification QUANTITY: One sign per lease area frontage. Corner unit spaces may split their size between the two frontages (one on each face). Corner unit signs are to be separated by 20-feet. NET SIGN AREA: *75% of the leased area building frontage, not to exceed 50 square feet. (This percentage includes the tenant logo sign, which cannot exceed 25% of the total sign area). Signs can consist of two lines provided the total sign area does not exceed 50 square feet. LETTER STYLE *Helvetica light, or as approved by the Developer and City. COLORS: As approved by the Developer and City. Each sign shall have only one letter color. No two adjacent signs shall be the same color. MATERIAL: Plexiglass face, matte black painted aluminum can, internally illuminated individual letters. No exposed electrical raceways permitted. No exposed neon signs allowed. ADDRESS: Letter style: Six inch Helvetica light Colors: "Freeze", CZ-588OW Material: Die cut faced letters * National or regional tenants with more than five outlets, will be allowed to use their corporate sign. No two adjacent separate tenant signs shall be the same color without Developer and City approval. One color only per sign other than the logo, unless approved by the Developer and City. This provision will also require Planning Commission approval. z CO I z W W M O 0 Mn Q z T Q O m O U Z W U W W O g } W cK cn w o J >- Q z o J w O O W U O 0 � W a i 0 i�©OOOO a W O I-- V) 0 D J U m CL N Q U z J O F-- w W Z O V) 0 D D CD O U z OJ m J p a. m Z Q Q U U CD W z Q a Q m p W O z z p ~ O W _ J O W Q U m U W U W � af V) W Q M IV) Q m p w LLJ z 0 J > U 0 W W Z Z w � O .s-. t O 0 W O 0 ly- z W LL.1 W O (n Q J LL. W z Q CL U El W N V) O 0 O J W t- V) U) m W N z cn Ll z 0 ,a LL LL C T , z < � 0 3 z m� uLLJ r z u /0 b } ±/ ® u k -10 f / Z< /u z W ($ I LLJ : 7 ƒ \ $ C EZ k; k § R z 0 m w q � 0 » a L) a- ui \ < � k < 0- $ 0 w \2 @< w wm Pk ¢ WR S �-01LO � wo 0 < 3� b z/ $ ƒ� < < _/ � \ MU w \CL K k § 3 0 � w § � m LLJ � e w R < o \ z . / 05 w �? z < a v q E< m < - I�% P$co n a �E co * § LJ N \ a.5IL z � F ® -Jk 0 z (n o /< \ z \ \ 0 b IL < 2 I @ zq cL< $ _ � w 0 \/ z @ E LLJ m ~ m k 2z 0 2 z M \ E \CL o E �| Q W� ►<0 o ¢ W Q� Q air ocn — Z � � N oa0 zo= 0 pap 0 0 Z0 o zc U- a< 4 �� aEnQ WV m 0 0 N WU� sm0 to = cn N m?~ �- m No N <-�Qa to QNO Q LLJa a0 2 d 0 W .�-. � .ors W c� �J j Z O 0 Q 0 0 .J 0 0J------J 0 J J W V m 0 W Q W Z c] OZ W og z P- F h—Oy W V Q 0� QN W V z� aZ Nm z J z0 a= 0 J _ O as pc� W w ' as 0c� a) z f aLLJ oN ZW ao C� oz ao� zW wo C� 0 9UZ QFF OrZ _j z ¢� vZ J U a) Uw in 0 Z, Ld Z a v w�pap Ftn in al Z c¢i P 2z Wa < w CD wO IZm Wa -g O oz aQ ..Q (n :2inQ n:mV)a o> v� (n tt 0 W O z Z 0 U w J d. T O 2 Om N O g F � F� 4° ° o � 8�' g �iU�t�5�3t�5m�oOw o= ci o�m OOJ 000"� mmm mmm< t a aN a ===m � X e�om�c�mmro3c~i>iaZa x x XT x xjo F xa co go�op mmmz.rvm M: MM n 840 var yW N O� X-0 a 55E= J J Q z Z CO G T� E-- 0 U W V) W Q (z� CJ U f z W z z O m U L -V O CD O _1 V) w ZD U) w O C� O Q 0 F_ z Q PH #D PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: NOVEMBER 9, 2004 CASE NOS.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-470 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2003-091 ZONE CHANGE 2003-1 12 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2003-074 SPECIFIC PLAN 2004-071 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 APPLICANT: PACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES AND WESTPORT LA QUINTA, L.P. ENGINEER/ PLANNER: MAINIERO SMITH ASSOCIATES LOCATION: NORTHEAST AND SOUTHEAST CORNERS OF WASHINGTON STREET AND AVENUE 50 REQUEST: 1.) CONSIDERATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; 2.) CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM -HIGH RESIDENTIAL AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND AVENUE 50 AND OFFICE COMMERCIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNERS OF WASHINGTON STREET AND AVENUE 50; 3.) CONSIDERATION OF ZONE CHANGE FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM -HIGH RESIDENTIAL AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND AVENUE 50 AND OFFICE COMMERCIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND AVENUE 50; 4.) CONSIDERATION OF DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES FOR A SENIORS RETIREMENT COMMUNITY; P:\stan\westport senior housing\ pc staff rpt.doc 5.) CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A SENIORS RETIREMENT COMMUNITY (CONGREGATE CARE FACILITY); 6.) CONSIDERATION OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT PLANS TO ALLOW SENIORS RETIREMENT COMMUNITY. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-470 WAS PREPARED 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 WITH MITIGATION MEASURES, THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THEREFORE, RECOMMENDS THAT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BE CERTIFIED. ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: EXISTING - LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 17/1 AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND AVENUE 50 AND OFFICE COMMERCIAL AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND AVENUE 50. SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USES: NORTH: RL 17/1 / SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SOUTH: OC AND FP / DRAINAGE CHANNEL EAST: FP / DRAINAGE CHANNEL WEST: RL / SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BACKGROUND: The 21 acre project site consists of two parcels on the east side of Washington Street separated by Avenue 50 (Attachment 1). The north parcel (north site) is 14 ± acres in size with the southern parcel (south site) 7 ± acres in size. Portions of the north site have been grubbed, filled and graded over the years. The south site is in a depression and does not appear to have been graded. Power poles run along the perimeter of the site along Washington Street, the north property line of the north site, the north side of Avenue 50 and east property line of the south site. The north site had been approved for a single-family subdivision (Tentative Tract Map 26148) in the late 1980's, but expired after extensions were granted without P:\stan\westport senior housing\ pc staff rpt.doc being recorded. An application was received for the south parcel to change the zoning designation and allow a retail center including a Walgreens drug store in 2001. This application was withdrawn after the Planning Commission recommended denial. Both sites have remained vacant and no proposals have been approved at this time. To the north of the project site are detached single family residences. Immediately to the east is the La Quinta Evacuation Channel, a drainage course of the Coachella Valley Water District that accepts local storm water run-off. Beyond the channel to the east on the northern parcel is La Quinta Middle School and park site. Past the channel on the southern parcel is a golf course fairway and beyond that the La Quinta Fairways residential project. To the west of both sites are residential country clubs. Proposal The proposed project is a full service retirement community complex consisting of 216 independent and assisted living units (166 units on the north site and 50 units on the south site) plus 18 dementia care beds and 20 skilled nursing beds. All of the dementia care and skilled nursing beds are on the north parcel. The facility will be licensed by the State of California. The operation of the facility is described on Page 4 of the Specific Plan submitted for the project (Attachment 2). Generally, it is a full service facility that allows residents to enter as a tenant of the independent or assisted units and move to more intensive care units if and when the need arises. Meals are provided if wanted and other amenities such as an auditorium, pool, fitness center, craft area, library, computer learning center, medical clinic, putting green, and bocce ball court are provided in and around the independent living building. A maximum of 50 employees at any one time will be available to provide on -site services to tenants. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: In order to accommodate the project a General Plan Amendment is needed. The north site is proposed to be changed from Low Density Residential (up to 4 dwelling units per acre (du/ac)) to Medium -High Density Residential (up to 12 du/ac). The south site is proposed to be changed from Office Commercial to Medium Density residential (up to 8 du/ac). ZONE CHANGE: A zone change is needed in conjunction with the General Plan Amendment. The north site is proposed for Medium -High density residential and the south is proposed for Medium Density. The north site will be at 11.9 du/ac, while the PAstan\westport senior housing\ pc staff rpt.doc south site is proposed at 7.1 du/ac. With these designations, the proposed facility is permitted with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: In the Medium -High and Medium Density Residential Districts, facilities such as these are permitted with a Conditional Use Permit. Findings needed to approve a Conditional Use Permit include compliance with the General Plan, Zoning Code, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the determination that the use will be compatible and not materially detrimental with surrounding properties in the area. SPECIFIC PLAN: A Specific Plan has been submitted to address the project design criteria and development standards. Requested as part of the Specific Plan is to allow a 21 foot rear yard setback adjacent to the cottages (independent duplex residences, on the south site) adjacent to Washington Street rather than the 25 foot setback required. The second adjustment requested is to allow open patio covers for the cottages in this setback to within 15 feet of the street property line. These adjustments are acceptable to staff. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT: General The project is proposed in three phases. Phase 1 will front on Washington Street and will consist of the primary administrative facilities and majority of the independent living units on the north site. The assisted living and nursing beds on the east end of the north site will be the second phase. The last phase would be the independent units on the south site. Site layout The main structure on the west half of the north site will house the independent living areas and facility administrative offices. The skilled nursing beds will be in a separate one-story building at the southeast corner of the north site with the two- story assisted living units and dementia beds in a separate building to the north. These two buildings will be connected by a covered walkway. The north site will have the appearance of a condominium or hotel complex with a two story structures. The south site will include 34 one-story independent living cottages (duplexes) and a two-story garden apartment with 16 units in the middle of the site. P:\stan\westport senior housing\ pc staff rpt.doc On the north site the two-story independent living structure is approximately 74 to 84 feet from the north property line, 152 feet from Washington Street and 91 feet from Avenue 50. The independent living facility structure will be two stories in height (28 foot maximum). As required, within 150 feet of Washington Street, the structure does not exceed 22 feet in height. The easterly skilled nursing/assisted living structure will be 86 feet from the north property line, 63 feet from the east property line, and 63 feet from the Avenue 50 property line. On the south site, the cottages will have a minimum 41 foot setback from the public streets and a 25 foot setback from the east property line. A loading area for deliveries and trash compactor are provided on the east end of the independent living building 270 feet south of the north property line. Storm water runoff will be allowed to drain into the adjacent La Quinta Evacuation Channel. Nuisance water from things such as irrigation runoff will need to be retained on site. Several retention basins are provided throughout both sites to accommodate this runoff. Design The design of the buildings, as described by the Specific Plan, is based on early traditional Mediterranean, California Mission, Spanish, and Southwest design. The north site building uses a combination of flat and sloped the roofs with wells for a/c equipment. Some rooms will have balconies or trellis' or tile "eyebrows" over first floor windows. Additionally, tile accents on the building walls and a first floor wainscot treatment around the building will be provided. Roof tiles will be a red blend "S" style with plaster walls in creme to light gold color. Wood trim will be dark brown with black railings. Windows will consist of a combination of paned and un-paned glass. The buildings on the south site will include 34 one-story cottages around the perimeter and a 16 unit two story "L" shaped garden apartment building in the middle. These units will be architecturally similar to the buildings on the north site. The apartment will be ± 28 feet in height and contain 16-two bedroom units (eight on each floor). As required, within 150 feet of Washington Street, the structures will not exceed the maximum 22 foot height requirements. Access/Parking Based on the Zoning Code, 229 parking spaces are required. The proposed plan provides approximately 277 spaces which the applicant believes is needed to allow for special peak periods based on their previous projects. Please note that the Tract Map indicates approximately 313 spaces. PAstan\westport senior housing\ pc staff rpt.doc The north site proposes ± 118 parking carports spaces. Along the north boundary of the north site, 64 spaces will be provided with flat metal roofs. Flat roof carports are being used in this location so that they will not block views of the adjacent residences to the north. Along Avenue 50 of the north site, 54 carports spaces will be provided. These carports will have a tile hip roof and will be 1 X-2" high. The fascias will use wood trim with support beams using a combination of tube steel posts and wood trim. On the south site, the 34 one story "cottages" will have a garage for one car and a golf cart. The garden apartments will utilize 20 carport spaces. Each site will have a driveway on Washington Street and Avenue 50. Additionally, a tunnel is proposed under Avenue 50 for pedestrians and cart access. The Washington Street driveway on the north site will lead to the main building entry, porte cochere and guest parking. Vehicular access to both sites will be gated. On the north site the Washington Street gate is in the parking lot and permits guest parking and pedestrian drop-off and pick-ups outside the gates. When and if needed, additional guest parking will be available behind the gates. Landscaping/lighting Minimum 20 foot landscape setbacks are on Washington Street and Avenue 50. These setbacks are landscaped with low water use plants and trees. Lawn areas are limited to court yard activity areas on the north site and adjacent to the entry facing Washington Street. A minimum ten foot landscaped setback is shown along the north property line of the north site adjacent to the residential development. Both sites will be provided with a decorative plaster split/face block perimeter wall. For noise attenuation on the south site, facing Washington Street, the wall will be on a minimum one foot high berm and use noise attenuation construction. Along the north property line of the north site there is a combination of styles and colors of walls and wood fences installed for the houses to the north. Adjacent to the few vacant lots there are no walls or fences. The applicant would like to replace these walls and fences with a matching six foot high masonry wall or if the adjacent owners do not agree they would construct a second six foot wall on their side of the property. Parking lot lighting will consist of luminaries on 16 foot high poles or ceiling mount carport lights. Adjacent to the north property line of the north site no 16 foot pole light are proposed. Walkways and other areas will be lit with short bollard lights. The south site will use a combination of 16 foot pole and bollard lights. PAstan\westport senior housing\ pc staff rpt.doc Monument Signs Two plaster coated masonry monument signs are proposed with "La Paloma Senior Living Community" copy. A four foot high by ten foot long single sided sign is shown for use on the northeast and southeast intersection. At each of the four driveways a 3'-8" high by 8 feet long double -sided matching monument sign is proposed. The signs will use two colors matching the buildings. Interface with Residential uses to North As part of the project exhibits, the applicant has submitted cross sections and photo simulations showing the relationship between the project site and existing residences to the north along Saguaro Road. The sections show primarily the relationship between residences finish grade, proposed flat -roofed carports and the two-story independent living structure. The sections show the proposed new grade will be at, or lower than the adjacent finished grade of the existing residential lots. The sections and photo simulations are intended to show that due to lower grading of the project site and the setback of two-story independent living structure, more of the mountain view to the south will be seen when compared to the construction of a single-family home with a 20 foot minimum rear yard setback. An additional section is provided to show the relationship of the south site structures with the residences at the La Quinta Fairways to the east. Fiscal Impact Analysis Because this request includes rezoning the south site from Office Commercial to Medium Density Residential, the applicant has prepared a fiscal impact analysis. This analysis compares the fiscal benefit to the City of potential office and limited retail uses on the south site versus the proposed project at build -out. The analysis concludes there are general deficits with the project as well as the commercial office project; however, the office project would generate a surplus because of the tax increment revenue. The analysis is attached for your review (Attachment 3). Staff concurs with the applicant's findings. PUBLIC NOTICE: This map application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on October 30, 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, two letters have been received (Attachment 4). PAstan\westport senior housing\ pc staff rpt.doc ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE REVIEW: The Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Review (ALRC) reviewed this request at their meeting of August 4, 2004 and adopted Minute Motion 2004-023 recommending approval of this request, subject to several Conditions of Approval (Attachment 5). munINr;S• The Findings needed for a positive recommendation to the City Council, as required by CEQA and the Zoning Code, can be made as noted in the attached Resolutions with the recommended mitigation measures and Conditions of Approval. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Resolution 2004- , recommending to the City Council certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental Assessment 2003-470, subject to the attached Mitigation Monitoring provisions. 2. Adopt Resolution 2004- , recommending to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 2003-091. 3. Adopt Resolution 2004- recommending to the City Council approval of Zone Change 2003-1 12. 4. Adopt Resolution 2004- , recommending to the City Council approval of Conditional Use Permit 2003-074, subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval. 5. Adopt Resolution 2004- , recommending to the City Council approval of Specific Plan 2003-071, subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval. 6. Adopt Resolution 2004- , recommending to the City Council approval of Site Development Permit 2003-762, subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval. PAstan\westport senior housing\ pc staff rpt.doc Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Specific Plan document and plan exhibits 3. La Paloma Fiscal Impact Analysis 4. Letters received 5. Minutes of the ALRC meeting of August 4, 2004 Prepared by: �t- LA Z' Stan Sawa, Princip lanner p \stan\sp 2002-058 pc rpt.wpd 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 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2003-091, ZONE CHANGE 2003-112, SPECIFIC PLAN 2004-071, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2003-074 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-470 PACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES AND WESTPORT LA QUINTA, L.P. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 91h day of November, 2004 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Pacific Retirement Services and Westport La Quinta, L.P. for Environmental Assessment 2003-470 prepared for General Plan Amendment 2003- 091, Zone Change 2003-1 12, Conditional Use Permit 2003-074, Specific Plan 2004- 071 and Site Development Permit 2003-762 which allows a senior retirement community, located at the northeast and southeast corners of Washington Street and Avenue 50, more particularly described as: APN'S 646-070-013 AND 770-040-012 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department published the public hearing notice in the Desert Sun newspaper on October 30, 2004, for the Planning Commission meeting as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site; and WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify recommending to the City Council certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1. The proposed applications will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2003-470. 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. D.%r)t X I I n 1 - 0..I......1-- no A7n -- - A-- Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Environmental Assessment 2003-470 Pacific Retirement Services and Westport La Quinta, L.P. Adopted: November 9, 2004 3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends. 4. The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as the proposed project supports the long term goals of the General Plan by providing a variety of housing opportunities for City residents. No significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the Environmental Assessment. 5. The proposed project will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the proposed project. The construction of senior residential housing will not have considerable cumulative impacts. The project is consistent with the General Plan, and the potential impacts associated with General Plan build -out. 6. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly. The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect human beings, due to air quality and noise impacts. The Coachella Valley is in a non -attainment area for PM 10, and the site will generate PM 10; however, there are a number of mitigation measures to reduce the potential impacts on air quality. Noise impacts have been addressed through a series of mitigation measures, which will lower the potential for significant impacts to less than significant levels. 7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. 8. The Planning Commission has considered Environmental Assessment 2003-470 and said reflects their independent judgment. 9. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d). 10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California. n.% .. nri i i n i ., o i no n-7n ........, A__ Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Environmental Assessment 2003-470 Pacific Retirement Services and Westport La Quints, L.P. Adopted: November 9, 2004 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment. 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of Environmental Assessment 2003-470 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 2003-470 reflects the Commission's independent judgment. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 9'h day of November, 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 D.\D......-a.. D!`\ 1 1 n ')nnnl%ni,,.....,..-. i .. D..i...... %-- no a-7n -- -,.., A-- Environmental Checklist Form Project title: General Plan Amendment 03-091, Zone Change 03-112, Specific Plan 04-071, Conditional Use Permit 03-074, Site Development Permit 03-762, La Paloma Project 2. Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. rd :1 Contact person and phone number: Stan Sawa 760-777-7125 Project location: The Northeast and Southeast corners of Washington Street and Avenue 50. APN: 646-070-013 and 770-040-012 Project sponsor's name and address: Westport La Quinta LP 3801 PGA Boulevard, Suite 805 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Pacific Retirement Services 1200 Mira Mar Medford OR 97504 General plan designation: Current, northeast corner: Low Density Residential Proposed, northeast corner: Medium High Density Residential 7. Zoning: Current, northeast corner: Low Density Residential Proposed, northeast corner: Medium High Density Residential :Current, southeast corner: Office :Current, southeast corner: Office Proposed, southeast corner: Medium Density Commercial Residential Proposed, southeast corner: Medium Density Residential 8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The proposed project includes lands on the east side of Washington Street, both north and south of Avenue 50. The project proposes the development of 216 assisting living units, 20 skilled nursing beds and 18 dementia care beds on a total of 21 acres. A number of applications have been filed, as follows: General Plan Amendments (GPA) and Zone Changes (ZC: On the northeast corner of Washington Street, a GPA and ZC from the current designation of Low Density Residential to Medium High Density Residential on 14.01 acres of land. On the southeast corner of Washington Street and Avenue 50, a GPA and ZC from the current designation of Office to -1- Medium Density residential on 7.67 acres of land. Specific Plan: A Specific Plan which establishes the design standards and guidelines for a 254 unit retirement community, consisting of independent and assisted living units, skilled nursing units, and a dementia unit. Most of the buildings are proposed to be two story in height. Access to the northeast portion of the site is proposed on both Washington Street and Avenue 50. Access to the southeastern site is also proposed on both streets. The access points on Avenue 50 are offset, and would be separated by a median on Avenue 50, so that direct vehicular access could not be gained from one side to the other. Interior driveways circle each site, and are proposed to be 26 feet wide. Conditional Use Permit: A conditional use permit is required to allow "congregate care facilities" in the Medium High and Medium Density Residential category. Site Development Permit: A site development permit is required to allow the construction of the facility based on the standards and guidelines of the Specific Plan 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: Northeast Corner: North: Existing single family homes (Low Density Residential) South: Avenue 50, Vacant desert lands included in project (Office) West: Washington Street, Existing single family residential, golf course (Low Density Residential, Golf Course Open Space) East: La Quinta Evacuation Channel (Watercourse/Flood Control) Southeast Corner: North: Avenue 50, Vacant desert land included in project (Low Density Residential) South: Vacant desert land, La Quinta Evacuation Channel (Office, Watercourse/Flood Control) West: Washington Street, Existing single family residential, golf course (Low Density Residential, Golf Course Open Space) East: Avenue 50 and La Quinta Evacuation Channel (Watercourse/Flood Control) 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Coachella Valley Water District -2- ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Biological Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Mineral Resources Public Services Utilities / Service Systems Agriculture Resources Air Quality Cultural Resources Geology /Soils Hydrology / Water Land Use / Planning Quality Noise Population / Housing Recreation Transportation/Traffic Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. &Ixzl-��� �i October 31, 2004 Date -3- EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVH, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. -4- 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. -5- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a X scenic vista? (General Plan Exhibit 3.6) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, X including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Aerial photograph) c) Substantially degrade the existing X visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Application materials) d) Create a new source of substantial X light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application materials) I. a)-d) Washington Street is a Primary Image Corridor as defined by the General Plan, while Avenue 50 is designated a Secondary Image Corridor. These designations require that enhanced landscaped setbacks be provided. Additionally, the City requires that height restrictions be implemented adjacent to the roadways. The proposed project will include single story development closest to Washington Street, and two story development for he balance of the site. The northern site is located adjacent to single story residential development on its northern boundary. The buildings along the northern boundary will be set back at least 55 feet from the property line, and are generally not massed on this line. These buildings will be a maximum of two stories in height. Single family development, should it have occurred on the site, could also have been two stories in height. There are no significant natural features on the site. Impacts associated with visual resources are not expected to be significant. The construction of the proposed project will cause an increase in light generation, primarily from car headlights and landscape lighting. The City regulates lighting levels and does not allow lighting to spill over onto adjacent property. Further, residential lighting is generally limited, and of low intensity. Impacts will not be significant. -6- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide X Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. III-21 ff.) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act X contract? (Zoning Map) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location X or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (General Plan Land Use Map) H. a)-c) The proposed project is located in an urbanized area of the City. There are no agricultural activities within several miles of the project site. There are no Williamson Act contracts on the project site. There will be no impacts to agricultural resources as a result of the proposed project. -7- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact IIl. AIR QUALITY: Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct X implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, Project Study) b) Violate any air quality standard or X contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, Project Study) c) Result in a cumulatively considerable X net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, 2002 PM 10 Plan for the Coachella Valley, Project Study) d) Expose sensitive receptors to X substantial pollutant concentrations? (Project Description, Project Study) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a X substantial number of people? (Project Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection) III. a), b) & c) The emissions from vehicles have the greatest impact on air quality in the City. The proposed project is estimated to generate up to 617 average daily vehicle trips'. This trip generation level is very low due to the nature of the senior care facility. Should the project not be built, the General Plan Amendment could generate up to 260 multi -family residential units. These units could generate up to 1,724 daily trips if the project were a market project. In order to calculate the most conservative potential impacts, the calculations provided below are based on 1,724 daily trips. 1 "La Paloma Residential Development Traffic Impact Analysis," prepared by Urban Crossroads, July 2004. -8- Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout (pounds per day) Ave. Trip Total Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Length (miles) miles/day 1,724 x 15 = 25.860 PM10 PM10 PM10 Pollutant ROC CO NOX Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wear Grams at 50 mph 2,327.40 60,512.4012,412.80 - 258.60 258.60 Pounds at 50 mph 5.14 133.58 27.40 - 0.57 0.57 SCAQMD Threshold (lbs./day) 75 550 100 150 Assumes 1724 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 maximum potential units on the project site would not result in exceedances of the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Impacts associated with 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 grading. Under mass grading conditions, the site could generate up to 572.35 pounds of dust per day while grading is active, without mitigation. The contractor will be required to submit a PM10 Management Plan prior to initiation of any earth moving activity. In addition, the potential impacts associated with PM 10 can be mitigated by the measures below. 1. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize exhaust emissions. 2. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary power poles to avoid on -site power generation. -9- 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. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean-up of construction - related dirt on approach routes to the site. 9. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour. 10. Landscaping of the landscaped parkway on Washington Street and Avenue 50 shall be completed immediately following precise grading of the sites. Implementation of these mitigation measures will ensure that impacts associated with PM 10 are mitigated to a less than significant level. III. d) & e) The project is not expected to generate objectionable odors, nor will it expose residents to concentrations of pollutants. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either X directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (General Plan MEA p. 74 ff.) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any X riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (General Plan MEA p. 74 ff.) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on X federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, Or other means? (General Plan MEA p. 74 ff.) d) Interfere substantially with the X movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (General Plan MEA p. 74 ff.) e) Conflict with any local policies or X ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance (General Plan MEA p. 74 ff.) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, X Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state -11- habitat conservation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 74 ff.) IV. a)-0 Both sites have been significantly impacted by roadway development and surrounding development. The northern site is surrounded by roadways on two sides, existing single family development on the north, and the La Quinta Evacuation Channel on the east. The southern site is triangular in shape, and has streets on two sides and the La Quinta Evacuation Channel on the third. The sites are sparsely vegetated, and isolated, and do not provide significant habitat. The sites are not within a special study area for species of concern in the General Plan. No impacts associated with biological resources are expected to result from implementation of the proposed project. Only the northern site is located within the boundary of the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan's fee mitigation area. Development on that portion of the project will be required to pay the fee in place at the time of development. -12- 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? ("Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey," CRM Tech, September 2004) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in X the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ' 15064.5? ("Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey," CRM Tech, September 2004) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique X paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (General Plan Exhibit 6.8) d) Disturb any human remains, including X those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ("Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey," CRM Tech, September 2004) V. a)-b) & d) Cultural resources studies were completed for both proposed project sites2. The investigations included both records searches and field investigations. Southern Site A scatter of historic/modern refuse and prehistoric isolates were found on the southern project site. The study further determined that although impacted, the southern site may yield sub -surface resources, and that the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: 1. A qualified archaeological monitor shall be present on site during any earth moving activities. Should the monitor identify a resource, he shall be empowered to stop or redirect earth moving activities until such time as the resource can be properly identified and processed. The archaeological monitor shall be required to prepare a report at the end of earth moving activities and file such report with the Community Development Department. 2 "A Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation of 7.63 Acres at the Southeast Corner of Avenue 50 and Washington Street, City of La Quinta," prepared by McKenna et al., January 19, 2000. Also "Cultural Resources Report Desert Club Manor Project," prepared by CRM Tech, April 1998. -13- Northern Site A potentially significant location was recorded on the site, CA-RIV-6074, which requires further investigation, in order to assure that the potential impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level. The following mitigation measure shall be implemented to assure that potential impacts to CA-RIV-6074 are reduced to less than significant levels: Prior to any earth moving activities on the site, a Phase H investigation shall be conducted for CA-RIV-6074. The results of the investigation shall be provided in a report to be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits. The implementation of these mitigation measures shall ensure that all potential impacts associated with cultural resources are mitigated to a less than significant level. V. c) Neither site occurs within the historic boundary of ancient Lake Cahuilla. No impacts to paleontologic resources are expected. -14- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, X as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (MEA Exhibit 6.2) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (MEA X Exhibit 6.2) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, X including liquefaction? (MEA Exhibit 6.3) iv) Landslides? (MEA Exhibit 6.4) X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or X the loss of topsoil? (MEA Exhibit 6.5) d) Be located on expansive soil, as X defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property (MEA Exhibit 6.1) e) Have soils incapable of adequately X supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (General Plan Exhibit 8.1) VI. a)-e) The proposed project is located in a Zone III groundshaking zone. The City implements the most stringent provisions of the Uniform Building Code for seismically active zones. These provisions will apply to the proposed project. The site is not located in an area with a high potential for liquefaction, and is some distance from any hillsides, so is not subject to landslides. The mitigation measures provided under air quality will assure that potential soil erosion from wind are mitigated. The potential impacts associated with soil -15- erosion due to rain storms will be addressed in the preparation of final grading plans for the site. The soil type on and in the vicinity of the project are not considered expansive. The proposed project will be connected to CVWD sewer systems, and will therefore not require septic tanks. Overall impacts to geology and soils are expected to be less than significant. -16- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS --Would theproject: a) Create a significant hazard to the X public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Application materials) b) Create a significant hazard to the X public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (General Plan MEA, p. 95 ff.) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle X hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (General Plan MEA, p. 95 ff.) d) Be located on a site which is included X on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (General Plan MEA, p. 95 ff.) e) For a project located within an airport X land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) f) For a project within the vicinity of a X private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) g) Impair implementation of or X physically interfere with an adopted -17- emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff) h) Expose people or structures to a X significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (General Plan land use map) VII. a)-h) The proposed project will consist of a senior living facility, and is not expected to generate hazardous materials. In the nursing care section of the facility, requirements imposed by the County of Riverside for health care facilities will be implemented if required. Impacts associated with hazardous materials are expected to be insignficant. The site is not located in a wild land fire area. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER UALITY -- Would theproject: a) Violate any water quality standards or X waste discharge requirements? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) b) Substantially deplete groundwater X supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff. c) Substantially alter the existing X drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) d) Substantially alter the existing X drainage pattern of the site or area, -18- including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? (General Plan EIR p. 111-187 ff.) e) Create or contribute runoff water X which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (General Plan EIR p. 111-187 ff.) f) Place housing within a 100-year flood X hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (General Plan EIR p. III- 187 ff.) g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard X area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 6.6) VIII. a) & b) Domestic water is supplied to the project site by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The development of the site will result in the need for domestic water service. The CVWD has prepared a Water Management Plan which indicates that it has sufficient water sources to accommodate growth in its service area. The CVWD has implemented or is implementing water conservation, purchase and replenishment measures which will result in a surplus of water in the long term. The project proponent will be required to implement the City's water efficient landscaping and construction provisions, including requirements for water efficient fixtures, which will ensure that the least amount of water is utilized within the homes. The applicant will also be required to comply with the City's NPDES standards, requiring that potential pollutants not be allowed to enter surface waters. These City standards will assure that impacts to water quality and quantity will be less than significant. VIII. c) & d) Both sites are located adjacent to the La Quinta Evacuation Channel, a regional flood control facility managed by CVWD. The City will allow discharge of storm flows into the Channel, with approval from CVWD, without retention on the site. The project proponent is proposing to implement such a direct discharge on the project site. CVWD has standards and requirements for such discharge to assure that waters are not polluted when they enter the channel. These standards will be implemented for the proposed project, assuring that impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. -19- VIII. e)-g) The site is not located in a flood zone as designated by FEMA. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established X community? (Aerial photo) b) Conflict with any applicable land use X plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (General Plan Land Use Element) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat X conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 74 ff.) IX. a)-c) The proposed project will result in 254 senior living units on 21 acres. The current General Plan designations for the two properties could result in approximately 56 single family homes on the northern site, and approximately 107,000 square feet of office space on the southern site. The proposed Medium High and Medium Density Residential land use designation could result in up to 260 apartments or similar multi -family residential land use. The intensity of the two sites will change, increasing on the north side, and decreasing on the south side. The location of the proposed project is highly impacted, and is not ideal for Low Density Residential development, due to noise and traffic. The increase in density, and the configuration of the project, are likely to result a more appropriate housing product on the northern site. The location of offices on the southern site is appropriate for a major arterial roadway. However, the development of offices on the site has not occurred, and the proposed project may be a higher and better use of the property. The General Plan supports the development of a variety of housing types throughout the City. The proposed project does not occur elsewhere in the City, and will provided another living option for City residents. The development of apartments, should the project not go forward, would similarly provide another residential option for City residents. -20- The northern project site is within the boundary of the mitigation fee for the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan, and will be required to pay the appropriate fee at the time of development. -21- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a X known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff.) b) Result in the loss of availability of a X locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff.) X. a) & b) The proposed project site is within the MRZ-1 Zone, and is therefore not considered to have potential for mineral resources. -22- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XI. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation X of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? ("Preliminary Noise Study," Urban Crossroads, July 2004) b) Exposure of persons to or generation X of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? ("Preliminary Noise Study," Urban Crossroads, July 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, July 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, July 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) -23- XI. a)-f) A noise impact analysis was conducted for the proposed project3. The study found that the development of the project will result in both short term (construction) and long term (operational) noise impacts which could be significant without mitigation. The study found that the current noise environment at both project sites currently exceeds the City's standards for residential development, ranging from 68.6 dBA CNEL on Avenue 50 to 71.6 dBA CNEL on Washington Street. On the northern project site, no outdoor living areas are proposed in proximity to the street, and therefore no mitigation is required. On the southern site, however, outdoor living areas for the cottages are proposed, which would be subject to unacceptable noise levels if not mitigated. The study further found that interior noise levels will exceed acceptable City standards, for the cottages located on the southern site. Mitigation measures proposed below will reduce these impacts to within City standards. The proposed project will also generate noise during its construction. Although the potential impact is short term and temporary, it can be uncomfortable for adjacent residents. In the case of the proposed project, single family residential units are located immediately north of the northern site. Mitigation measures are included below to reduce the potential impacts to these residents to less than significant levels. In order to mitigate noise levels on the project site to less than significant levels, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented. 1. A six foot wall on a one foot berm shall be constructed on Washington Street, adjacent to the southern portion of the site. The wall shall be of solid construction, with no breaks or openings. 2. A six foot wall shall be constructed on Avenue 50, adjacent to the southern portion of the site. The wall shall be of solid construction, with no breaks or openings. 3. A windows closed condition shall be provided for all buildings on the southern site shown on Exhibit 1-A of the noise impact analysis as requiring this condition. A mechanical ventilation system shall be provided for all these units. 4. All construction equipment shall be properly maintained and mufflered, and the engines shall be equipped with shrouds. 5. Stockpiling and staging areas, as well as servicing and fueling of equipment for the northern site shall be located adjacent to Avenue 50. 6. Construction activities shall be limited to those hours prescribed in the La Quinta Municipal Code. 7. A final noise analysis shall be completed when final lot layout and pad elevations have been completed to assure that the wall requirements are sufficient to meet the City's standards. The site is not located adjacent to an airport or air strip. 3 "La Paloma Retirement Community Preliminary Noise Study," prepared by Urban Crossroads, July 2004. -24- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth X in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) b) Displace substantial numbers of X existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) c) Displace substantial numbers of X people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) XII. a)-c) The development of the project site will not induce substantial growth, either with the construction of the proposed project, or under a multi -family development scenario. The sites are currently vacant, and development will displace no one. -25- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XIH. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57) X Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57) X Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.) X Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks X Master Plan) Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, X p. 46 ff.) XIII. a)Buildout of the site will have a less than significant impact on public services. The proposed project will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, under City contract. Buildout of the proposed project will generate property tax which will offset the costs of added police and fire services, as well as the costs of general government. The project will have no impact on schools. The project will be required to pay the City's park fees for development of off site park facilities. -26- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XIV. RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of X existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Application materials) b) Does the project include recreational X facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application materials) XIV. a) & b) The proposed project will contribute park fees for off site park development. No impacts are expected. -27- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is X substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? ("Traffic Impact Analysis," Urban Crossroads, July 2004) b) Exceed, either individually or X cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? ("Traffic Impact Analysis," Urban Crossroads, July 2004) c) Result in a change in air traffic X patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (No air traffic involved in project) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a X design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Site Plan) e) Result in inadequate emergency X access? (Site Plan) 0 Result in inadequate parking capacity? X (Site Plan) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, X or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project description) -28- XV. a)-g) A traffic Impact Analysis was prepared for the proposed projece. The study analysed the impacts of a senior care facility as described above. The study did not analyse the potential impacts associated with development of up to 260 multi -family residential units. The traffic study found, as stated under the air quality section, that the proposed project will generate 617 average daily trips. The study further found that studied intersections will operate within City standards with and without the proposed project, and concluded that impacts of the proposed project on traffic levels would be less than significant. The study also analysed project design and turning movements into and out of the facility, and found that they could be hazardous, without mitigation. The study did not include analysis of the proposed project as a multi -family development, should the General Plan Amendment be approved and the proposed project not constructed. As described above, a multi -family project has the potential to generate 1,724 daily trips, or almost three times that estimated for the proposed project. Should the General Plan Amendment be approved, and the project not built as expected, the potential traffic impacts could be significant, without mitigation. The site is located within the service area of SunLine Transit, and can be served by it. Given the independent living portion of the project, residents are likely to utilize transit if available. In order to assure that project impacts are adequately mitigated, the study includes several mitigation measures, which are summarized below. 1. Driveways on Washington Street shall be restricted to right -in -right -out access only. 2. Driveways on Avenue 50 shall be restricted to right -in -right -out -left -in only. 3. A 100 foot long east -bound left turn pocket shall be constructed on Avenue 50 to allow safe access to the northerly site driveway. 4. A 100 foot long west -bound left turn pocket shall be constructed on Avenue 50 to allow safe access to the southerly site driveway. 5. Any project proposed for the project site which is not a senior care project shall be required to prepare a traffic impact analysis which is project specific and reflective of the project proposed. With implementation of these mitigation measures, overall impacts to traffic are expected to be reduced to a less than significant level. 4 "La Paloma Residential Development Traffic Impact Analysis," prepared by Urban Crossroads, July 2004) -29- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment X requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) b) Require or result in the construction of X new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) c) Require or result in the construction of X new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) d) Have sufficient water supplies X available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) e) Result in a determination by the X wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project=s projected demand in addition to the provider=s existing commitments? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) 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.) -30- XVI. a)-g) Utilities are available at the project site. The service providers for water, sewer, electricity and other utilities have facilities in the immediate vicinity of the site, and will collect connection and usage fees to balance for the cost of providing services. The construction of the proposed project is expected to have less than significant impacts on utility providers. -31- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- a) Does the project have the potential to X degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to X achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? b) Does the project have impacts that are X individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental X effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. a) The site has the potential to impact cultural resources. The mitigation measures included in this Initial Study, however, will reduce these potential impacts to less than significant levels. XVII. b) The proposed project will provide a variety of housing types to future City residents, and is consistent with the General Plan's goals and policies. -32- XVII. c) Development of the proposed project is likely to have lower cumulative impacts than the current General Plan designations overall. The increase in residential density is off -set by the decrease in commercial office lands. XVII. d) The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect human beings, due to air quality, noise and traffic impacts. Mitigation measures provided in this report reduce these potential impacts to less than significant levels. XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Not applicable. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. Not applicable. -33- Rio G Cd O � o o � O r- y.., Cd 16 z o io z a �O �r O �O Ey o� fzl U � A iE'+ 'O � �wUti a �aav� d I I cl N � � .-• �. to a � gCl�a a S N b C) � 0 a �r N .. °'tea cd W r.� N .-, cd c") O � C)uum H z--t o z xU w w �a 5 H A A a� �WU OV �, .o a" o •o � o U CY Cd on }. o G7 o o r o o uU. U U � U U y �Si v� cOC .��. o o o d cd w� Cd Cd U to Q Q t �. U U GQ U Q GG m ao z � CMCd a� N O �C N O O bA "0 v vi CC Cull M 41 O S1 (� O `�' " c i r Cd b o � � o Cd a ~ o' ° U ¢ 3 a N �}. oAN atr) V N co N 3 r ar 0 -s w v�� 0 > a ¢ �b F F d A d A av av U� U� d a d Cd o y U r. �+ 1, a �� 0 Q a 0 a bb `b CIS UQ CAA UQ v� � a � � v� 0 .c •° •0 p� � a9W 0 .a oo cul to U o Ux 0 d o ¢�v alp F d A �A A a� �WUW OU F� o 0 0 O O O v •� o o � aW a o� aa� O � b b b b o F°o COO ai o b � z 3 •� o o o 0 :b o.r 3� Cd Cd � � o 0 0 0 En O U U U O � � Q Q b 'U TJ b n 2 o � o � b � r. > o O ¢ O to O O O O ;fir, Of)«i U w F d A d� A a� Ox UU 0.� � cOd cOC O a d o EA U i cl cl UA 0 0 F U o ¢ o '5 Q o � 03c W 9 CIS C V C 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 FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM -HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND OFFICE COMMERCIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SENIOR RETIREMENT COMMUNITY CASE NO.: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2003-091 PACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES AND WESTPORT LA QUINTA, L.P. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 91h day of November, 2004, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Pacific Retirement Services and Westport La Quinta, L.P. for approval of a General Plan Land Use Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium -High Residential at the northeast corner of Washington Street and Avenue 50 and Office Commercial to Medium Density Residential at the southeast corner of Washington Street and Avenue 50 to allow construction of a senior retirement community at the northeast and southeast corner of Washington Street and Avenue 50 on 21 total acres, more particularly described as: APN'S 646-070-013 and 770-040-012 WHEREAS, said General Plan Amendment application has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-68), in that the La Quinta Community Development Department has completed Environmental Assessment 2003-470. The Community Development Director has determined that the project with Mitigation Measures will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and therefore, recommends a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact be certified; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department published the public hearing notice in the Desert Sun newspaper on October 30, 2004, for the Planning Commission meeting as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site; and WHEREAS, 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 to the City Council for approval of said General Plan Amendment: Planning Commission Resolution 2004- General Plan Amendment 2003-091 Pacific Retirement Services and Westport La Quinta, L.P. Adopted: November 9, 2004 1. The proposed General Plan Amendment is internally consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan in that the General Plan Amendment results in promoting housing for the senior population in a controlled and supervised environment. 2. Approval of the General Plan Amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare in that the resulting project will provide adequate setbacks, be well designed and landscaped, and will comply with all applicable City, County, State and Federal requirements. 3. The General Plan Amendment is compatible with adjacent properties in that the resulting senior housing project is compatible with and minimize the impacts to the surrounding single family residences. 4. The General Plan Amendment is suitable and appropriate for the property in that it will allow development of a complex for senior citizens with access from adjacent arterial streets and will be in close proximity to nearby medical and commercial and recreational facilities. 5. Approval of the General Plan Amendment is warranted because the property is in a location that will generate less tenant traffic due to residents' age and will in turn create a safer situation for traffic passing the site. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does recommend approval of General Plan Amendment 2003-091 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as shown in the attached exhibit: PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 9th day of November, 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Planning Commission Resolution 2004- General Plan Amendment 2003-091 Pacific Retirement Services and Westport La Quinta, L.P. Adopted: November 9, 2004 ABSTAIN: TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: OSCAR ORCI, Interim Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California 0l M I aft J� 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 ZONE CHANGE FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM -HIGH RESIDENTIAL AND OFFICE COMMERCIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A SENIOR RETIREMENT COMMUNITY CASE NO.: ZONE CHANGE 2003-112 PACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES AND WESTPORT LA QUINTA, L.P. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on did on the 9" day of November, 2004, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Pacific Retirement Services and Westport La Quinta, L.P for a Zone Change from Low Density Residential to Medium -High Residential at the northeast corner of Washington Street and Avenue 50 and Office Commercial to Medium Density Residential at the southeast corner of Washington Street and Avenue 50 to allow construction of a senior retirement community on 21 ± total acres, more particularly described as: APN'S 646-070-013 and 770-040-012 WHEREAS, said Zone Change request has complied with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (as amended), pursuant to the adoption of Resolution 83-68 by the City Council, in that the Community Development Department has conducted an initial study (EA 2003-470) and determined that with Mitigation Measures the Zone Change will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact is recommended; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department published the public hearing notice in the Desert Sun newspaper on October 30, 2004, for the Planning Commission meeting as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site; and WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the recommendation for approval of said Zone Change. 1. This Zone Change is internally consistent with those goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan in that the Zone Change will be consistent provided the associated General Plan is approved. PAReports - PC\11-9-2004\Westport La Paloma\zc 03 112 pc res.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_ Zone Change 2003-112 Pacific Retirement Services and Westport La Quinta, L.P. Adopted: November 9, 2004 2. This Zone Change will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare in that the resulting land uses require Planning Commission review and approval of development plans, which ensures that the resulting projects are well designed and adequate conditions of approval are imposed. 3. The new zone designation is compatible with the designations on adjacent properties because the project on the subject property is designed to reduce potential impacts to an acceptable level on adjacent properties that are developed or planned to be developed with residential uses. 4. The zone designation is suitable and appropriate for the properties involved because they will be designed to be compatible with adjacent properties and reduce potential impacts. 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 adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of Zone Change 2003-1 12 and as shown on the attached exhibit; PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta PI Commission, held on this 9`h day of November, 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: TOM KIRK, Chairman Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_ Zone Change 2003-112 Pacific Retirement Services and Westport La Quinta, L.P. Adopted: November 9, 2004 City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: OSCAR W. ORCI, Interim Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California � »� v «© z«� »?� � - � - 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 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SENIOR RETIREMENT COMMUNITY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST AND SOUTHEAST CORNERS OF WASHINGTON STREET AND AVENUE 50 CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2003-074 PACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES AND WESTPORT LA QUINTA, L.P. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the 9" day of November, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of Pacific Retirement Services and Westport La Quinta, L.P. for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a senior retirement community complex, on 21 ± acres on the northeast and southeast corners of Washington Street and Avenue 50, more particularly described as: APN'S 646-070-013 and 770-040-012 WHEREAS, the La Quinta Community Development Department has completed Environmental Assessment 2003-470 and based upon this Assessment, with Mitigation Measures, the project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment; therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact is recommended; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department did publish a public hearing notice in the Desert Sun newspaper on October 30, 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 desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify recommending to the City Council approval of said Conditional Use Permit: 1. The property is designated Medium Density and Medium High Density Residential which conditionally permits the senior retirement community. Additionally, the project provides adequate perimeter landscaping, setbacks and acceptable architectural design pursuant to Image Corridor General Plan policies. P:\Reports - PC\11-9-2004\Westport La Paloma\cup 2003-074 pc res.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditional Use Permit 2004-074 Pacific Retirement Services and Westport La Quinta, L.P. Adopted: November 9, 2004 2. This project has been designed to be consistent with the provisions of the Zoning Code and applicable Specific Plan. 3. The La Quinta Community Development Department has completed Environmental Assessment 2003-470 and based upon this Assessment; the project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment as mitigated. 4. The site design of the project is appropriate for the use in that it has been designed to minimize the impacts to the adjacent residential uses and from the major Arterials to the west and south. 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 recommend to the City Council approval of the above - described Conditional Use Permit request for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 9th day of November, 2004, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California P:\stan\westport senior housing\cup 2003-074 pc res.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditional Use Permit 2004-074 Pacific Retirement Services and Westport La Quinta, L.P. Adopted: November 9, 2004 ATTEST: OSCAR ORCI, Interim Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California P:\stan\westport senior housing\cup 2003-074 pc res.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2003-074 PACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES AND WESTPORT LA QUINTA LP ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 9, 2004 GENERAL 1. The use of the subject property for a congregate care facility shall be in conformance with the approved exhibits and conditions of approval contained in Conditional Use Permit 2003-074, Specific Plan 2004-071, Site Development Permit 2003-762 and Environmental Assessment 2003-470, unless otherwise amended by the following conditions. 2. The Conditional Use Permit shall be expire after two years of the effective date of approval, and shall become null and void. A time extension for this Conditional Use Permit may be requested as permitted in Municipal Code Section 9.200.080 D. 3. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of this project. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel in its sole discretion. The City shall promptly notify the developer of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. p:\stan\westport senior housing\cup 2003-074 pc coa.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- A RESOLUTION OF THE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF DESIGN CRITERIA AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A SENIOR RETIREMENT COMMUNITY ON 21 ± ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST AND SOUTHEAST CORNERS OF WASHINGTON STREET AND AVENUE 50 CASE NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 2004-071 PACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES AND WESTPORT LA QUINTA, L.P. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did, on the 9' day of November, 2004, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by Pacific Retirement Services and Westport La Quinta, L.P. for approval of a Specific Plan for design criteria and development standards for the development of a senior retirement community on 21 ± acres on the northeast and southeast corners of Washington Street and Avenue 50, more particularly described as: APN'S 646-070-013 and 770-040-012 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 in the Community Development Department; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department published the public hearing notice in the Desert Sun newspaper on October 30, 2004, for the Planning Commission meeting as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site; and WHEREAS, the La Quinta Community Development Department has completed Environmental Assessment 2003-470 and based upon this Assessment, with Mitigation Measures, the project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment; therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact is recommended; and WHEREAS, at the Public Hearing upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said PAReports - PC\11-9-2004\Westport La Paloma\sp 2004-071 pc res.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Specific Plan 2004-071 Pacific Retirement Services and Westport La Quinta, L.P. Adopted: November 9, 2004 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 As proposed the project will have a Medium -High and Medium Density Residential designation which conditionally permits the senior retirement community. Additionally, the project provides adequate perimeter landscaping and acceptable architectural General Plan and zoning requirements. Finding BB - 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 standards and County and State standards, such as CEQA. Additionally, the facility helps provide housing variety for City residents. Findings C and D - Land Use Compatibility and Property Suitability The project is in an area designated and zoned for the use which is proposed and therefore, suitable for senior retirement development. The project provides adequate buffering through landscaping, large setbacks and perimeter walls to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses. 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 2003- 470 has determined that no significant unmitigated effects on the environment have been identified; and 3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of Specific Plan 2003-071, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. P:\Reports - PC\11-9-2004\Westport La Paloma\sp 2004-071 pc res.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Specific Plan 2004-071 Pacific Retirement Services and Westport La Quinta, L.P. Adopted: November 9, 2004 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 9" day of November, 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\11-9-2004\Westport La Paloma\sp 2004-071 pc res.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2004-071 PACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES AND WESTPORT LA QUINTA LP ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 9, 2004 GENERAL 1. The use of the subject property for a congregate care facility shall be in conformance with the approved exhibits and conditions of approval contained in Conditional Use Permit 2003-074, Conditional Use Permit 2003-074, Site Development Permit 2003- 762 and Environmental Assessment 2003-470, unless otherwise amended by the following conditions. 2. The approved shall be used within two years of the effective date of approval, otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. "Used" means the issuance of a building permit for the project. A time extension for this Specific Plan may be requested as permitted in Municipal Code Section 9.200.080 D. 3. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of this project. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel in its sole discretion. The City shall promptly notify the developer of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 4. All conditions of approval from all applications for this project shall either be included in the specific plan text or attached, as appropriate. Five copies of the final approved specific plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Department within 30 days of final approval by the City Council. 5. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Specific Plan. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 6. This Specific Plan shall comply with the requirements and standards of Government Code § § 66410 through 66499.58 (the "Subdivision Map Act"), and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code ("LQMC"). PAReports - PC\ 1 1-9-2004\Westport La Paloma\Std COA - SP 2004-071revldoc 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2004-071 PACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES AND WESTPORT LA QUINTA LP ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 9, 2004 The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed on the City's Web Site at www.la-quinta.org. 7. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain any necessary clearances and/or permits from the following agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) • SunLine Transit Agency • SCAQMD Coachella Valley The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those improvements plans for City approval. A project -specific NPDES construction permit must be obtained by the applicant; and who then shall submit a copy of the Regional Water Quality Control Board's ("RWQCB") acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent ("NOI"), prior to the issuance of a grading or site construction permit by the City. 8. 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"). PAReports - PC\ 1 1-9-2004\Westport La Paloma\Std COA - SP 2004-071rev2.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2004-071 PACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES AND WESTPORT LA QUINTA LP ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 9, 2004 The applicant or his/her designer can obtain the California Stormwater Quality Association SWPPP template at www.cabmphandbooks.com for use in their SWPPP preparation. B The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any on or off -site grading being done in relation to this project. C The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for inspection at the project site at all times through and including acceptance of all improvements by the City. D The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best Management Practices ("BMPs") (8.70.020 (Definitions), LQMC): 1 Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control). 2 Temporary Sediment Control. 3 Wind Erosion Control. 4 Tracking Control. 5 Non -Storm Water Management. 6 Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control. E. All erosion and sediment control BMPs proposed by the applicant shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any onsite or offsite grading, pursuant to this project. F. The approved SWPPP and BMPs shall remain in effect for the entire duration of project construction until all improvements are completed and accepted by the City. 9. 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 10. 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 P:\Reports - PC\ 1 1-9-2004\Westport La Paloma\Std COA - SP 2004-071rev2.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2004-071 PACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES AND WESTPORT LA O,UINTA LP ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 9, 2004 or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction and reconstruction of essential improvements. 11. The applicant shall offer for dedication all public street right-of-ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable site development permit, and/or as required by the City Engineer. 12. The public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this development include: a PUBLIC STREETS Washington Street (Major Arterial, 120' ROW) - The standard 60 feet from the centerline of Washington Street for a total 120-foot ultimate developed right of way except an additional variable right of way dedication at the proposed south side entry for a deceleration/right turn only lane as mitigation for the limited vertical stopping sight distance for northbound traffic. The additional right of way dedication shall be measured 72' east of the Washington Street Improvement centerline and of a 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. At a minimum, the property line shall be at least 12 feet east of the existing curb face. Additional right of way is required on Washington Street north and south of Avenue 50 to provide for the realignment of Washington Street in order to construct dual left turn lanes for southbound Washington Street to eastbound Avenue 50 and a deceleration/right turn only lane for northbound Washington Street to eastbound Avenue 50. a North of Avenue 50, a minimum right of way dedication of a total of 60 feet from the Washington Street Improvement centerline along the Specific Plan boundary to accommodate improvements conditioned under STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS. b South of Avenue 50, an additional variable right of way dedication on Washington Street at the Avenue 50 intersection P:\Reports - PC\11-9-2004\Westport La Paloma\Std COA - SP 2004-071revldoc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2004-071 PACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES AND WESTPORT LA QUINTA LP ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 9, 2004 to accommodate the Washington Street realignment and a deceleration/right turn only lane for a total of 72 feet from the Washington Street Improvement centerline (a minimum of 24 feet east of the existing curb face) and a length to be determined by a traffic study prepared for the applicant by a licensed traffic engineer per Engineering Bulletin # 03-08 and approved by the City Engineer. As a minimum, the required right of way shall be for a length of 150 feet plus a variable dedication of an additional 90 feet to accommodate improvements conditioned under STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS. Additionally, the applicant shall make a good faith effort to acquire right of way from CVWD for sidewalk and landscape improvements from the southerly boundary of the project to the La Quinta Evacuation Channel Bridge. ii Avenue 50 (Primary Arterial, Option B 100' ROW) - The standard 50 feet from the centerline of Avenue 50 for a total 100-foot ultimate developed right of way except for an additional right of way dedication at the Secondary entries of 62 feet from the centerline and a length to be determined by a traffic study prepared for the applicant by a licensed traffic engineer per Engineering Bulletin # 03-08 and approved by the City Engineer. 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. The applicant shall enter into a licensed agreement with the City of La Quinta for construction and perpetual maintenance of the golf tunnel proposed under Avenue 50. 13. The applicant shall retain for private use all private street right-of-ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable site development permit, and/or as required by the City Engineer. 14. The private street right-of-ways to be retained for private use required for this development include: A. PRIVATE STREETS The applicant shall redesign private circulation streets measured at flow line to flow line to have 28 feet of travel width and on -street parking prohibited, and PAReports - PC\11-9-2004\Westport La Paloma\Std COA - SP 2004-071rev2.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2004-071 PACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES AND WESTPORT LA O,UINTA LP ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 9, 2004 provided there is adequate off-street parking for residents and visitors, and the applicant establishes provisions for ongoing enforcement of the parking restriction in the CC&R's. The CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department prior to recordation. 15. 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. 16. 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 rough grading plans submitted for plan 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. 17. When the City Engineer determines that access rights to the proposed street right-of- ways shown on the approved Specific Plan are necessary prior to approval of improvement dedicating such right-of-ways, the applicant shall grant the necessary right-of-ways within 60 days of a written request by the City. 18. The applicant shall offer for dedication 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. 19. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public right-of- ways as follows: A. Washington Street (Major Arterial) - 20-foot from the R/W-P/L. B. Avenue 50 (Primary Arterial) — A minimum 20-foot from the R/W-P/L. Additional landscape easement is required along the northerly and southerly sides of Avenue 50 between the roadway right of way and the property line. P:\Reports - PC\ 1 1-9-2004\Westport La Paloma\Std COA - SP 2004-071rev2.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2004-071 PACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES AND WESTPORT LA QUINTA LP ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 9, 2004 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. 20. At locations where the onsite finished grade adjacent to the landscaped setback lot has an elevation differential with respect to the arterial street top of curb exceeding 11.0 feet, the applicant shall comply with, and accommodate, the maximum slope gradients in the parkway/setback area and meandering sidewalk requirements by either: 1) increasing the landscape setback size as needed, or 2) installing retaining walls between the sidewalk and the back of the landscaped area as needed. 21. 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. 22. Direct vehicular access to Washington Street and Avenue 50 from lots with frontage along Washington Street and Avenue 50 is restricted, except for those access points identified on the Specific Plan, or as otherwise conditioned in these conditions of approval 23. 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. 24. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any portion of the subject property after the date of approval of the Specific Plan, 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. 25. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans), LQMC. P:\Reports - PC\ 1 1-9-2004\Westport La Paloma\Std COA - SP 2004-071rev2.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2004-071 PACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES AND WESTPORT LA QUINTA LP ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 9, 2004 26. 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 Note: Submittal of A thru D to be concurrent. E. On -Site Commercial Precise Grading Plan 1 " = 30' Horizontal F. Off -Site Street Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical G. Off -Site Signing & Striping Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal The Off -Site street improvement plans shall have separate plan sheet(s) (drawn at 20 scale) that show the meandering sidewalk, mounding, and berming design in the combined parkway and landscape setback area. H. On -Site Street/Signing & Striping Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical 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 Residential Precise Grading Plan 1 " = 30' Horizontal P:\Reports - PC\ 1 1-9-2004\Westport La Paloma\Std COA - SP 2004-071rev2.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2004-071 PACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES AND WESTPORT LA QUINTA LP ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 9, 2004 Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing plan preparation. All Off -Site Plan & Profile Street Plans and Signing & Striping Plans shall show all existing improvements for a distance of at least 200-feet beyond the project limits, or a distance sufficient to show any required design transitions. All On -Site Signing & Striping Plans shall show, at a minimum; Stop Signs, Limit Lines and Legends, No Parking Signs, Raised Pavement Markers (including Blue RPMs at fire hydrants) and Street Name Signs per Public Works Standard Plans and/or as approved by the Engineering Department. "Rough Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls with Top Of Wall & Top Of Footing elevations shown. All footings shall have a minimum of 1-foot of cover, or sufficient cover to clear any adjacent obstructions. The applicant shall prepare an accessibility assessment on a marked up print of the building floor plan identifying every building egress and notes the 2001 California Building Code accessibility requirements associated with each door. The assessment must comply with submittal requirements of the Building & Safety Department. A copy of the reviewed assessment shall be submitted to the Engineering Department in conjunction with the Site Development Plan when it is submitted for plan checking. In addition to the normal set of improvement plans, a "Site Development" plan is required to be submitted for approval by the Building Official and the City Engineer. "On -site residential and commercial 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. 27. 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. 28. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the AutoCAD files of all approved improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall be saved in a standard AutoCAD format so they may be fully retrievable through a basic AutoCAD program. PAReports - PC\11-9-2004\Westport La Paloma\Std COA - SP 2004-071revldoc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2004-071 PACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES AND WESTPORT LA QUINTA LP ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 9, 2004 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 29. Improvements to be made, or agreed to be made, shall include the removal of any existing structures or other obstructions which are not a part of the proposed improvements; and shall provide for the setting of the final survey monumentation. When improvements are phased through a "Phasing Plan," or an administrative approval (e.g., Site Development Permits), all off -site improvements including street, traffic signal and storm drain 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 on -site development, or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Improvements and obligations required of each subsequent phase shall either be completed, or secured through a SIA, prior to the completion of homes or the occupancy of permanent buildings within such latter phase, or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. In the event the applicant fails to construct the improvements for the development, or fails to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, pursuant to the approved phasing plan, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of all permits, and/or final inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. 30. Depending on the timing of the development of this Specific Plan, 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. PAReports - PC\11-9-2004\Westport La Paloma\Std COA - SP 2004-071revldoc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2004-071 PACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES AND WESTPORT LA QUINTA LP ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 9, 2004 C. Reimburse others for those improvements previously constructed that are considered to be an obligation of this Specific Plan. 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 issuance of any permit related thereto, reimburse the City for the costs of such improvements. 31. 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. Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved by those agencies and submitted to the City along with the applicant's detailed cost estimates. Security will not be required for telephone, natural gas, or Cable T.V. improvements. GRADING 32. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements), LQMC. 33. 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. 34. 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, PAReports - PC\1 1-9-2004\Westport La Paloma\Std COA - SP 2004-071 revldoc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2004-071 PACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES AND WESTPORT LA QUINTA LP ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 9, 2004 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 applicable improvement plans that a soils report has been prepared in accordance with the California Health & Safety Code § 17953. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit. 35. 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. 36. Grading within the perimeter setback and parkway areas shall have undulating terrain and shall conform with the requirements of LQMC Section 9.60.240(F) except as otherwise modified by this condition requirement. The maximum slope shall not exceed 3:1 anywhere in the landscape setback area, except for the backslope (i.e. the slope at the back of the landscape lot) which shall not exceed 2:1 if fully planted with ground cover. The maximum slope in the first six (6) feet adjacent to the curb shall not exceed 4:1 when the nearest edge of sidewalk is within six feet (6') of the curb, otherwise the maximum slope within the right of way shall not exceed 3:1. All unpaved parkway areas adjacent to the curb shall be depressed one and one-half inches (1.5") in the first eighteen inches (18") behind the curb. 37. 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. PAReports - PC\11-9-2004\Westport La Paloma\Std COA - SP 2004-071rev2.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2004-071 PACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES AND WESTPORT LA QUINTA LP ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 9, 2004 38. Building pad elevations of perimeter lots shall not differ by more that one foot higher from the building pads in adjacent developments. 39. Prior to any site grading or regrading that will raise or lower any portion of the site by more than plus or minus three tenths of a foot from the elevations shown on the approved Site Development Permit, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance finding review. 40. 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. DRAINAGE 41. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets. Nuisance water from landscaping and off and on -site streets shall be disposed of in a manner approved by the City Engineer. 42. The applicant shall discharge storm water directly, or indirectly, into the La Quinta Evacuation Channel, the applicant shall indemnify the City from the costs of any sampling and testing of the development's drainage discharge which may be required under the City's NPDES Permit or other City- or area -wide pollution prevention program, and for any other obligations and/or expenses which may arise from such discharge. The indemnification shall be executed and furnished to the City prior to the issuance of any grading, construction or building permit, and shall be binding on all heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and successors in interest in the land within this tentative parcel map excepting there from those portions required to be dedicated or deeded for public use. The form of the indemnification shall be acceptable to the City Attorney. If such discharge is approved for this development, the applicant shall make provisions in the final development CC&Rs for meeting these potential obligations. The applicant shall make improvements for discharge into the La Quinta Evacuation Channel prior to on -site construction. Additionally, the applicant shall submit verification to the City of CVWD acceptance of the proposed discharge of storm water directly, or indirectly, into the La Quinta Evacuation Channel with the initial submittal of storm drain improvement plans. P:\Reports - PC\11-9-2004\Westport La Paloma\Std COA - SP 2004-071rev2.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2004-071 PACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES AND WESTPORT LA QUINTA LP ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 9, 2004 43. The applicant shall landscape the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel along its easterly boundary as approved by CVWD. 44. If the development is not able to discharge storm or nuisance water from the project into the La Quinta Evacuation Channel, the applicant or design professional shall retain all storm water and nuisance water on site and the following conditions shall be applicable. The retention basins to comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.120 (Drainage), LQMC, Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03. More specifically, stormwater falling on site during the 100 year storm shall be retained within the development, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Additionally, the 100 year stormwater shall be retained within the interior street right of way. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets. The design storm shall be either the 3 hour, 6 hour or 24 hour event producing the greatest total run off. 45. In design of retention facilities, the maximum percolation rate shall be two inches per hour. The percolation rate will be considered to be zero unless the applicant provides site specific data indicating otherwise. 46. 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 from landscape area, residential unit, and off -site street nuisance water. Flow from adjacent well sites shall be designed for retention area percolation by a separate infiltration system approved by the City Engineer. The sand filter design shall be per La Quinta Standard 370 with the equivalent of 137.2 gph of water feed per sand filter to accept the abovementioned nuisance water requirements. Leach line requirements are 1.108 feet of leach line per gph of flow. 47. 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. 48. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. 49. 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 shag be planted with maintenance free ground cover. For retention basins on individual lots, retention depth shall not exceed two feet. PAReports - PC\ 1 1-9-2004\Westport La Paloma\Std COA - SP 2004-071rev2.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2004-071 PACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES AND WESTPORT LA QUINTA LP ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 9, 2004 50. 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. 51. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. 52. 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. 53. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. UTILITIES 54. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.110 (Utilities), LQMC. 55. 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. 56. 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. 57. 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. P:\Reports - PC\ 1 1-9-2004\Westport La Paloma\Std COA - SP 2004-071rev2.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2004-071 PACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES AND WESTPORT LA QUINTA LP ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 9, 2004 STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 58. 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. 59. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan (street type noted in parentheses.) A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1) Washington Street (Major Arterial; 120' R/W): Widen the east side of the street along all frontage adjacent to the Tentative Map boundary to its ultimate width on the east side as specified in the General Plan and the requirements of these conditions. The east curb face shall be located fifty-one feet (51') east of the centerline, except at locations where additional street width is needed to accommodate: a) Bus turnout as required by Sunline Transit at the existing bus stop located on the northeast corner of Washington Street and Avenue 50. The applicant shall construct a concrete bus stop pad and turnout area, La Quinta bus shelter with night lighting equipped with bench and trash receptacle. b) A deceleration/right turn only lane on Washington Street at the intersection of Avenue 50. The east curb face shall be located sixty-three feet (63') east of the centerline and length to be determined by a traffic study prepared for the applicant by a licensed traffic engineer per Engineering Bulletin # 03-08. As a minimum, the storage length shall be 150 feet long plus a variable dedication of an additional 90 feet transition. c) A dual left turn lane at Washington Street and Avenue 50 intersection. The east curb face shall be located fifty-one feet (511 east of the centerline along the entire Specific Plan boundary. Other required improvements in the Washington Street right or way and/or adjacent landscape setback area include: PAReports - PC\ 1 1-9-2004\Westport La Paloma\Std COA - SP 2004-071rev2.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2004-071 PACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES AND WESTPORT LA QUINTA LP ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 9, 2004 d) All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to: curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs. e) 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. f) An 18' - foot wide raised landscaped median on Washington Street north of Avenue 50 along the entire boundary of the Site Development Permit plus variable width as needed to accommodate the dual left turn lanes and installation of a median nose for the southbound Washington Street traffic turning east on to Avenue 50. g) Establish a benchmark in the Washington Street right of way and file a record of the benchmark with the County of Riverside. h) Modify the existing traffic signal system at- the Washington Street and Avenue 50 intersection for the abovementioned improvements. The applicant shall design and install modification of the existing traffic signal equipment and appurtenances as needed and approved by the City Engineer. 2) Avenue 50 (Primary Arterial - Option B; 100' R/W): Widen the north and south sides of the street along all frontage adjacent to the Specific Plan boundary to its ultimate width on the north and south sides as specified in the General Plan and the requirements of these conditions. The north and south curb faces shall be located thirty eight feet (38') north and south of the centerline, except at locations where additional street width is needed to accommodate: a) A deceleration/right turn only lane on Avenue 50 at both secondary entrances. The north and south curb faces shall be located forty feet (40') north and south of the centerline and PAReports - PC\ 1 1-9-2004\Westport La Paloma\Std COA - SP 2004-071rev2.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2004-071 PACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES AND WESTPORT LA O,UINTA LP ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 9, 2004 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 Washington Street right or way and/or adjacent landscape setback area include: b) All appurtenant components such as, but. not limited to: curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs. c) 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk. The meandering sidewalk shall have an arrhythmic horizontal layout that utilizes concave and convex curves with respect to the curb line that either touches the back of curb or approaches within five feet of the curb at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. The sidewalk curvature radii should vary between 50 and 300 feet, and at each point of reverse curvature, the radius should change to assist in creating the arrhythmic layout. The sidewalk shall meander into the landscape setback lot and approach within 5 feet of the perimeter wall at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. d) A 12 - foot wide raised landscaped median along the entire boundary of the Specific Plan plus variable width as needed to accommodate a left turn lane for the eastbound traffic at north side entry and a left turn lane for westbound traffic at the south side entry as approved by the City Engineer. B. PRIVATE STREETS 1) The applicant shall redesign private circulation streets measured at flow line to flow line to have 28 feet of travel width with on -street parking prohibited, and provided there is adequate off-street parking for residents and visitors, and the applicant establishes provisions for ongoing enforcement of the parking restriction in the CC&R's. The CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department prior to recordation. Minimum four -foot wide sidewalks shall be constructed on both sides of the private circulation streets to provide access from adjacent buildings within the development. P:\Reports - PC\11-9-2004\Westport La Paloma\Std COA - SP 2004-071revldoc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2004-071 PACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES AND WESTPORT LA QUINTA LP ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 9, 2004 2) The primary entry for the north side property and porte cochere shall be redesigned to accommodate for possible stacking for functional activities and/or special occasion traffic to prevent back up onto Washington Street as approved by the City Engineer. If adequate stacking in the porte cochere is not achievable, a deceleration lane shall be installed on Washington Street. 3) The location of driveways of corner lots shall not be located within the curb return and away from the intersection when possible. D. KNUCKLE 1) Construct the knuckle to conform to the lay -out shown in the Specific Plan, except for minor revisions as may be required by the City Engineer. E. DRIVEWAYS/INTERSECTIONS TO PUBLIC ROADS 1) All right -turn only street intersections shall have a splitter median island located in the side street that adequately channelizes the right -turn vehicles turning onto the arterial street to eliminate illegal left turns. The splitter island shall be designed in conformance with design concepts approved by the City Engineer. F. GOLF TUNNEL 1) The applicant shall sign the proposed golf tunnel under Avenue 50 for access for golf carts only and restriction of pedestrian traffic. 2) The golf tunnel shall have lighting provided for all hours of the day and night for safety reasons. 60. 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. P:\Reports - PC\ 1 1-9-2004\Westport La Paloma\Std COA - SP 2004-071rev2.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2004-071 PACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES AND WESTPORT LA O,UINTA LP ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 9, 2004 Two lanes of traffic shall be provided on the entry side of each gated entry, one lane shall be dedicated for residents, and one lane for visitors. The two travel lanes shall be a minimum of 20 feet of total paved roadway surface or as approved by the Fire Department. Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, standard knuckles, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes and other features shown on the approved construction plans, may require additional street widths as may be determined by the City Engineer. 61. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design procedure for 20-year life pavement, and the site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows: Residential/Parking Area Primary Arterial Major Arterial 3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b. 4.5" a.c./6.0" c.a.b. 5.5" a.c./6.5" c.a.b. or the approved equivalents of alternate materials. 62. 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. 63. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: a Washington Street: North Facility Entry (Washington Street): Right turn movements in and out are allowed. Left turn movements in and out are prohibited. South Facility Entry (Washington Street): Right turn movements in and out are allowed. Left turn movements in and out are prohibited. P:\Reports - PC\1 1-9-2004\Westport La Paloma\Std COA - SP 2004-071 revldoc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2004-071 PACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES AND WESTPORT LA O.UINTA LP ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 9, 2004 b Avenue 50: North Facility Entry (Avenue 50): Right turn in and out and left turn in movements are allowed. Left turn movements out are prohibited. South Facility Entry (Avenue 50): Right turn in and out and left turn in movements are allowed. Left turn movements out are prohibited. 64. 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. 65. 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. 66. Standard knuckles and corner cut -backs shall conform to Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805, respectively, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. CONSTRUCTION 67. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly -maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets in residential developments are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the development or when directed by the City, whichever comes first. LANDSCAPING 68. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC. 69. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, common lots and park areas. Additionally, the applicant shall landscape and maintain the additional landscape easement required along the northerly and southerly sides of Avenue 50 between the roadway right of way and the property line. P:\Reports - PC\ 1 1-9-2004\Westport La Paloma\Std COA - SP 2004-071rev2.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2004-071 PACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES AND WESTPORT LA QUINTA LP ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 9, 2004 70. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. 71. The applicant shall submit the landscape plans for approval by the Community Development Department (CDD), prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking has been completed by CDD, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner, prior to submittal for signature by the City Engineer. NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. 72. 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 73. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by SunLine Transit Agency and approved by the City Engineer. QUALITY ASSURANCE 74. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 75. 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. 76. 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. 77. 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. P:\Reports - PC\11-9-2004\Westport La Paloma\Std COA - SP 2004-071revldoc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2004-071 PACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES AND WESTPORT LA QUINTA LP ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 9, 2004 MAINTENANCE 78. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance), LQMC. 79. 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 80. 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. 81. 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). PAReports - PC\11-9-2004\Westport La Paloma\Std COA - SP 2004-071 revldoc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 LA PALOMA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 9, 2004 GENERAL 1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Site Development Permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. This Site Development Permit 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 • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) • SunLine Transit Agency • SCAQMD Coachella Valley The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those improvements plans for City approval. A project -specific NPDES construction permit must be obtained by the applicant; and who then shall submit a copy of the Regional Water Quality Control Board's ("RWQCB") acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent ("NOI"), prior to the issuance of a grading or site construction permit by the City. PAReports - PC\11-9-2004\Westport La Paloma\Std COA - SDP 2003-762rev2.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 LA PALOMA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 9, 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\11-9-2004\Westport La Paloma\Std COA - SDP 2003-762rev2.doc 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 LA PALOMA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 9, 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 all public street right-of-ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable site development permit, 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) Washington Street (Major Arterial, 120' ROW) - The standard 60 feet from the centerline of Washington Street for a total 120-foot ultimate developed right of way except an additional variable right of way dedication at the proposed south side entry for a deceleration/right turn only lane as mitigation for the limited vertical stopping sight distance for northbound traffic. The additional right of way dedication shall be measured 72' east of the Washington Street Improvement centerline and of a 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. At a minimum, the property line shall be at least 12 feet east of the existing curb face. PAReports - PC\11-9-2004\Westport La Paloma\Std COA - SDP 2003-762rev2.doc 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 LA PALOMA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 9, 2004 Additional right of way is required on Washington Street north and south of Avenue 50 to provide for the realignment of Washington Street in order to construct dual left turn lanes for southbound Washington Street to eastbound Avenue 50 and a deceleration/right turn only lane for northbound Washington Street to eastbound Avenue 50. a) North of Avenue 50, a minimum right of way dedication of a total of 60 feet from the Washington Street Improvement centerline along the Specific Plan boundary to accommodate improvements conditioned under STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS. b) South of Avenue 50, an additional variable right of way dedication on Washington Street at the Avenue 50 intersection to accommodate the Washington Street realignment and a deceleration/right turn only lane for a total of 72 feet from the Washington Street Improvement centerline (a minimum of 24 feet east of the existing curb face) and a length to be determined by a traffic study prepared for the applicant by a licensed traffic engineer per Engineering Bulletin # 03-08 and approved by the City Engineer. As a minimum, the required right of way shall be for a length of 150 feet plus a variable dedication of an additional 90 feet to accommodate improvements conditioned under STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS. Additionally, the applicant shall make a good faith effort to acquire right of way from CVWD for sidewalk and landscape improvements from the southerly boundary of the project to the La auinta Evacuation Channel Bridge. 2) Avenue 50 (Primary Arterial, Option B 100' ROW) - The standard 50 feet from the centerline of Avenue 50 for a total 100-foot ultimate developed right of way except for an additional right of way dedication at the Secondary entries of 62 feet from the centerline and a length to be determined by a traffic study prepared for the applicant by a licensed traffic engineer per Engineering Bulletin # 03-08 and approved by the City Engineer. 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. PAReports - PC\11-9-2004\Westport La Paloma\Std COA - SDP 2003-762rev2.doc 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 LA PALOMA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 9, 2004 The applicant shall enter into a licensed agreement with the City of La Quinta for construction and perpetual maintenance of the golf tunnel proposed under Avenue 50. 9. The applicant shall retain for private use all private street right-of-ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable site development permit, and/or as required by the City Engineer. 10. The private street right-of-ways to be retained for private use required for this development include: A. PRIVATE STREETS The applicant shall redesign private circulation streets measured at flow line to flow line to have 28 feet of travel width and on -street parking prohibited, and provided there is adequate off-street parking for residents and visitors, and the applicant establishes provisions for ongoing enforcement of the parking restriction in the CC&R's. The CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department prior to recordation. 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 rough grading plans submitted for plan 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 Site Development Permit are necessary prior to approval of improvement dedicating such right-of-ways, the applicant shall grant the necessary right-of-ways within 60 days of a written request by the City. PAReports - PC\11-9-2004\Westport La Paloma\Std COA - SDP 2003-762rev2.doc 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 LA PALOMA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 9, 2004 14. The applicant shall offer for dedication 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. Washington Street (Major Arterial) - 20-foot from the R/W-P/L. B. Avenue 50 (Primary Arterial) — A minimum 20-foot from the R/W-P/L. Additional landscape easement is required along the northerly and southerly sides of Avenue 50 between the roadway right of way and the property line. 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. 16. At locations where the onsite finished grade adjacent to the landscaped setback lot has an elevation differential with respect to the arterial street top of curb exceeding 11.0 feet, the applicant shall comply with, and accommodate, the maximum slope gradients in the parkway/setback area and meandering sidewalk requirements by either: 1) increasing the landscape setback size as needed, or 2) installing retaining walls between the sidewalk and the back of the landscaped area as needed. 17. 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. 18. Direct vehicular access to Washington Street and Avenue 50 from lots with frontage along Washington Street and Avenue 50 is restricted, except for those access points identified on the Site Development Permit, or as otherwise conditioned in these conditions of approval. 19. 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. P:\Reports - PC\11-9-2004\Westport La Paloma\Std COA - SDP 2003-762rev2.doc 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 LA PALOMA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 9, 2004 20. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any portion of the subject property after the date of approval of the Site Development Permit, unless such easement is approved by the City Engineer. IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect," refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 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 Note: Submittal of A thru D to be concurrent. E. On -Site Commercial Precise Grading Plan F. Off -Site Street Plan Vertical G. Off -Site Signing & Striping Plan 1 " = 30' Horizontal 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' 1 " = 40' Horizontal The Off -Site street improvement plans shall have separate plan sheet(s) (drawn at 20 scale) that show the meandering sidewalk, mounding, and berming design in the combined parkway and landscape setback area. PAReports - PC\11-9-2004\Westport La Paloma\Std COA - SDP 2003-762rev2.doc 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 LA PALOMA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 9, 2004 H. On -Site Street/Signing & Striping Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical 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 Residential Precise Grading Plan 1 " = 30' Horizontal Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing plan preparation. All Off -Site Plan & Profile Street Plans and Signing & Striping Plans shall show all existing improvements for a distance of at least 200-feet beyond the project limits, or a distance sufficient to show any required design transitions. All On -Site Signing & Striping Plans shall show, at a minimum; Stop Signs, Limit Lines and Legends, No Parking Signs, Raised Pavement Markers (including Blue RPMs at fire hydrants) and Street Name Signs per Public Works Standard Plans and/or as approved by the Engineering Department. "Rough Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls with Top Of Wall & Top Of Footing elevations shown. All footings shall have a minimum of 1-foot of cover, or sufficient cover to clear any adjacent obstructions. The applicant shall prepare an accessibility assessment on a marked up print of the building floor plan identifying every building egress and notes the 2001 California Building Code accessibility requirements associated with each door. The assessment must comply with submittal requirements of the Building & Safety Department. A copy of the reviewed assessment shall be submitted to the Engineering Department in conjunction with the Site Development Plan when it is submitted for plan checking. In addition to the normal set of improvement plans, a "Site Development" plan is required to be submitted for approval by the Building Official and the City Engineer. PAReports - PC\11-9-2004\Westport La Paloma\Std COA - SDP 2003-762rev2.doc 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 LA PALOMA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 9, 2004 "On -site residential and commercial 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 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. Improvements to be made, or agreed to be made, shall include the removal of any existing structures or other obstructions which are not a part of the proposed improvements; and shall provide for the setting of the final survey monumentation. When improvements are phased through a "Phasing Plan," or an administrative approval (e.g., Site Development Permits), all off -site improvements including street, traffic signal and storm drain 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 on -site 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. P:\Reports - PC\11-9-2004\Westport La Paloma\Std COA - SDP 2003-762rev2.doc 9 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 LA PALOMA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 9, 2004 In the event the applicant fails to construct the improvements for the development, or fails to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, pursuant to the approved phasing plan, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of all permits, and/or final inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. 26. Depending on the timing of the development of this Site Development Permit, 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 Site Development Permit. D. Secure the costs for future improvements that are to be made by others. E. To agree to any combination of these means, as the City may require. Off -Site Improvements should be completed on a first priority basis. In the event that any of the improvements required for this development are constructed by the City, the applicant shall, prior to issuance of any permit related thereto, reimburse the City for the costs of such improvements. 27. If the applicant elects to utilize the secured agreement alternative, the applicant shall submit detailed construction cost estimates for all proposed on -site and off -site improvements, including an estimate for the final survey monumentation, for checking and approval by the City Engineer. Such estimates shall conform to the unit cost schedule adopted by City resolution, or ordinance. For items not listed in the City's unit cost schedule, the proposed unit costs shall be approved by the City Engineer. Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved by those agencies and submitted to the City along with the applicant's detailed cost estimates. Security will not be required for telephone, natural gas, or Cable T.V. improvements. PAReports - PC\11-9-2004\Westport La Paloma\Std COA - SDP 2003-762rev2.doc 10 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 LA PALOMA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 9, 2004 GRADING 28. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements), LQMC. 29. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes, the applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer. 30. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of all of the following: A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer, B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified engineer, C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, (Fugitive Dust Control), LQMC, and D. A Best Management Practices report prepared in accordance with Sections 8.70.010 and 13.24.170 (NPDES stormwater discharge permit and Storm Management and Discharge Controls), LQMC. All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by an engineering geologist. A statement shall appear on the applicable improvement plans that a soils report has been prepared in accordance with the California Health & Safety Code § 17953. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit. 31. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land in order to prevent wind and/or water erosion of such land. All open graded, undeveloped land shall either be planted with interim landscaping, or stabilized with such other erosion control measures, as were approved in the Fugitive Dust Control Plan. 32. Grading within the perimeter setback and parkway areas shall have undulating terrain and shall conform with the requirements of LQMC Section 9.60.240(F) except as otherwise modified by this condition requirement. The maximum slope shall not exceed 3:1 anywhere in the landscape setback area, except for the backslope (i.e. the slope at the back of the landscape lot) which shall not exceed 2:1 if fully planted P:\Reports - PC\11-9-2004\Westport La Paloma\Std COA - SDP 2003-762rev2.doc 11 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 LA PALOMA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 9, 2004 with ground cover. The maximum slope in the first six (6) feet adjacent to the curb shall not exceed 4:1 when the nearest edge of sidewalk is within six feet (6') of the curb, otherwise the maximum slope within the right of way shall not exceed 3:1. All unpaved parkway areas adjacent to the curb shall be depressed one and one-half inches (1.5") in the first eighteen inches (18") behind the curb. 33. Building pad elevations on the rough grading plan submitted for City Engineer's approval shall conform with pad elevations shown on the tentative map, unless the pad elevations have other requirements imposed elsewhere in these Conditions of Approval. 34. Building pad elevations of perimeter lots shall not differ by more that one foot higher from the building pads in adjacent developments. 35. Prior to any site grading or regrading that will raise or lower any portion of the site by more than plus or minus three tenths of a foot from the elevations shown on the approved Site Development Permit, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance finding review. 36. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building lot, the applicant shall provide a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or surveyor. Each pad certification shall list the pad elevation as shown on the approved grading plan, the actual pad elevation and the difference between the two, if any. Such pad certification shall also list the relative compaction of the pad soil. The data shall be organized by lot number, and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. DRAINAGE 37. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets. Nuisance water from landscaping and off and on -site streets shall be disposed of in a manner approved by the City Engineer. 38. The applicant shall discharge storm water directly, or indirectly, into the La Quinta Evacuation Channel, the applicant shall indemnify the City from the costs of any sampling and testing of the development's drainage discharge which may be required under the City's NPDES Permit or other City- or area -wide pollution prevention program, and for any other obligations and/or expenses which may arise from such discharge. The indemnification shall be executed and furnished to the City prior to the issuance of any grading, construction or building permit, and shall be binding on all heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and successors in interest in the land within this tentative parcel map excepting there from those portions required to be dedicated or deeded for public use. The form of the indemnification shall be PAReports - PC\11-9-2004\Westport La Paloma\Std COA - SDP 2003-762rev2.doc 12 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 LA PALOMA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ADOPTED; NOVEMBER 9, 2004 acceptable to the City Attorney. If such discharge is approved for this development, the applicant shall make provisions in the final development CC&Rs for meeting these potential obligations. The applicant shall make improvements for discharge into the La Quinta Evacuation Channel prior to on -site construction. Additionally, the applicant shall submit verification to the City of CVWD acceptance of the proposed discharge of storm water directly, or indirectly, into the La Quinta Evacuation -Channel with the initial submittal of storm drain improvement plans. 39. The applicant shall landscape the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel along its easterly boundary as approved by CVWD. 40. If the development is not able to discharge storm or nuisance water from the project into the La Quinta Evacuation Channel, the applicant or design professional shall retain all storm water and nuisance water on site and the following conditions shall be applicable. The retention basins to comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.120 (Drainage), LQMC, Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03. More specifically, stormwater falling on site during the 100 year storm shall be retained within the development, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Additionally, the 100 year stormwater shall be retained within the interior street right of way. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets. The design storm shall be either the 3 hour, 6 hour or 24 hour event producing the greatest total run off. 41. In design of retention facilities, the maximum percolation rate shall be two inches per hour. The percolation rate will be considered to be zero unless the applicant provides site specific data indicating otherwise. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. In residential developments, nuisance water shall be disposed of in a trickling sand filter and leach field or equivalent system approved by the City Engineer. The sand filter and leach field shall be designed to contain nuisance water surges from landscape area, residential unit, and off -site street nuisance water. Flow from adjacent well sites shall be designed for retention area percolation by a separate infiltration system approved by the City Engineer. The sand filter design shall be per La Quinta Standard 370 with the equivalent of 137.2 gph of water feed per sand filter to accept the abovementioned nuisance water requirements. Leach line requirements are 1.108 feet of leach line per gph of flow. 42. 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. P:\Reports - PC\11-9-2004\Westport La Paloma\Std COA - SDP 2003-762rev2.doc 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 LA PALOMA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 9, 2004 43. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. 44. 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. 45. 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. 46. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. 47. 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. 48. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. UTILITIES 49. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.110 (Utilities), LQMC. 50. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within any right-of-way, and all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electric vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 51. Existing overhead utility lines within, or adjacent to the proposed development, and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground. All existing utility lines attached to joint use 92 KV transmission power poles are exempt from the requirement to be placed underground. P:\Reports - PC\11-9-2004\Westport La Paloma\Std COA - SDP 2003-762rev2.doc 14 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 LA PALOMA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 9, 2004 52. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for approval by the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 53. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Sections 13.24.060 (Street Improvements), 13.24.070 (Street Design - Generally) & 13.24.100 (Access For Individual Properties And Development), LQMC for public streets; and Section 13.24.080 (Street Design - Private Streets), where private streets are proposed. 54. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan (street type noted in parentheses.) A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1) Washington Street (Major Arterial; 120' R/W): Widen the east side of the street along all frontage adjacent to the Tentative Map boundary to its ultimate width on the east side as specified in the General Plan and the requirements of these conditions. The east curb face shall be located fifty-one feet (51') east of the centerline, except at locations where additional street width is needed to accommodate: a) Bus turnout as required by Sunline Transit at the existing bus stop located on the northeast corner of Washington Street and Avenue 50. The applicant shall construct a concrete bus stop pad and turnout area, La Quinta bus shelter with night lighting equipped with bench and trash receptacle. b) A deceleration/right turn only lane on Washington Street at the intersection of Avenue 50. The east curb face shall be located sixty-three feet (63') east of the centerline and length to be determined by a traffic study prepared for the applicant by a licensed traffic engineer per Engineering Bulletin # 03-08. As a minimum, the storage length shall be 150 feet long plus a variable dedication of an additional 90 feet transition. c) A dual left turn lane at Washington Street and Avenue 50 intersection. The east curb face shall be located fifty-one feet PAReports - PC\11-9-2004\Westport La Paloma\Std COA - SDP 2003-762rev2.doc 15 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 LA PALOMA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 9, 2004 (51') east of the centerline along the entire Specific Plan boundary. Other required improvements in the Washington Street right or way and/or adjacent landscape setback area include: d) All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to: curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs. e) 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. f) An 18' - foot wide raised landscaped median on Washington Street north of Avenue 50 along the entire boundary of the Site Development Permit plus variable width as needed to accommodate the dual left turn lanes and installation of a median nose for the southbound Washington Street traffic turning east on to Avenue 50. g) Establish a benchmark in the Washington Street right of way and file a record of the benchmark with the County of Riverside. h) Modify the existing traffic signal system at the Washington Street and Avenue 50 intersection for the abovementioned improvements. The applicant shall design and install modification of the existing traffic signal equipment and appurtenances as needed and approved by the City Engineer. 2) Avenue 50 (Primary Arterial - Option B; 100' R/W): Widen the north and south sides of the street along all frontage adjacent to the Site Development Permit boundary to its ultimate width on the north and south sides as specified in the General Plan and the requirements of these conditions. The north and south curb faces shall be located thirty eight feet PAReports - PC\11-9-2004\Westport La Paloma\Std COA - SDP 2003-762rev2.doc 16 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 LA PALOMA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 9, 2004 (38') north and south of the centerline, except at locations where additional street width is needed to accommodate: a) A deceleration/right turn only lane on Avenue 50 at both secondary entrances. The north and south curb faces shall be located forty feet (40') north and south 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 Washington Street right or way and/or adjacent landscape setback area include: b) All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to: curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs. c) 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk. The meandering sidewalk shall have an arrhythmic horizontal layout that utilizes concave and convex curves with respect to the curb line that either touches the back of curb or approaches within five feet of the curb at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. The sidewalk curvature radii should vary between 50 and 300 feet, and at each point of reverse curvature, the radius should change to assist in creating the arrhythmic layout. The sidewalk shall meander into the landscape setback lot and approach within 5 feet of the perimeter wall at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. d) A 12 - foot wide raised landscaped median along the entire boundary of the Site Development Permit plus variable width as needed to accommodate a left turn lane for the eastbound traffic at north side entry and a left turn lane for westbound traffic at the south side entry as approved by the City Engineer. B. PRIVATE STREETS 1) The applicant shall redesign private circulation streets measured at flow line to flow line to have 28 feet of travel width with on -street parking prohibited, and provided there is adequate off-street parking for residents and visitors, and the applicant establishes provisions for ongoing enforcement of the parking restriction in the CC&R's. The CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department P:\Reports - PC\11-9-2004\Westport La Paloma\Std COA - SDP 2003-762rev2.doc 17 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 LA PALOMA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 9, 2004 prior to recordation. Minimum four -foot wide sidewalks shall be constructed on both sides of the private circulation streets to provide access from adjacent buildings within the development. 2) The primary entry for the north side property and porte cochere shall be redesigned to accommodate for possible stacking for functional activities and/or special occasion traffic to prevent back up onto Washington Street as approved by the City Engineer. If adequate stacking in the porte cochere is not achievable, a deceleration lane shall be installed on Washington Street. 3) The location of driveways of corner lots shall not be located within the curb return and away from the intersection when possible. D. KNUCKLE 1) Construct the knuckle to conform to the lay -out shown in the Site Development Permit, except for minor revisions as may be required by the City Engineer. E. DRIVEWAYS/INTERSECTIONS TO PUBLIC STREETS 1) All right -turn only street intersections shall have a splitter median island located in the side street that adequately channelizes the right -turn vehicles turning onto the arterial street to eliminate illegal left turns. The splitter island shall be designed in conformance with design concepts approved by the City Engineer. F. GOLF TUNNEL 1) The applicant shall sign the proposed golf tunnel under Avenue 50 for access for golf carts only and restriction of pedestrian traffic. 2) The golf tunnel shall have lighting provided for all hours of the day and night for safety reasons. 55. All gated entries shall provide for a three -car minimum stacking capacity for inbound traffic to be a minimum length of 62 feet from call box to the street; and shall provide for a full turn -around outlet for non -accepted vehicles. PAReports - PC\11-9-2004\Westport La Paloma\Std COA - SDP 2003-762rev2.doc 18 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 LA PALOMA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 9, 2004 Where a gated entry is proposed, the applicant shall submit a detailed exhibit at a scale of 1 " = 10', demonstrating that those passenger vehicles that do not gain entry into the development can safely make a full turn -around (minimum radius to be 24 feet) out onto the main street from the gated entry. Two lanes of traffic shall be provided on the entry side of each gated entry, one lane shall be dedicated for residents, and one lane for visitors. The two travel lanes shall be a minimum of 20 feet of total paved roadway surface or as approved by the Fire Department. Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, standard knuckles, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes and other features shown on the approved construction plans, may require additional street widths as may be determined by the City Engineer. 56. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design procedure for 20-year life pavement, and the site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows: Residential/Parking Area Primary Arterial Major Arterial 3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b. 4.5" a.c./6.0" c.a.b. 5.5" a.c./6.5" c.a.b. or the approved equivalents of alternate materials. 57. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test results confirming that design gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix designs are approved. 58. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Washington Street: 1) North Facility Entry (Washington Street): Right turn movements in and out are allowed. Left turn movements in and out are prohibited. 2) South Facility Entry (Washington Street): Right turn movements in PAReports - PC\11-9-2004\Westport La Paloma\Std COA - SDP 2003-762rev2.doc 19 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 LA PALOMA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 9, 2004 and out are allowed. Left turn movements in and out are prohibited. B. Avenue 50: 1) North Facility Entry (Avenue 50): Right turn in and out and left turn in movements are allowed. Left turn movements out are prohibited. 2) South Facility Entry (Avenue 50): Right turn in and out and left turn in movements are allowed. Left turn movements out are prohibited. 59. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs and sidewalks. Mid -block street lighting is not required. 60. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, or as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. 61. Standard knuckles and corner cut -backs shall conform to Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805, respectively, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. CONSTRUCTION 62. 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 63. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC. 64. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, common lots and park areas. Additionally, the applicant shall landscape and maintain the additional landscape easement required along the northerly and southerly sides of Avenue 50 between the roadway right of way and the property line. PAReports - PC\11-9-2004\Westport La Paloma\Std COA - SDP 2003-762rev2.doc 20 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 LA PALOMA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 9, 2004 65. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. 66. The applicant shall submit the landscape plans for approval by the Community Development Department (CDD), prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking has been completed by CDD, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner, prior to submittal for signature by the City Engineer. NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. 67. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn areas shall be minimized with no lawn, or spray irrigation, being placed within 18 inches of curbs along public streets. PUBLIC SERVICES 68. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by SunLine Transit Agency and approved by the City Engineer. QUALITY ASSURANCE 69. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 70. 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. 71. 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. 72. 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. PAReports - PC\11-9-2004\Westport La Paloma\Std COA - SDP 2003-762rev2.doc 21 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 LA PALOMA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 9, 2004 MAINTENANCE 73. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance), LQMC. 74. 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 75. 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. 76. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). FIRE MARSHALL 77. Approved super fire hydrants, shall be spaced every 330 feet and shall be located not less than 25 feet nor more than 165 feet from any portion of the buildings 1 st. floor as measured along outside travel ways. 78. Blue dot reflectors shall be placed in the street 8 inches from centerline to the side that the fire hydrant is on, to identify fire hydrant locations. 79. The water mains shall be capable of providing a potential fire flow of 4000 gpm and the actual fire flow from any two adjacent hydrants shall be 2000 gpm for a 4-hour duration at 20-psi residual operating pressure. 80. City of La Quinta ordinance requires all commercial buildings 5,000 sq. ft. or larger to be fully sprinkled. NFPA 13 Standard. Sprinkler plans will need to be submitted to the Fire Department. 81. Fire Department connections (FDC) shall be not less than 25 feet nor more than 50 feet from a fire hydrant and shall be located on the front street side of the buildings. FDC's and PIV's may not be located at the rear of buildings. Note also that FDC's must be at least 25 feet from the building and may not be blocked by landscaping, parking stalls or anything that may restrict immediate access. 82. This project will require a full life safety monitored alarm system. Alarm plans will P:\Reports - PC\11-9-2004\Westport La Paloma\Std COA - SDP 2003-762rev2.doc 22 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 LA PALOMA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 9, 2004 need to be submitted to the Fire Department. 83. Building plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for plan review to run concurrent with the City plan check. 84. Water plans for the fire protection system (fire hydrants, fdc, etc.) shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 85. 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. 86. Fire Department street access shall come to within 150 feet of all portions of the 1 St floor of all buildings, by path of exterior travel. Minimum road width is 20 feet clear and unobstructed with a vertical clearance of 13 1/2 feet clear. Turning radiuses shall be no less than 38 feet outside. 87. Any commercial operations that produce grease -laden vapors will require a Hood/duct system for fire protection. 88. 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. Streets shall be a minimum 20 feet wide with a height of 13"6" clear and unobstructed. 89. Install a KNOX key box on each commercial building and/or suite. (Contact the fire department for an application). 90. Install portable fire extinguishers as required by the California Fire Code. 91. Any submissions to the fire department are the responsibility of the applicant. MISCELLANEOUS 92. The approved Site Development Permit shall be used within two years of the effective date of approval, otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. "Used" means the issuance of a building permit for the project. A time extension for this Conditional Use Permit may be requested as permitted in Municipal Code Section 9.200.080 D. 93. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the P:\Reports - PC\11-9-2004\Westport La Paloma\Std COA - SDP 2003-762rev2.doc 23 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 LA PALOMA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 9, 2004 event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of this project. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel in its sole discretion. The City shall promptly notify the developer of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 94. This facility is approved for use as a senior retirement community with independent, assisted and skilled nursing components that are licensed by the State of California. Any change of use where any or all of the above components are replaced with a market rate rental project must be approved by the Planning Commission and City Council at public hearings. 95.. Sign permit shall be submitted for staff approval for proposed monument signs specified in Specific Plan 2004-071. 96. Roof tiles shall consist of a least three colors. 97. Flat roofs shall be finished in an attractive finish and color to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. 98. Railings shall be provided with decorative treatment to complement architectural style of project. 99. Arches shall be provided over large first floor windows of two story buildings where they are not covered by eyebrow or arcade on north site. 100. Long term easement or other legally binding agreement shall be obtained for use, landscaping and access over CVWD owned property along east end of project sites along Avenue 50. PAReports - PC\11-9-2004\Westport La Paloma\Std COA - SDP 2003-762rev2.doc 24 q ,k_ • A IZ Q! ATTACHMENT La Paloma Fiscal Impact Analysis City of La Quinta Prepared for: Pacific Retirement Services (PRS) 1200 Mira Mar Medford, Oregon 97504 November 4, 2004 SRHA Job #1058 TANLEY R. OF� FMAN 11661San Vicente Blvd. Suite 306 Los Angeles, CA 90049-5111 A S S 0 c A T E S 310. 820.2680, 310.820-8341 fax www.stanleyrhoffman.com CONTENTS EXECUTIVESUMMARY..............................................................................................................................m CHAPTER1 - INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................1 1.1 1.2 Background..................................................................................................................... Project Description.......................................................................................................... 1 1 1.3 Methodology and Assumptions...................................................................................... 4 1.4 Report Organization........................................................................................................ 4 CHAPTER2 — PROJECT DESCRIPTION....................................................................................................5 2.1 Project Development Summary...................................................................................... 5 2.2 Project Valuation............................................................................................................ 5 2.3 2.4 Taxable Sales.................................................................................................................. Redevelopment Property Tax Increment........................................................................ 7 7 CHAPTER3 - FISCAL ANALYSIS...............................................................................................................8 3.1 3.2 Projected Impacts............................................................................................................ Summary of Revenues.................................................................................................... 8 8 3.3 On -Site and Off -site Sales and Use Tax....................................................................... 10 ...................... 10 3.4 Summary of Costs................................................................. CHAPTER 4 - GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS AND FISCAL FACTORS ........................................................11 4.1 General Assumptions.................................................................................................... 11 4.2 Revenue Assumptions and Factors............................................................................... 11 4.3 Cost Assumptions and Factors...................................................................................... 12 APPENDIXA - SUPPORTING TABLES.....................................................................................................15 APPENDIX B - PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONTACTED.......................................................................25 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. ii La Paloma Fiscal Analysis November 4, 2004 City of La Quinta EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The following summarizes the projected annual fiscal impacts of the proposed La Paloma project in the City of La Quinta at project buildout. The project site consists of 7.6 acres on the southeast corner of Avenue 50 and Washington Street within the City of La Quinta in Riverside County. The fiscal analysis has been presented for two alternatives: 1) a proposed zone change to residential consisting of 50 independent and assisted housing units; and 2) the existing zoning for an estimated 99,320 square feet of commercial office and support retail uses. Fiscal impacts are presented in constant 2004 dollars for the City's General Fund and Gas Tax Fund. Potential property tax increment to the City's Redevelopment Agency is also estimated for the office/retail alternative. The projected impacts are based on the project description provided by Pacific Retirement Services (PRS) and an analysis of the City's Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Budget. Discussions with City staff have assisted in developing the fiscal factors as well as identifying the mix of land uses for the commercial office/retail alternative. Table ES-1 summarizes the projected fiscal impacts to the City for both alternatives. Proposed Proiect. As shown in Table ES-1, after buildout, a recurring deficit of $13,492 is projected for the proposed residential plan. Key General Fund revenues include off -site sales tax from project households, County fire service credits and motor vehicle in -lieu fees. There are no on - site retail uses in the proposed project to generate sales and use taxes. Major projected costs include police and fire protection and Citywide overhead (General Government). The project site is located in a Redevelopment area, so that no property tax would be generated for the City's General Fund. However, because the proposed project is a non-profit venture, it would not generate any property tax revenues to the City's General Fund, regardless of its location. Existing Zoning. After buildout, a recurring deficit of $12,833 is projected for the existing zoning of commercial office with support retail uses. Key revenues for this alternative include on -site sales and use tax, franchise taxes, business license fees and County fire service credits. Major projected costs for this alternative also include police and fire protection and Citywide overhead, which are Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. iii La Paloma Fiscal Analysis November 4, 2004 City of La Quinta higher than in the proposed plan. This is because the development intensity is greater due to a larger number of employees than population under the residential project. Because the project is in a Redevelopment project area, no property tax will be generated for the City's General Fund, but will be generated for the Redevelopment Agency. These revenues for the Redevelopment Agency are estimated at $82,573 annually at buildout. ES-1 LA PALOMA FISCAL ANALYSIS CITY OF LA QUINTA SUMMARY OF FISCAL IMPACTS AFTER BUILDOUT (in Constant 2004 Dollars) Commercial Proposed Office tesidential Alternative City of La Quinta' Annual Recurring Revenues $20,762 $52,966 Annual Recurring Costs $34,255 $65,799 Annual General Fund Net Impact 13 492 12 833 Revenue/Cost Ratio 0.61 0.80 Redevelopment Aaencyz Redevelopment Property Tax Increment n/a $82,573 1. includes the General Fund and Gas Taxes. 2. The proposed residential project will not generate any property tax to the RDA since it will be operated as a not -for -profit venture. Property tax increment will be generated to the RDA for the Commercial alternative at 42% of the basic 1 % property tax levy. Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. City of La Quinta, Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Budget. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. iv La Paloma Fiscal Analysis City of La Quinta November 4, 2004 CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background The proposed La Paloma project is located in the City of La Quinta in the County of Riverside. Figure 1-1 shows the project area and vicinity. Pacific Retirement Services (PRS) is seeking a rezoning from Commercial Office — that allows office uses and some retail — to residential with independent living cottages. The City has requested a fiscal analysis of the effects on the City's General Fund operating budget, of changing zoning from a commercial office/retail project to a residential development with independent living units. The fiscal study analyzes the proposed residential development and compares this to the existing zoning of Commercial Office development on the project site. 1.2 Project Description The project is proposed as a gated residential community comprised of independent living units for retirees. The project site is on Assessor's Parcel Number 770-040-012, which is comprised of 7.6 acres on the southeast corner of Avenue 50 and Washington Street within the City of La Quinta. As shown in Figure 1-2, the 7.6-acre parcel comprises the southern portion of a larger site spread over 21.6 acres in total. Since parcel 770-040-012 is currently zoned for commercial office uses, the developer is seeking to have it rezoned to residential use to accommodate the proposed retirement community project. The existing Commercial Office alternative is presented for 89,020 square feet of office uses and 10,300 of retail uses. The retail uses will include restaurants, a sandwich shop, and office supplies and copy services. There is no residential development proposed under this alternative. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. La Paloma Fiscal Analysis November 4, 2004 1 La Quinta U �1000 ft (D NTIOZ Yahoo! ine Source: Yahoo.corn Figure 1-1 La Palorna Project Area and Vicinity I p a La QuInta 'si Como.. ort Quad "ing Jack F at, LA F r- rj y ote C 4� 8ig Hcrr,, o " 03 M M" I RZ .2 'fir RM 003 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. La Paloma mscal Anaiysis November 4, 2004 2 La Quinta Figure 1.2 Proposed La Paloma Site Plan Source: MSA Consulting Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. La Paloma Fiscal Analysts November 4, 2004 3 La Quinta 1.3 Methodology and Assumptions The analyses in this report are based on the following methodology and assumptions from the following sources: 1. Land use descriptions for the proposed residential project are based on information provided by PRS. The City assisted in guiding the description for the Commercial Office alternative. Existing assessed valuation for the property site is estimated based on information from the Riverside County Auditor -Controller. 2. Residential taxable purchases from the proposed households are projected based on U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey, 2001 which indicates that retail taxable purchases represent about 32 percent of total household income. It is assumed that the City could capture an estimated 50.0 percent of these household purchases. Project retail taxable sales are projected based on factors from the Urban Land Institute's Dollars & Cents of Shopping Centers: 2004. 3. Population is estimated based on an average of 1.5 persons per household, according to data provided by PRS. 4. Employment is estimated based on 500 square feet per employee for retail land uses and 250 square feet per office employee based on industry standards. In addition, 1 employee per 3 residents is assumed for the residential alternative based on information from PRS. 5. Cost and revenue factors for the City General Fund were derived through an analysis of the City of La Quinta Budget, Fiscal Year 2004-2005 and discussions with City staff. 6. Property tax allocation factors for the Tax Rate Area (TRA) in which the project site is located were obtained from the Riverside County Auditor -Controller's Office. 7. All revenue and cost projections are presented in constant 2004 dollars. 1.4 Report Organization In addition to the Executive Summary, the report is organized into the followings sections: ■ Project background and overview are presented in Chapter 1. ■ Project description including the development scenarios are presented in Chapter 2. ■ The fiscal impacts on the City's General Fund are presented in Chapter 3. ■ Cost and Revenue assumptions and factors are presented in Chapter 4. ■ Supporting detail assumptions and calculations are presented in Appendix A. ■ A list of persons and agencies contacted is presented in Appendix B. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. La Paloma Fiscal Analysis November 4, 2004 4 La Quinta CHAPTER 2 — PROJECT DESCRIPTION The following chapter presents the detailed land uses for the development alternatives. 2.1 Project Development Summary Proposed As shown in Table 2-1, the proposed project includes 50 independent living housing units. The population is projected at 75 based on an average 1.50 persons per household, according to data provided by PRS. Total employment for the project is estimated at 25, assuming one employee per three residents based on information from the developer. In the proposed plan, the fiscal analysis assumes the facility will maintain the landscaping and other on -site facilities. Existing Commercial Office As shown in Table 2-1, the existing Commercial Office alternative includes 89,020 square feet of office and 10,300 square feet of support retail and service uses. Total employment for the project is estimated at 377, assuming 500 square feet per retail employee and 250 square feet per office and service commercial employee. 2.2 Project Valuation The proposed proj ect consists of not -for -sale retirement cottages and garden apartments. According to PRS, residents pay a 90.0 percent refundable entrance fee estimated at a range of $400,000 to $450,000. Based on the number of units times the mid -point entry fee of $425,000, this results in an estimated new valuation of $21.3 million. Net valuation is estimated at $21.0 million based on the estimated new valuation of $21.3 million less the estimated existing assessed valuation of $203,652 provided by the Riverside County Auditor Controller's Office. The net valuation for the Commercial Office alternative is estimated at $19.7 million and is based on the estimated new valuation of $19.9 million less the estimated existing assessed valuation of $203,652. Non-residential valuation is estimated based on an average valuation of $200 per square foot for commercial uses based on discussion with CB Richard Ellis for similar properties in the area. No property tax will be generated to the City's General Fund from either the proposed project or Commercial Office alternative because the project site is located in the City's Redevelopment Project Area #1. Therefore, the Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. La raloma riscai Anaiysis November 4, 2004 5 La Quinta TABLE 2-1 LA PALOMA FISCAL ANALYSIS CITY OF LA QUINTA SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS (in constant 2004 dollars) Estimated Development Factor Proposed Residential Existing Commercial Office Residential Units 50 0 Cottage and Garden Apartments Population 1.5 Persons per household' 75 0 Office Square Feet 89.6% of total permitted bldg sq. ft. 0 89,020 Retail Square Feet 5.2% of total permitted bldg sq. ft. 0 5,200 Restaurants Sandwich Shop 1.4% of total permitted bldg sq. ft. 0 1,400 Copyshop/Office supplies 3.2% of total permitted bldg sq. ft. 0 3,200 Newspapers/Magazines/Misc. 0.5% of total permitted bldg sq. ft. 0 500 Total Retail 0 10,300 Total Office and Retail 99,320 Employment Assisted Living Employment' 1 Employee/3 residents 25 0 Retail Employment 500 Square feetlemployee 0 21 Office/Service Employment 250 Square feet/employee 0 25 356 377 Total Employment Estimated Valuation 2 $200 Square foot 19,864,000 New Valuation New Valuation 2 $425,000 Unit $2 2, 52 $203652 203 652 Existing Valuation $21,046,348 $19,660,348 Net Assessed Valuation Estimated Annual Property Tax to City 3 4.28% City share of 1 % Levy n/a n/a Estimated Annual Property Tax to RDA3 42.0% Property Tax Increment n/a $82,573 Taxable Sales: On -Site Retail ° $233 Taxable Sales per sq. ft. n/a $2,398,900 Taxable Sales: Off -site Retail 5 $12 800 Per Household $640,000 n/a 1. Data provided by the developer. 2. Valuation for commercial uses provided by Maggie Montez of CB Richard Ellis based on similar properties for the La Quinta area. Valuation for residential units based on average entry fee of $425,000 per unit. 3. The project site is located in the City's Redevelopment Area #1. Therefore, no property tax will be generated to the City s General Fund for either project alternative. 4. Taxable sales are projected based on median sales per square foot factors as provided in the 2004 Urban Land Institute's Dollars & Cents of Shopping Centers. 5. Off -site taxable sales are projected based on estimated annual taxable retail purchases per project household that could be captured in the City. Capture is estimated at 50 Dercent. Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. City of La Quinta, Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Budget. Pacific Retirement Services (PRS). Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. La Paloma Fiscal Analysis November 4, 2004 6 La Quinta City's General Fund will not accrue any property tax revenue. The proposed residential project will not generate any property tax to the Redevelopment Agency because it will be operated as a not -for - profit venture. However, the Commercial Office alternative will generate property tax to the Redevelopment Agency. 2.3 Taxable Sales As shown in Table 2-1, the Commercial Office alternative generates on -site taxable sales resulting from purchases made at the retail establishments on -site. These annual taxable sales are projected to be $2.4 million. The proposed residential project generates only off -site taxable sales, which are taxable sales that accrue to the City as a result of project residents shopping at the City's retail establishments. To estimate the potential retail purchases of project residents, the fiscal analysis estimates that the average household income is $80,000, based on information provided by PRS, and that annual household retail taxable purchases are approximately 32.0 percent of annual household income. Further, about 50.0 percent of the project residents' purchasing power is assumed to be captured off -site in the City of La Quinta. This results in estimated annual taxable sales of $640,000. There are no on -site taxable sales generated from the proposed project since there is no retail development associated with the project. 2.4 Redevelopment Property Tax Increment Because the proposed project is located in the City's Redevelopment Project Area #1, property tax increment for the Commercial Office alternative will be generated to the City's redevelopment agency (RDA) instead of the General Fund. The City's Redevelopment Agency receives 42.0 percent of the 1 percent basic property tax levy for Redevelopment Area #1, compared to the General Fund, which receives 4.28 percent of the 1.0 percent basic property tax levy. This results in an ongoing property tax increment to the RDA at buildout of about $82,573 for the Commercial Office alternative. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. La Paloma Fiscal Analysis November 4, 2004 7 La Quinta CHAPTER 3 - FISCAL ANALYSIS This chapter presents the fiscal analysis for the proposed La Paloma project. Fiscal impacts to the City General Fund are projected for two alternatives: 1) the proposed residential project of 50 assisted living units; and 2) the existing Commercial Office zoning with commercial office and support retail uses estimated at 99,320 square feet. 3.1 Projected Impacts Table 3-1 summarizes the projected fiscal impacts to the City of La Quinta for the recurring revenues and costs that impact the General Fund. Projections are presented in constant 2004 dollars. The fiscal factors used to project the recurring impacts are presented in Chapter 4. As shown in Table 3- 1, the projected revenues of $20,762 for the proposed residential project less the costs of $34,255 result in a projected annual deficit at buildout of $13,492. This represents a revenue/cost ratio of 0.61. In the existing zoning, the projected revenues of $52,966 less costs of $65,799 result in a projected annual deficit at buildout of $12,833, or a revenue -cost ratio of 0.80. Selected revenues and costs are projected based on a combined per capita and per employee basis. In the proposed project, development intensity is lower at a combined population and employment of 100, than in the commercial project where the combined population and employment is projected at 377. Therefore, revenues and costs are greater for the Commercial Office alternative due to the higher development intensity. 3.2 Summary of Revenues As shown in Table 3-1, after buildout, the net recurring revenues are projected at $20,762 for the proposed residential project and $52,966 for the existing zoning. As shown, projected revenues to the City's General Fund vary for each alternative. There are no property tax revenues generated to the General Fund for either project. For the proposed project, key revenues include off -site sales tax, County fire service revenues and motor vehicle in -lieu fees. In addition to the General Fund, Gas Tax revenues are generated in the proposed project, which can be only used for street and road related capital and operations and maintenance costs. The Commercial Office alternative generates more revenues than the residential alternative due to the on -site sales tax generated by the project's Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. La Yaloma rascal Analysis November 4, 2004 8 La Quinta TABLE 3-1 LA PALOMA FISCAL ANALYSIS CITY OF LA QUINTA PROJECTED FISCAL IMPACTS (in Constant 2004 Dollars) Existing Source Proposed Commercial Residential Office Total Annual Recurrina Revenues Property Taxes' Real Property Transfer Tax - residential Real Property Transfer Tax - non-residential On -site Sales and Use Tax: Project retail Off -site Sales and Use Tax: Project households Franchise Taxes Business Licenses Animal Licenses Motor Vehicle Code and Miscellaneous Fines Motor Vehicle in Lieu Fees County Fire Service Credit Gas Tax Total Annual Recurring Costs General Government Street Maintenance Fire Emergency Services Police Animal Control Building & Safety, Community Services3 CommunityDevelopment4 Annual Surplus or (Deficit) Ravanna/Cnst Ratin $0 $0 0 0 0 546 0 26,508 7,072 0 1,558 3,353 529 7,971 36 0 262 565 3,356 0 6,514 14,022 1,435 0 Total $20,762 $52,966 $6,425 $12,342 1,155 2,485 7,386 15,897 88 190 12,960 27,897 677 0 1,959 4,217 2,317 0 1,287 2.771 Total $34,255 $65,799 ($13,492) ($12,833) 0.61 0.80 1. Property taxes to the General Fund are not projected for the proposed project since it will operated as a non-profit venture. Since the entire project area is located within Redevelopment Area 1, the Commercial alternative will not generate any property tax to the City's General Fund. 2. Costs are net costs, and assume that Building & Safety fees (including Plan Check), Building permits and Plumbing permits will offset a portion of Building & Safety costs. 3. Costs are net costs, and assume that Community Service fees will offset a portion of Community Services costs. This category includes the senior center and recreation programs. 4. Costs are net costs, and assume that Community Development fees (including Plan Check) will offset a portion of Community Development costs. Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. City of La Quinta, Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Budget. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. La Paloma Fiscal Analysts November 4, 2004 9 La Quinta retail uses, franchise taxes and business licenses. In addition, the County fire service credit revenues are greater due to the higher intensity of development. 3.3 On -Site and Off -site Sales and Use Tax There are two types of taxable sales estimated for this analysis: 1) On -site retail taxable sales generated by the retail establishments for the Commercial Office alternative; and 2) Off -site retail taxable sales generated by the residents living in the La Paloma project area while shopping at City of La Quinta retail establishments. The City receives one percent of the taxable sales of most goods occurring within City limits. In addition to sales tax revenue, the City receives revenues from use tax, which is levied on shipments into the state and on construction materials for new residential and non-residential development not allocated to a situs location. Use tax is allocated by the State BOE to counties and cities based on each jurisdiction's proportion of countywide and statewide direct taxable sales. Use tax revenues to La Quinta are estimated at an additional 10.5 percent of point -of - sale taxable sales tax. As shown in Table 3-1, off -site sales and use tax for the proposed project is estimated at $7,072 annually at buildout. Sales tax for the on -site retail is estimated $26,508 annually at buildout. 3.4 Summary of Costs As shown in Table 3-1, after buildout, the net recurring costs are projected at $34,255 for the proposed residential project and $65,799 for the existing zoning. As shown, projected costs to the City's General Fund vary for each alternative. Primary costs include general government, fire and police„ The Commercial Office alternative generates higher costs than the residential project due to the higher development intensity associated with the employment. There are no animal control or community service costs associated with the commercial alternative. Building & Safety, Community Services and Community Development costs are shown as net costs, assuming that one-time fee revenues will offset a portion of these costs. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. La Paloma Fiscal Analysis November 4, 2004 10 La Quinta CHAPTER 4 - GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS AND FISCAL FACTORS This chapter presents the general assumptions as well as the revenue and cost factors used to prepare the La Paloma fiscal analysis. 4.1 General Assumptions Table 4-1 provides the general assumptions for this fiscal analysis. Resident Population. The City's population of 32,522 is based on the California State Department of Finance (DOF) estimates as of January 1, 2004. Employment. Fiscal factors that utilize employment are based on the equivalent employment estimate of 4,785. This was based on the Claritas employment estimate of 9,569, which was weighted at 50 percent to account for the estimated less frequent use of City public services by employment versus population. This factor was developed through discussion with City staff. Resident Equivalent Population. Most fiscal factors are estimated by allocating total budgeted revenues or costs to both population and employment. As shown in Table 4-1, an estimated equivalent resident population of 44,807 was used to estimate the fiscal factors that apply to both population and employment. This includes the resident population of 32,522, the estimated equivalent employment of 4,785 and an estimated 7,500 part-time equivalent residents to account for seasonal residents. General fund revenues and expenses were estimated by dividing the 2004-05 budget category by the resident population, employment or total resident equivalent population where appropriate. 4.2 Revenue Assumptions and Factors Table 4-2 presents the revenue factors developed from the City's recurring Fiscal Year 2004-2005 revenues. One-time and non -recurring revenues, such as grant monies and permit fees, are excluded from the recurring General Fund revenue estimates. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. La Paloma Fiscal Analysis November 4, 2004 11 La Quinta TABLE 4-1 LA PALOMA FISCAL ANALYSIS CITY OF LA QUINTA SUMMARY OF GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS Assumption Description Population and Housing 32,522 La Quinta Total Resident Population' 2 4,785 La Quinta Total equivalent Employment 7 5o0 Part time resident equivalent - CBRE estimate 3 44.807I La Quinta resident equivalent ulation Population and housing estimates are from the California Department of Finance (DOF) for January 1, 2004. 2. Based on an estimated employment of 9,569 by Claritas, June 2004. This analysis has weighted the employment at 50% to account for the estimated less frequent use of City public services by employment versus population. 3 The Codorniz Specific Plan La Quinta Fiscal Impact Analysis, Sedway Group, June 2004, Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 2004. 4.3 Cost Assumptions and Factors Table 4-3 provides a summary of the recurring General Fund cost factors developed from the City's recurring Fiscal Year 2004-2005 expenditures. As with revenues, cost factors are projected primarily on a per capita basis or a combined per capita and per employee factor. Some costs, including Building & Safety, Community Services and Community development are shown as net costs, since they are partially offset by one-time fees and revenues. La Paloma Fiscal Analysis Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 12 La Quinta November 4, 2004 TABLE 4-2 LA PALOMA FISCAL ANALYSIS CITY OF LA QUINTA SUMMARY OF RECURRING REVENUE FACTORS (In Constant 2004 Dollars) Revenue Source FY 2004-05 Adopted Budget Projection Basis' Revenue Factor GENERALFUND Property taxes $1,976,500 Assessed Valuation 4.28% General Fund allocation of basic 1% levy Document Transfer Tax $539,700 Property turnover and 10% residential turnover rate valuation assumptions 5% non-residential turnover rate Sales and Use Tax $5,406,700 Taxable Sales 1.105% Sales Tax is 1 % of taxable sales: Use tax is 10.5% of Sales Tax Franchise Taxes $797,800 Population & Employment $17.81 per capita & employee Business Licenses $202,500 Employment $42.32 per employee Animal Licenses $15,400 Population $0.47 per capita Motor Veh.Code, Misc.Fines & Parking Violations $134,400 Population & Employment $3.00 per capita & employee Motor Vehicle in Lieu Fees $1,455,300 Total Population $44.75 per capita County Fire Service Credit $3,335,797 Population & Employment $74.45 per capita & employee GAS TAXES Gas Tax Revenues $622,200 Total population $19.13 per capita 1. Per capita and employment calculations are based on the estimated La Quinta resident equivalent population as shown in Table 4-1. Source Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. City of La Quinta, Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Budget. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. La Paloma Fiscal Analysis November 4, 2004 13 La Quinta TABLE 4-3 LA PALOMA FISCAL ANALYSIS CITY OF LA QUINTA SUMMARY OF RECURRING COST FACTORS (In Constant 2004 Dollars) FY 2004-05F 4 Cost Factor Cost Category Adopted Projection Basis General Government $4,298,078 % of General Fund costs 23.09% of direct department costs Public Works $591,269 Population & Employment $13.20 per capita &employee Street maintenance $3,782,040 Population & Employment $84.41 per capita & employee Fire Emergency Services $45,193 Population & Employment $1.01 per capita & employee $6,636,704 Population & Employment $148,12 per capita & employee Police Animal Control $293,479 Population $9.02 per capita Building & Safety' $1,003,159 Population & Employment $22.39 per capita & employee Community Services' $1,004,850 Population $30.90 per capita Community Development3 $659,260 Population & Employment $14.71 per capita & employee 1. Costs are net costs, and assume that Building & Safety fees (including Plan Check), Building permits and Plumbing permits will offset a portion of Building & Safety costs. 2. Costs are net costs, and assume that Community Service Fees will offset a portion of Community Services costs. This category includes the senior center and recreation programs. 3. Costs are net costs, and assume that Community Development Fees (including Plan Check) will offset a portion of Community Development costs. 4. Per capita and employment calculations are based on the estimated La Quinta resident equivalent population as shown in Table 4-1. Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. City of La Quinta, Adopted Annual Budget, Fiscal Year 2003-2004. La Paloma Fiscal Analysis Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 14 La Quinta November 4, 2004 APPENDIX A - SUPPORTING TABLES Table A-1 Estimated New Valuation Table A-2 Summary of General Fund Revenues, 2004-2005 Table A-3 Estimated On -Site Taxable Sales and Sales Tax Table A-4 Estimated Off -site Taxable Sales and Sales Tax From Households Table A-5 Summary of General Fund Costs, 2004-2005 Table A-6 General Fund Net Building & Safety Costs Table A-7 General Fund Net Community Services Costs Table A-8 General Fund Net Community Development Costs Table A-9 Current Tax Rate Area (TRA) Allocations Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. La Paloma Fiscal Analysis November 4, 2004 15 La Quinta TABLE A-1 LA PALOMA FISCAL ANALYSIS CITY OF LA QUINTA ESTIMATED NEW VALUATION (in constant 2004 dollars) non let%-ren vet I IeTIAN- PRnpaSED DEVELOPMENT Projected Proposed Valuation' Land Use Development Per Unit/Sq. Ft. Total Residential Cottage and Garden Units 50 units $425,000 $21,250,000 Non -Residential Office Commercial 0 sq. ft. $0 $0 TOTAL $21,250,000 new lof"Mn ve, IIeTIMI- FYISTING ENTITLEMENT Projected Proposed Valuation Land Use Development Per Unit/Sq. Ft. I Total Residential Cottage and Garden Apts. 0 units $0 $0 Non -Residential Office Commercial 89,020 sq. ft. $200 $17,804,000 Retail 10,300 sq. ft. $200 $2,060,000 TOTAL $19,864,000 1. Valuation for the residential units are provided by Pacific Retirement Services (PRS). 2. Valuation for commercial uses provided by Maggie Montez of CB Richard Ellis based on similar properties for the La Quinta area. Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Pacific Retirement Services (PRS). Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. La Paloma Fiscal Analysis 16 La Quinta November 4, 2004 TABLE A-2 LA PALOMA FISCAL ANALYSIS CITY OF LA QUINTA SUMMARY OF GENERAL FUND REVENUES, 2004-2005 Revenue Category Total Non -recurring Recurring Revenue Type Property and Other Taxes Property Taxes $743,400 $0 $743,400 R No Low Property Tax 1,233,100 0 1,233,100 R Sales Tax 5,406,700 0 5,406,700 R Transient Occupancy Tax 4,030,300 0 4,030,300 R Document Transfer Tax 539,700 0 539,700 R Franchise Tax 797,800 0 797,800 R Subtotal $12,751,000 $0 $12,751,000 intergovernmental Motor Vehicle in Lieu $1,455,300 $0 $1,455,300 R Motor Vehicle Code, Misc.Fines & Parking Viol. $134,400 0 $134,400 R AB939 $182,100 0 $182,100 R CSA152 (storm water) $175,000 0 $175,000 R County Fire Service Credit (applied) $412,243 0 $412,243 R County Fire Service Credit $3,335,797 0 $3,335,797 R Subtotal $5, 694, 840 $0 $5, 694, 840 Licenses and Permits Business License $202,500 $0 $202,500 R Animal License 15,400 0 15,400 R Building Permits 493,800 493,800 0 O Plumbing, Electrical, Mechanical and Misc. 254,700 254,700 0 O Subtotal $966,400 $748,500 $217,900 Fees Engineering Fees $584,400 $584,400 $0 O Community Development (including Plan Check) 222,400 222,400 0 O Building & Safety Fees (including Plan Check) 476,000 476,000 0 O Community Service Fees 191,000 191,000 0 O Finance Fees 600 600 0 O Sale of Maps and Publications 4,400 4,400 0 O Subtotal $1,478,800 $1,478,800 $0 Other Revenue $170,100 $0 $170,100 R Allocated Interest Non -Allocated Interest 2,095,200 0 2,095,200 R Miscellaneous Revenue 16,500 0 16,500 R Subtotal $2,281,800 $0 $2,281,800 enn t9n OAR Sdn General Fund Totalw-�----- Note: 1. Revenue type = Recurring'R' or One-time'O' Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. City of La Quinta, Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Budget. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. i •a ruiunia ri6t ai tsuaiyaia November 4, 2004 17 La Quinta TABLE A-3 LA PALOMA FISCAL ANALYSIS CITY OF LA QUINTA ESTIMATED ON -SITE TAXABLE SALES AND SALES TAX SquareL-1. Feet Median Sales per Sq. Ft. Percent Taxable' Median ed Taxabie LTable Sales perCategory Sq. Ft. 89,020 89.6% $0 0.0% $0 $0 )ffice 2etail 5,200 5.% $302 100.0% $302 $1,570,400 Restaurants with Liquor 1,400 1.4% $312 100.0% $312 $436,800 Sandwich Shop 3,200 3.2% $207 50.0% $104 $331,200 Copysho /Ofce Supplies 500 0.5°0 121 100.0% 121 60 500 Newspapers/Magazines/Misc. Retail Subtotal 10,300 10.4% $265 $233 $2,398,900 Total Building Square Feet 99,320 100.0% Total Acres 7.6 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.30 Total Permitted Building Square Feet 99,320 Estimated Sales Tax @ 1 % $23,989 Use Tax @ 10.5% of Taxable Sales Estimate $2,519 Total Estimated Sales and Use Tax $26,508 All retail sales categories are considered 100% taxable except for Copy Shop/Office Supplies where copy services are not considered to be taxable. Sources: Stanley R.Hoffman Associates, Inc. Urban Land Institute (ULI), Dollars & Cents of Shopping Centers, 2004. La Paloma Fiscal Analysis Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 18 La Quinta November 4, 2004 TABLE A-4 LA PALOMA FISCAL ANALYSIS CITY OF LA QUINTA ESTIMATED OFF -SITE TAXABLE SALES & SALES TAX FROM HOUSEHOLDS (in Constant 2004 Dollars) Average Annual Household Income' Annual Taxable Retail Household Purchases at 32% of Annual Income Annual Retail Sales per Household at Capture Rate of 50% La Paloma Households Total Retail Sales Captured in City Estimated Annual Retail Sales Tax to City @ 1% Use Tax @ 10.5% of Taxable Sales Estimate Total Estimated Sales and Use Tax 1. According to PRS, the average annual household income of the project residents is estimated to be about $80,000. Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey, 2001. $80,000 $25,600 $12,800 50 $640,000 $6,400 672 $7,072 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. La Paloma riscal Anaiysis November 4, 2004 19 La Quinta TABLE A-5 LA PALOMA FISCAL ANALYSIS CITY OF LA QUINTA SUMMARY OF GENERAL FUND COSTS, 2004-2005 (In Constant 2004 Dollars) General Fund Expenditures Total General Government Non -General I Government General Government Legislative (City Council) $761,385 761,385 City Manager 623,222 623,222 Economic Development 743,550 743,550 Personnel/Risk Management 660,679 660,679 City Clerk 434,611 434,611 Finance & General Services 1,074,631 1,074,631 Non -General Government Police (in partnership with County Sheriff - Indio Station) 6,636,704 6,636,704 Fire 3,782,040 3,782,040 Emergency Services 45,193 45,193 Building & Safety Department' Animal Control 293,479 293,479 Code Compliance 658,084 658,084 Administration 290,317 290,317 Building 794,000 794,000 Civic Center Building 485,258 485,258 Public Works Street Maintenance 591,269 591,269 Landscape & Lighting Maint.($35 annually per parcel) 468,662 468,662 Park Maintenance 837,090 837,090 Administration 194,230 194,230 Engineering/Traffic 851,645 851,645 Construction Management 520,565 520,565 Community Services (Senior Center and Recreation) 1,195,850 1,195,850 Community Development2 972,710 972,710 GRAND TOTAL GENERAL FUND $22,915,174 $4,298,078 $18,617,096 CALCULATION OF GENERAL GOVERNMENT COSTS Total General Fund Expenditures $22,915,174 minus General Government Costs $4,298,078 Direct General Fund Costs equals $18,617,096 General Government as a percent of Direct General Fund 23.09% Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. City of La Quinta, Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Budget. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. La Paloma Fiscal Analysis November 4, 2004 20 La Quinta TABLE A-6 LA PALOMA FISCAL ANALYSIS CITY OF LA QUINTA GENERAL FUND NET BUILDING & SAFETY COSTS (In Constant 2004 Dollars) T012I BU1120 6 301V OM MIMI 00MMI) GO010 Building & Safety Fees Building Permits Plumbing, Electrical, Mechanical permits Building & Saftey Fees (including Plan Check) Total One -Time Fees Recurring Building & Safety Costs �212271659 minus 493,800 254,700 476,000 $1,224,500 equals $1,003,159 Population plus Employment' Building & Safety Cost Factor (per capita & per employee) 44,807 $22.39 1. Population and employment are based on the estimated La Quinta resident equivalent population as shown in Table 4-1. Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. City of La Quinta, Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Budget. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. La Paloma Fiscal Analysis November 4, 2004 21 La Quinta TABLE A-7 LA PALOMA FISCAL ANALYSIS CITY OF LA QUINTA GENERAL FUND NET COMMUNITY SERVICE COSTS (In Constant 2004 Dollars) Total General Fund Community Service Costs One -Time Revenues Community Service Fees Total One -Time Fees $1,195, 850 minus 191,000 $191,000 equals Recurring General Fund Net Community Service Costs Population Community Services Cost Factor (per capita) Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. City of La Quinta, Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Budget. $1,004,850 32,522 $30.90 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. La Paloma Fiscal Analysis November 4, 2004 22 La Quinta TABLE A-8 LA PALOMA FISCAL ANALYSIS CITY OF LA QUINTA GENERAL FUND NET COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COSTS (In Constant 2004 Dollars) Total General Fund Community Development Costs $972,710 minus One -Time Revenues Community Development Fees (including Plan Check) 222,400 50% of AB939 Fees 91,050 Total One -Time Fees $313,450 equals Recurring General Fund Net Community Development Costs $659,260 Population plus Employment' 44,807 Community Development Cost Factor (per capita & per employee) $14.71 1. Population and employment are based on the estimated La Quinta resident equivalent population as shown in Table 4-1. Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. City of La Quinta, Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Budget. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. La Paloma Fiscal Analysis November 4, 2004 23 La Quinta TABLE A-9 LA PALOMA FISCAL ANALYSIS CITY OF LA QUINTA CURRENT TAX RATE AREA (TRA) ALLOCATIONS Fund Description' I TRA: 20-016 011001 GENERAL 0.127495571 01 1121 COUNTY FREE LIBRARY 0.014733833 01 1123 COUNTY STRUCTURE FIRE PROTECTION 0.060245590 022375 CITY OF LA QUINTA 0.042750294 022376 C OF LA QUINTA RDV 0.000000000 031623 COACHELLA VAL JT BLO HIGH 0.000000000 032001 DESERT SANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL 0.371557750 039001 DESERT COMMUNITY COLLEGE 0.077208350 039896 RIV. CO. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 0.042005320 041852 CSA 152 0.000000000 044015 COACHELLA VALLEY PUBLIC CEMETERY 0.002358213 044555 CV MOSQ & VECTOR CONTROL 0.010027068 044611 COACHELLA VALLEY REC AND PARK 0.012139701 044821 COACHELLA VALLEY COUNTY WATER 0.028071860 184061 CITRUS PEST CONTROL 2 0.000000000 284705 COACHELLA VALLEY RESOURCE CONSER 0.000359900 284831 CVC WTR IMP DST 1 DEBT SV 0.013099250 384822 COACH VAL CO WTR STORM WTR UNIT 0.035536720 ERAF 0.162410580 Total 1.000000000 City Allocation 0.042750294 Notes: 1. The funds in bold face are presented in the fiscal analysis. 2. The project site is located in Tax Rate Area 20-016. Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Riverside County Auditor Controller - FY2003-2004. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. La Paloma Fiscal Analysis November 4, 2004 24 La Quinta APPENDIX B - PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONTACTED City of La Quinta Finance Department John Faulkner, Finance Director 760-777-7150 Planning and Development Oscar Orci, Interim Community Development Director 760-777-7071 Pacific Retirement Services (PRS) Brian McLemore 541-857-7215 541-857-6514 MSA CONSULTING, INC. Mainiero, Smith & Associates, Inc. Marvin Roos, Director of Design 760-320-9811 Riverside County Auditor Controller Rebecca Carr 909- 697-4623 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. La Paloma Fiscal Analysis November 4, 2004 25 La Quinta ATTACHMENT 4 - LETTERS RECEIVED fjf�fdN,�J, 79-200 Violet Court I,r ',ointa, C *_ 92253-4:='53 23 September 2004 Yr• . Stan B. Sawa, Fri ncipa.l Planner City of L, Quinta Community Development Department T . 0. Hoy 1 504 Ia. Qu.inta, Cif, 02253-1504 l,eor Yr. Sawa, As far as I ';now, :_a ')uinta has no conti nu. ing care retirement co7mu- nity. Thnt's the characteristic that interests me the most about !a Yaloxaa, whnse buildings are gradually making their way through the city's pl .rming offices. I'm told that the rules are strict and rigorous. That pleases me enormously, and I don't get aggravates when the time for apprcvais keeps dragging out. Z'd far rather nave a fa c I V7 that meets or exceeds every rule you have than one that, s only sc--so. So 1 grant you and. your colleagues to stick to Your Eons. Then, when 1 move in two years fres now, I will be WC W- cent confident. that _I'm in the best possible structure because you Aid your very best,. Two years from now seems like a long time, especially to those of u.: who nave already paid our 0,000 to be among the first residents. I'm 77, an age at which one has learned tVL actuarial projectio are interesting and maybe even encouraging, but they really don't mean a thing. Even though I ought to live many more ,years, I at _;.east want to last lone; enough to spend a year or two at 7a Yalomaa. I've been waiting; more than two years already. ?,,'hat, a letdown it wouid be to just barely make it and then die right on the cusp of a new adventure! So keep on checking; every detail sc that the finished product will be one that, you l re proud o f . Yours truly, Phyllis I. L W03 Y.S. I've been in ]a Cjuinta only three years, havi.nR ~roved here, from Orange Ccunty (»na.heim'. ifl-1d. horse., cculdo"t get me a by from this beautiful place. Edwin B. Whiting MD Telephone (760) 360-7404 E -- mail: ewhitin@dc.rr.com 37-581 Westrdge Ave Sun City Palm Desert Palm Desert, CA 92211-1365 September 27, 2004 City of La Quinta Community Development Dept. P.O. Box 1504 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253-1504 Dear Mr. Sawa, The purpose of my letter is to indicate strongly my support and the need for the La Paloma Continuing Care Retirement Community. As a Physician I can sincerely appreciate the need for this development during my years of caring for young and older people. I have been fortunate to be a guest visiting friends who are residents in Continuing Care communities managed by Pacific Retirement Services and Greystone Communities. The residents have been high in their praise of the management and I could certainly affirm the excellent conditions, maintenance, care for the disabled and meals during my stays. As an addendum, I am no way affiliated or receive compensation from the above organizations, I am just most enthusiastic about supporting this high caliber development and hope to be a resident there in the near future. Sincerely, Edwin B. Whiting M.D. ATTACHMENT MINUTES ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA August 4, 2004 10:00 a.m. I. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Architectura 'and Landscaping Review Committee was called to order at 10:04 a. . by Planning Manager Director Oscar Orci who led the flag salute. B. Committee Members David Thorns. C. Staff present: Plann Sawa, Associate PI Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None : Bill Bobbitt, Frank Christopher, and anager Oscar Orci, Principal Planner Stan Greg Trousdell, and Executive Secretary III. CONFIRMATION OF TH!f AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Staff asked i` there were any changes to the Minutes of July 7, 2004. There bei110 no changes, it was moved and seconded by Committee Membersbbitt/Christopher to approve the Minutes as submitted. Unanimqusly approved. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Site Development Permit 2004-762; a request of Westport La Quinta, LP and Pacific Retirement Services for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for a continuing care retirement community providing a 216 independent and assisted living units, 18 dementia care beds and 20 skilled nursing beds on 21 acres located on the northeast and southeast corners of Washington Street and Avenue 50. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff introduced Marco DePalma, with Greystone, who introduced Pat Brown, with G:\WPD0CS\ALRC\8-4-04 WD.doc Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee August 4, 2004 Pacific Retirement Services, Chris Dalengas and Joseph Tucker, with Ankrom Moisan Architecture Interiors and Planning, Rob Parker, RGA Landscape architect, and Marvin Roos, with MSA Engineering, who collectively gave a presentation on the project. 2. Committee Member Christopher asked what economic demographics they intended to target. Mr. DePalma stated primarily middle income communities and typically they will build a low income project in the area of their project. He went on to explain it is determined by the geographic area, based on the median income of that area. Their entry and monthly maintenance fees are determined on this information. 3. Committee Member Thorns asked if they had chosen a location for their low income facility. The applicant stated they have not. 4. Mr. Chris Dalengas, Ankrom Mosian Associated Architects, gave a presentation on the elevations. 5. Committee Member Christoper clarified the flat roof carports were designed per their conversations with their neighbors to the north. Mr. Dalengas stated they were designed flat based on conversations with the neighbors. 6. Mr. Rob Parker, RGA Landscape Architects, gave a presentation on the landscaping. Committee Member Christopher asked if the chain link fence on the south property site would be removed. Mr. Parker stated yes. Mr. DePalma stated they do not want a resident to walk more than 300 feet to get anywhere on the site, so they designed the tunnel to give access to the north part of the project. 7. Committee Member Christopher asked if they thought the tunnel was fiscally possible. Mr. DePalma stated they are reviewing the financial aspect to make that determination. Mr. Marvin Roos stated dirt would be taken from the north site to the south site to equal out the two sites. 8. Committee Member Thoms asked the type of roof the to be used. The applicant stated it is a brushed Mission tile. G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\8-4-04 WD.doc 2 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee August 4, 2004 9. Committee Member Thorns asked that an alternative the be considered for the roof. 10. Committee Member Christopher asked that a minimum three color mix be considered for the roof. He noted several residential projects where a colored mix is used to soften the roof line. 11. Committee Member Bobbitt asked the allowable building height for this location. Staff noted they are below the maximum allowed. They are allowed up to 40 feet. 12. Committee Member Bobbitt stated this design is much improved over the original design. On the structures over the windows, what material is proposed? Mr. Dalengas stated a heavy timber lattice with aluminum detail. Committee Member Bobbitt stated the plant material is excellent. In regard to the flat carports, it is normally objectionable, but in this location, there is a legitimate reason to use them. 13. Committee Member Christopher stated they should be sensitive to the neighbors in regard to any situation where they are looking down onto something unattractive. 14. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about the perimeter fence. Straight wrought iron will corrode and become water stained. He suggested ways to protect it from the elements to hold the fence up over the years. He then asked how the trash would be handled. Mr. Dalengas explained the location and that it would have a trash compactor. Each resident has an area for trash and recycling. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about the retention basin on the south side of the project; if it fills where will the water go? Mr. Roos stated they had discussed this with CVWD, and the Evacuation Channel will carry it off. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about a problem where the stucco reaches the ground surface. With the watering the stucco will deteriorate and fall off. In some instances weep screens have been used successfully. 15. Committee Member Thoms asked about parking spaces for the units on the south side. Mr. Delangas noted the locations on G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\8-4-04 WD.doc 3 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee August 4„ 2004 the site plan. Normally a resident will use a golf cart to get around. 16. Committee Member Christopher asked about the design of the parking structures. Mr. Delangas explained the structure. Committee Member Christopher asked about the signage. He would also suggest that on the second story where there is a lot of vertical railing, it would help if it were broken up with some embellishment. In addition the large windows need to include arches. 17. Committee Member Thorns asked about the pedestrian walkway lighting. Mr. Delangas explained it will be low bollards. Committee Member Thoms suggested using the mercury vapor to have a white light. 18. Committee Member Christopher stated his concern about the light poles that would be used. Consideration needs to be given to the adjacent residents. Mr. Delangas explained what lights would be used and where. Committee Member Christopher stated his concern about whether or not there was enough distance for the trash truck to turn around. Mr. Delangas stated the drive is oversized and designed to accommodate the truck turning movements 19. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Christopher/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2004-023 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2004-762, as recommended by staff and amended: a. Condition added: Consideration should be given to alternative roof tiles with a 3-5 color mix. b. Condition added: All flat roofs shall have an attractive material. C. Condition added: Ornamental railing shall be used d. Condition added: Arches on the large windows shall be provided over the top. Unanimously approved. GAWPD0(:S\ALRC\8-4-04 WD.doc 4